Should there be a US specific OT sub-forum ?

[Valka D'Ur]

I think it would be a good idea to have a "Debate" forum where people could schedule one on one (Or two on two) debates where they would debate a certain topic between those two posters.

I've thought this as well - not necessarily that it would require its own forum, but simply a formal debate of the "Be it resolved that _______" and a team that argues in the affirmative and one that argues in the negative. There would be a moderator (a debate moderator) and three judges. Only after the formal presentations would everybody else be allowed to ask questions of the debaters.

I don't know if anything like this has been done in the past or is currently going on in any of the non-Colosseum forums. It would be an interesting experiment to try in OT.

I've had to argue some issues that I truly found absurd... such as the affirmative position that history should not be taught in schools. And in a class where most of the students were jocks, my partner and I had to argue in the affirmative that Canada should boycott the 1980 Moscow Olympics. Thank goodness we ran out of time before the question and answer period!

 

[GhostWriter16]

That IS Wierd.

I was thinking something like I found here:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2629

Obviously debate topics would be FAR different on CFC, but I can't explain it better than they explain here.

 

[Moss]

We tried more formal debates in OT in the past. It unfortunately didn't work too well. Lack of interest if I remember right.

I could be wrong, but I think ainwood was the one that set it up.

 

[Mise]

Yeah, they didn't really work very well. There were like 3 people participating, and it wasn't exactly a spectator sport. I think part of the problem, at least from my perspective, is that I simply didn't want to debate any of the people who were participating. The participants were generally smart and agreeable people, so I would rather discuss things with them, rather than formally debate things with them. Basically it's the complete opposite of what I want - I would rather have a more formal, guided debate with people who are annoying and juvenile, because it would limit their ability to be annoying and juvenile, whereas I would much rather have an informal discussion with people who are smart and agreeable.


Sidenote: The poll results look like a schlong.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

There's no reason we couldn't try again. Some of the new(er) members wouldn't have had the chance to know about it, and may be interested.

 

[SuperJay]

I'd be down with the debate forum idea if it stopped the fake debates from happening in so many OT threads. (You know, the quote-warrior types who just want to get in as many snarky zingers as possible, rather than substantial, thoughtful interaction.)

I doubt that would happen (without some serious moderator "assistance"), but maybe I'm just a wee bit cynical about the potential maturity of online interaction in my old age.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

We tried more formal debates in OT in the past. It unfortunately didn't work too well. Lack of interest if I remember right.

I could be wrong, but I think ainwood was the one that set it up.

It was run by eyrei.

 

[Zelig]

Yeah, they didn't really work very well. There were like 3 people participating, and it wasn't exactly a spectator sport. I think part of the problem, at least from my perspective, is that I simply didn't want to debate any of the people who were participating. The participants were generally smart and agreeable people, so I would rather discuss things with them, rather than formally debate things with them. Basically it's the complete opposite of what I want - I would rather have a more formal, guided debate with people who are annoying and juvenile, because it would limit their ability to be annoying and juvenile, whereas I would much rather have an informal discussion with people who are smart and agreeable.


Sidenote: The poll results look like a schlong.

I'm quoting this so you can't go back and edit it, and I'll be able to use it to insinuate that anyone you agree to debate is annoying and juvenile.

 

[Mise]

I'd be happy for you to do that since it would be against the rules if I did so myself

 

[downtown]

Sidenote: The poll results look like a schlong.

HA! It does! I'll see if I can incorporate that into my next poll.

On topic: No, like others have mentioned, its a majority American website. If one doesn't like the preponderance of political threads, post your own discussions.

To be honest, I'm a little tired of the WAH WAH OT SUCKS bellyaching. Would it better if the mods got rid of the same 4-5 OT posters who drive most of us crazy? Of course it would. Will they? No.

So we need to be the change we seek, and post interesting topics, ideally, not topics about WAH WAH DID YOU SEE WHAT THE REPUBLICANS DID TODAY OMG, or GOD IS DEAD LOL...but about things we can actually discuss.

If you aren't willing to step up and try that, then don't cry. I don't mean that towards the OP, just a general rant towards the OT sucks crowd.

 

[Lord of Elves]

Poll choices do not present a biased dichotomy, not even a little bit.

 

[GamezRule]

snip.