One on one debate forum?

[GhostWriter16]

OK, so I saw someone express lately his unwillingness to argue with more than one person at one time. Honestly, the prospect of deliberately ignoring certain people (Who haven't earned a spot on the ignore list) seems a bit mean, but sometimes I'd really like to have a one on one argument.

So, my idea, a "One on one debate subforum" in the Chamber, and possibly a similar subforum in the Tavern for "Looser" debate. Threads would be started there only by a moderator (Not a CFC moderator necessarily, but a poster who agrees to "Moderate the debate." Rules, such as number of posts by each side, the amount of time to make each post, exc. would be determined in advance by both parties. And nobody else (Except the moderator and two participants) would be allowed to post in the thread. You could also have separate threads where the forum can vote for a winner, but this is not essential.

The purpose of this would be two-fold:

1. Allow the possibility of one on one debate outside of PMs so that people can observe the debate and gain entertainment value from observing legitimate debate.

2. Allow those who only want to focus on one poster at a time in a debate have a forum where this is the norm.

3. Reduce, or eliminate, quotewarring in other threads, since I know some people get annoyed by it. So there'd be a separate forum for when you want to go "One on one" with someone.

Thoughts on this?

 

[Camikaze]

If you don't want to restrict it to PMs, there are VMs and social groups. In fact, I believe we do have one one-on-one social group, though it is sadly underused.

Staff would be interested in this idea, though perhaps with a few alterations that you would perhaps not agree with...

 

[Omega124]

I for one approve of this idea. I might start posting on OT more often if this is done.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Oh, noes! We couldn't possibly vote for a "winner" - that would be ELITISM!!!








There have been similar discussions from time to time in the past, and my serious opinion is that we should try it. If it works, great. If it doesn't work - it's a learning experience.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Not a idea to uphold. Why? There already exist one-to-one messaging on public messagers on user's boards. It would be a waste of resources to make a "one-to-one" forum.

If we must commence any action I suggest we set serious debates (such as politics) to the Chamber and less serious to the Tavern. Yes: I wish all political debates to be in the Chamber to allow better debates.

 

[azzaman333]

I can't imagine this being remotely constructive, but I don't have any real opposition to the idea.

 

[The_J]

Why not just try it with one thread ^^?
Figure out what topic could be interesting, who's willed to participate in it as pro and contra side (maybe also 2 vs 2, but that would need a set posting order), and create a second thread where the rest can comment on the discussion.
Then you can see if or if not there's an interest in this.

 

[Ailedhoo]

Well... I guess there is no harm in a experiment.

That said I will remain to my notion of the public discussion people have with each other via profiles. We already have the tools.

 

[GhostWriter16]

If you don't want to restrict it to PMs, there are VMs and social groups. In fact, I believe we do have one one-on-one social group, though it is sadly underused.

Staff would be interested in this idea, though perhaps with a few alterations that you would perhaps not agree with...

Do what you like with it.

What alterations would staff being interested in? Not that I "own" the idea or something.

Oh, noes! We couldn't possibly vote for a "winner" - that would be ELITISM!!!








There have been similar discussions from time to time in the past, and my serious opinion is that we should try it. If it works, great. If it doesn't work - it's a learning experience.

Why not just try it with one thread ^^?
Figure out what topic could be interesting, who's willed to participate in it as pro and contra side (maybe also 2 vs 2, but that would need a set posting order), and create a second thread where the rest can comment on the discussion.
Then you can see if or if not there's an interest in this.

Would be a fun experience, although I myself sadly don't have the time to debate in detail this week, I'll be busy with my summer assignment for the greater part of it.

I'd be willing to moderate the first one if we could get two participants.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I support this only if it sticks to a thread, and not an entire forum. No more unnecessary splitting and amputating of the OT/Colosseum!

 

[Camikaze]

What alterations would staff being interested in?

Private cages forums for certain individuals and their nemeses/crushes. Not as a spectator sport, and as an exclusive venue for such engagement.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Private cages forums for certain individuals and their nemeses/crushes. Not as a spectator sport, and as an exclusive venue for such engagement.

I could live with not including the "Vote in a winner" bit although I think it would be fun (And I, for one, don't think saying, "Poster X beat poster Y in debate Z" means anything to the effect of "Poster Y is dumb" or anything to that effect) but if nobody can watch, why not just PMs? The whole idea was to have a "Debate" that people could view and comment on.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The way my Grade 12 social studies teachers (plural, because we had a student teacher doing his 4th-year practicum, and we were told that whatever grades he gave us would stand) decided that the only fair way to determine the winner of a debate was to count the number of "pro" and "anti" supporters both before and after the debate. The side that gained the greater number of supporters would be declared the winner.

Thank goodness my own debate ended up in a tie. This was the year that most Western countries decided to boycott the Moscow Olympics, and my partner and I were assigned to debate in the affirmative that this was a good idea.

Considering that most of our classmates were jocks...

 

[NickyJ]

You must have been master debaters to escape unscathed in that one. I'd consider that a death sentence.

 

[GhostWriter16]

The way my Grade 12 social studies teachers (plural, because we had a student teacher doing his 4th-year practicum, and we were told that whatever grades he gave us would stand) decided that the only fair way to determine the winner of a debate was to count the number of "pro" and "anti" supporters both before and after the debate. The side that gained the greater number of supporters would be declared the winner.

Thank goodness my own debate ended up in a tie. This was the year that most Western countries decided to boycott the Moscow Olympics, and my partner and I were assigned to debate in the affirmative that this was a good idea.

Considering that most of our classmates were jocks...

That's actually a pretty fair way of determining. Much more so than my original suggestion, which I already know would be biased.

So, perhaps, pick 12 random posters to "Judge" before beginning and have them state their opinions starting out and then afterwards.


Were you actually in favor of boycotting the Moscow Olympics BTW? Or against it but had to debate in favor anyway?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Were you actually in favor of boycotting the Moscow Olympics BTW? Or against it but had to debate in favor anyway?

That's a topic for Off-Topic.

 

[ainwood]

I believe someone tried to organize something like this once...matrix? Eyrie? Failed to sustain interest in it, if I recall correctly.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Which must have been a long time ago, and in any case that doesn't mean it would fail again.

 

[Cutlass]

The way my Grade 12 social studies teachers (plural, because we had a student teacher doing his 4th-year practicum, and we were told that whatever grades he gave us would stand) decided that the only fair way to determine the winner of a debate was to count the number of "pro" and "anti" supporters both before and after the debate. The side that gained the greater number of supporters would be declared the winner.

Thank goodness my own debate ended up in a tie. This was the year that most Western countries decided to boycott the Moscow Olympics, and my partner and I were assigned to debate in the affirmative that this was a good idea.

Considering that most of our classmates were jocks...

That wouldn't work in OT just because everyone there has already made up their minds about everything.

 

[Mise]

Can't you just make a "one-on-one debate thread" in which two people and only two people debate something? Call it something like "GhostWriter16 vs Useless: Is Homosexuality wrong?"

I guarantee that nobody would enter that thread even if you paid them