Debate duels?

[Alonzo]

Some of you might remember that a while ago we tried having debate offs, and that debate off was raised a little later too. We seem to be up increasing in activity lately so figured I'd see if people want to try it again.

In these debates one member would challenge another to a debate, each member would get a certain # of responses, a max # of days would be set, and then the members would begin debating. At the end the winner would be voted on by members.

If you guys would like to participate in debate offs I will appoint someone to be in charge of the debates and begin setting everything up. Also if you have any suggestion please post them.

[4Reaganomics]

In a forum where liberals are 2 for every 1 conservative, I don't know how the voting process would work.

But regardless of voting results, it would be interesting to see it take place

[preservanation]

All I remember is mercilessly beating some poor guy about the head and neck on the topic of man made GWarming.
I think he went skulking back to Canada or some place.
Probably bunking with Sasquatch somewhere.

[Rage]

I like this idea...

And of course, what good duel comes without.....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KmCx7VA8qGA&feature=related

but for real, the debate cant be a crazy topic, like billy bob joe had a rat fart on ut0be, dizcuzzz....!1

I still think we can vote on it, but we should have checks and balances you see :). Here is what I think:

The mods cant vote (if they do they can't work in the make shift electorate), and the voting is done in a separate thread.

Each user that votes, makes a post on why they thought the person they voted for should be the "winner". If the vote is a bias, or from a non bi-partisan view, the "mods" or electorates can take the vote away, sound good?

[Osborn F. Enready]

I don't think voting for a winner is a good idea unless the voters are held to post a "summary" of how they made their decision.

For example, if one person uses only facts in the debate, and the other uses only appeals to emotion, it is possible the appeal to emotion side could win regardless of how incorrect every fact was in their argument. That being the case, I think would be best if the voters summarized why they chose one debaters argument over the other, regarding facts, method of debate, ability to stay on topic, etc.

I love the idea, but only if its going to provide meaningful and useful results.

[Deadshot]

We can vote, but as is shown above, I don't think the conservatives have much of a chance.

[Alonzo]

If not votes then how do we determine winner?

[Deadshot]

Why do you need a winner?

[preservanation]

Outcome based education and moral relativism..
2=5.
OKayyy...
I'll let you all count the votes with the aid of the NYT.
Let me know how it turns out.

[Deadshot]

preserv, let me ask you. Say we have a debate on who's better Kirk or Picard. Say I win because there are more Next Generation fans then Original Series fans here on the board. Does that mean I out debated you? Or, instead, does it mean that I've got more on my side then yours?

Let the debate stand on it's own. You'll hear about who you think won or lost in other forums if the debate warrants people discussing it. Otherwise it'll die in the thread it occupies. But voting is going to be a popularity contest either of the poster or the ideals in general.

What if you debated a new poster named Pebbles about Gay Marriage, you con he pro. Do you really think people will judge the debate itself, what if you crush him or vice-versa? Nah, instead people will vote on the issue itself and ignore the debator, UNLESS their party is winning.

That's 2+2=4 everytime.

[AlanC]

preserv, let me ask you. Say we have a debate on who's better Kirk or Picard. Say I win because there are more Next Generation fans then Original Series fans here on the board. Does that mean I out debated you? Or, instead, does it mean that I've got more on my side then yours?

Let the debate stand on it's own. You'll hear about who you think won or lost in other forums if the debate warrants people discussing it. Otherwise it'll die in the thread it occupies. But voting is going to be a popularity contest either of the poster or the ideals in general.

What if you debated a new poster named Pebbles about Gay Marriage, you con he pro. Do you really think people will judge the debate itself, what if you crush him or vice-versa? Nah, instead people will vote on the issue itself and ignore the debator, UNLESS their party is winning.

That's 2+2=4 everytime.

I have to agree with this one. I don't think a whole lot of people look at any debate from an unbiased view unless they are completely unaware of the issue and the personalities doing the debating. Objective judgement on this forum would be difficult if not impossible. I think if the debates happen, they should just stand on their own much as they do now. But they would be more limited as to who participates than most of the normal discussions that take place here.

[preservanation]

, let me ask you. Say we have a debate on who's better Kirk or Picard.
Kirk, just because of his willingness to be be who he is....
Picard...what's his name?...Patrick Stewart?
He plays a socialist fuck.

[Alonzo]

Why do you need a winner?

We don't necessarily, it's just the way I've always seen it implemented and the way we originally attempted.

But maybe you're right with voting bias. I know I've seen pro-choice people get hammered in debates, and the same for those with liberal views on the bible, but the tendency to focus on the position, and not the argument itself, may be too prevalent.

[Osborn F. Enready]

I agree with Alan here.