Dedicated Debating Forum - Would you use it?

[Mong]

Hi,

We're considering setting up a dedicated debating forum, in a true debating fashion.

For those of you who've never taken part in the sport of debating, it goes a little something like this; A topic is chosen, the two teams are given a set time to do research and prepare. The actual debate gives each team the chance to speak twice - generally it's best to be the second team. The opening sessions are used by each team to explaim the reason behind their argument, and to persuade whoever decides (the "judge/jury" can vary in it's configuration). Anyway, the second session tends to be all about negating the other team's arguments, and arguing against any negation done to your's!

Now the point isn't so much to be right - it's to win the argument. I've debated and won, when I've actually been totally opposed to the argument I've been championing.

Anyway, this format won't work here, due to the medium we use (i.e. this forum). What's proposed then is for a very strictly moderated forum, with lots of active mods (made up also of the debatees themselves). The mods would have two roles; firstly to ensure that there's no spamming, trolling, flaming etc. They'd also ban users who frequently disrupted debates. The other function would be to encourage debate - maybe post a debate on a regular basis?

What we need to know is if you think this is a good idea, and if you'd be able to put in a bit of time to take part in fairly regular debates?

We're not sure if we'll host it here, or on the NetGamers forums - as the future of PA still isn't 100% clear (expect news soon!).

Cheers,

M.

[Gayle29uk]

This house believes that the proposal is a good one, but should be hosted on PA forums as netgamers (no offence) gets about 2 hits a month

[GavGull]

Good look getting the support*.

*Where support = people who aren't spastics.

[JC]

I think thats a great idea. It would be better to host it here on the PA forums but obviously that depends on whats happening with the new owners and the future of PA.

[pablissimo]

I misunderstood the intention last night where I thought that splitting the forum up further would be 'bad'.

Go for it, just not on Netgamers (As, let's face it, it's as happening a place as a mortuary)

Sounds like it would work, but as the poll says, it would need good moderation.

It would be a good place to go for a serious discussion anyway, instead of some of the retards who get on GD and spoil them.

I'll offer my services as a mod for the forum if you want, saying as I am probably the most active user at the current time.

[Sarina_Joy]

Netgamers have a forum?!

[Mong]

Originally posted by Gayle28uk
This house believes that the proposal is a good one, but should be hosted on PA forums as netgamers (no offence) gets about 2 hits a month

Therein is a great point. The NG forums get many less hits than here, but the quality and signal:noise ratio is something to be proud of

M.

[Gayle29uk]

Signal/noise: DIVIDE_BY_ZERO_ERROR

Noise/signal: DIVIDE_BY_ZERO_ERROR

[Ap0k]

could work well. altho deffo need heavily moderated

and keep it here. NG = teh ugly + my taskbar is already a mess dont need yet more windows

[Rogue00]

very intrested. Good idea.

[Snurx]

Its a good idea, but many not work if not more people are attrackted to this forum, (more users) and strickt moderation.

I'm also a bit sceptical to divde the forums even more...
But its worth a shot.

[acropolis]

Eh. Under the conditions you propose, I would say yes actually. However, just a simple forum for debating I strongly disapprove of. GD has already been divided up way too many times, and whats left now is debates, occasional links (all 'old' apparently:/), spam, and flames. If you took the debate threads off of here it wouldn't leave much.

But as long as posts were only allowed in accordance with a 'scheduled debate', I think it could only improve activity.

sounds like something you'd find on the roleplay forum if you ask me...

[Structural Integrity]

eh.... well....
I don't really care, I'm not much of a debater. Some people might be interrested tho.

A debating forum would be much different than the kind you see on GD though.

GD has discussions - everyone chipping in their two cents regardless of whether they can back it up or not.

Debating is a skill, a lot like chess in a way. The two teams are fighting a battle of intelligence and research against eachother, counteracting eachothers arguments with FACT in a turn based manner - much like a court case, although instead of getting just one chance to make your case, debating allows you to have many posts detailing your case and counteracting/defending arguments made by the opposing team in their last post.

The debate ends when one team has clearly provent their point and the other team cannot disprove or argue against it - again using facts, not the fiction you see on GD.

