One on One Thread Debate Topics, Participants, "House Rules", and more

[hobbsyoyo]

Though I admit that might not reveal one's intentions, I'm still not worried about "stealing arguments" from the commentary thread.

You are really not worried about it or you just don't care if it happens? I promise you I will do this five posts in to a debate vs. JollyRoger.

 

[innonimatu]

I didn't like the exclusivity of a one-on-one debate, but if we're going to have also that parallel comment thread I think it'll be interesting. We do ended backing from the mods in order to have whatever rules are chosen enforced.

If there was a separate subforum for debates

Please not another forum. Two is too much already!

So, are we going to start doing lists of possible debate topics (specific ones already) and asking for people interested to take them or what?

But perhaps it is too soon. We must first settle the rules for the debate. I propose:
1) holding it in the chamber just because it'll be easier to enforce the rules (1-on-1) there
2) a simultaneous comments thread. The debaters will surely reading those comments, some may think this a bad idea but as it is inevitable that there will be communication between the people debating and the other members of the forum, we may as well do it on the open.
3) a limit on the number of posts and/or time between posts, so that each debate gets done in, say, 5 days (comments remain open). Just three interventions from each side (thesis, rebuttal, and final considerations) have been popular with some online debates but I think that in a forum we need not have that limit. It may be preferable to just set a time limit for the debate instead of limiting the number of posts. We'll also have to decide if the same debater can post multiple times in a row. I say yes.
4) downtown proposed this so he is "volunteered" to compiling the list of topics for the first month's worth of debates. He can choose those from whatever ideas people propose here and post it as as an update on the first post of this thread.
5) he may as well compile a list of candidates for the position of chair, in no particular order.
6) debaters are picked on a first-takers basis by posting here after the list is made available. Each debater must state the debate and the role he/she wants to take. The first candidate can drop out and pick another topic if he/she doesn't want to go 1-on-1 with the second person to choose the topic (and likewise as this person is replaced).
7) once two debaters are chosen they agree between them who they want to invite in as chair, from that list.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

In a venue like this that sounds like a useless formality. I wouldn't bother with requiring it if it didn't have any meat. (Consider an opening statement in a trial.)

To clarify, what I meant by "all it needs to be" is that is the minimum. A formal statement of which side of the debate the person is arguing. They can say more if they want. And debates do have formalities that may seem useless to people who haven't done them. So do other activities.

Please not another forum. Two is too much already!

We're suggesting a sub-forum of the Chamber. That's still in the Chamber, and not a third OT forum. This will ensure two things:

1. The debate doesn't get pushed down and lost as other threads get replies; also, the debate and "peanut gallery" thread won't become separated.

2. Anyone who isn't interested in reading it can just ignore the sub-forum entirely.

 

[LucyDuke]

You are really not worried about it or you just don't care if it happens? I promise you I will do this five posts in to a debate vs. JollyRoger.

I'm not worried about it. I don't think it'll be a significant advantage. I don't care if it happens because I don't think it would be a problem.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Why did this not happen?

Get on it downtown!

 

[downtown]

I didn't see any topics suggested in this thread?

 

[Quackers]

I would like to see the case for whom will be the better American president and why.
Is the Churchill burst a slap in the face of Britain or blown way out of proportion?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I didn't see any topics suggested in this thread?

1) a) How to fix the US economy.
b) US Foreign Policy going forward
c) One world government?

1) is the Washington Consensus a net good? (or any tangentially similar topic about free trade)

should more be spent by the world on space exploration?

is China a true "rival" of the United States?

I'll take anyone on foreign policy if they'll take the interventionist position (More or less ANY interventionist position that supports pretty much any kind of war that's less universally agreed upon than the Second World War.)

I'll also debate anyone who is in favor of the Patriot Act and show them why its an awful idea

This I wouldn't mind doing actually. It's looking as though I'm going to major in International Relations here at Iowa (although sadly I didn't nab a single international relations class this semester) so some debating on that topic might prove fruitful/fun. Also I don't mind interventionism.

Please, please, please can we debate space exploration?

@Valka - I apologise for neglecting to have your request of months ago at the forefront of my mind when I made my previous post, and will endeavour to forgo enhanced clarity in my formatting (despite the paragraphs) when posting as a moderator, if I should so remember, in order that you may not have to endure the hardship of slightly changed browser settings.

We should debate why Camikaze should never ever use small font again.^^

Can you defend the designated hitter rule?

I would like to see the case for whom will be the better American president and why.
Is the Churchill burst a slap in the face of Britain or blown way out of proportion?

downtown, enough topics to pick from?
Also Quackers, you lost the bust debate. Sorry

 

[Cutlass]

Here's a topic for you:

Universal health care in the US, yay or nay?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Nay!

 

[LucyDuke]

Are corporations people?

 

[Leoreth]

I'd like to read a less controversial topic, something that's a little outside of the mainstream media focus, and preferable something that doesn't fall neatly on party lines, so we don't have to simply repeat all the talking points we hear all the time anyway.

So please no UHC or abortion or budget or taxes etc.

I'd like to see the space exploration debate. Or maybe investment into high energy physics. Something like that.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Space exploration it is. Who wants to debate me and on what side?

 

[GhostWriter16]

Are corporations people?

Nope

 

[LucyDuke]

Nay!

Nope

Yes, everyone is well aware of your opinions, but you'll notice we're not discussing these topics here.

 

[_random_]

Well he put a winky face, which makes it all right.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Since Camikaze is no longer a moderator, I'm no longer obliged to take any notice whatsoever of his posts. Therefore, he can post in whatever font/size he pleases - I won't be seeing it.

But moderators have the obligation to make sure they don't try to couch any of their moderation-related posts in fine print - figuratively or literally.

 

[Zelig]

Since Camikaze is no longer a moderator, I'm no longer obliged to take any notice whatsoever of his posts. Therefore, he can post in whatever font/size he pleases - I won't be seeing it.

But moderators have the obligation to make sure they don't try to couch any of their moderation-related posts in fine print - figuratively or literally.

Increase your browser font size settings if it's rendering font too small for you to read.

Significant work has gone into web standards and browser capabilities in order to allow you this convenience.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Don't post here yet dt! Read the other thread first

 

[Integral]

Here's a topic for you:

Universal health care in the US, yay or nay?

I wouldn't mind participating in this one, either as arguer or observer.

I also wouldn't mind having a discussion/debate with Monsterzuma on monetary policy, debt, money, and the causes of the recession. Yes, that's kind of vague, but I feel like his ideas (what I make of them) and mine are in tension, and I'd love to get that sorted out. Perhaps not soon, but later this year after I've wrapped my head around the core of the MMT/Steve Keen views.