Like Mong said, debating is a sport, an art - but its also a game. Fun to take part in yet challenging enough to keep you interested.

I'm fully behind this new forum - it will bring a good reason to come to these forums.

[queball]

<Stub for Mong quote so skiddy doesn't confuse who I'm talking to>

There are no interesting topics to debate, only interesting topics to flame upon. If this idea was inspired by the "File renamers/fake sharers" thread, then you may find it fun to play devil's advocate but you and Nodrog come across as yet another couple of fascist IP trolls. I've never understood play-debating on the Internet. If you aren't trying to put forward real arguments then you're just writing meaningless crap.

[Cochese]

If it was organized and scheduled well in advance, and there was a team of mods standing by at all times, it could be interesting.

[Ragnarak]

Originally posted by Cochese
If it was organized and scheduled well in advance, and there was a team of mods standing by at all times, it could be interesting.

we need new mods?

/me waves at JJ

btw if it was on netgamers forum it would be useless, on here tho it might just rock if handled right

[JonnyBGood]

No, that's not what I joined for. If by some wild improbability someone asked me to moderate it I don't think I'd want to, assuming it remains the same as is stated above. In all honesty I don't see from where you could possibly claim the right. A forum aimed for debating should either survive or not depending on the posters it attracts, not the strictness it is moderated with. If people are ready for it it won't need strict modding. If they aren't then it's quite apparent what will happen regardless.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

I don't think I'd go for a proper debating forum.

I would rather see something styled on the sa.forum serious discussion forum.

[Deffeh]

Mong, i think this really is what gen disc is.

But, how about if you set up special threads INSIDE GD clearly labelled as debating threads

Would it be possible to give these threads special qualities?

IE, access only to the particular "teams" to post

or even better, the teams posts were highlighted, (green, purple or something - team colours), and others could post but only in the plain black and blue.

I agree GD shouldnt be split up further

Look at the activity as it is

Surely bring more people IN is what needs to be done.

I too would like to see a world in which there is no suffering.

[Nodrog]

I voted "No" without reading the thread, because I thought you were wanting to take serious debate off GD. After actually reading it, itll probably be a good idea but I doubt I'd personally use it.

I'd like a debate forum, but not under many of the conditions that have been suggested. The conditions I would like would be:

1) As Deffeh suggested, it would be best here, with color coding for the teams. Not necessarily the print, but the person's name would be color coded when they were on a debating thread (also suggested by Deffeh, I think, was having specialized debate threads with exclusive access by debaters)

2) I wouldn't like mods so strict that you couldn't do what was being done on the evolution thread, at least before it moved to a different topic. I liked the comfortable combination of point debating with a light insult here and there.

3) I would propose that the topic establishing post and information about the topic be posted, closed and stickied. Then after two days, re-opened and the debating would begin. In that two day period, anyone that wanted to join on a specific team could sign up, and impartial juries as well. Then the thread could stay open for a week or so (choose a time limit ahead of time and have it set in stone, I just don't know how much time would work best) until the jury went into deliberation.

4) I think it would be best to only require 51% of the jury to agree on a verdict at the end of the debating for a winner to be declared.

5) It would be more comfortable for debaters to be able to make their points at any time, not sit around twiddling their thumbs while their minds raced with thought and had no abilty to vent it.

I seem to be the only one who wants these though, since no one else has proposed them yet.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by queball
There are no interesting topics to debate, only interesting topics to flame upon. If this idea was inspired by the "File renamers/fake sharers" thread, then you may find it fun to play devil's advocate but you and Nodrog come across as yet another couple of fascist IP trolls.

I wish youd stop using the term IP - its a horribly inclusive word. I support copyright, but not patents to anywhere near the same degree. They are 2 very VERY different concepts, and to group them together under the same heading is incredibly misleading.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by MonotoneMan
I'd like a debate forum, but not under many of the conditions that have been suggested. The conditions I would like would be:

1) As Deffeh suggested, it would be best here, with color coding for the teams. Not necessarily the print, but the person's name would be color coded when they were on a debating thread (also suggested by Deffeh, I think, was having specialized debate threads with exclusive access by debaters)

See a little further down for why I disagree.

2) I wouldn't like mods so strict that you couldn't do what was being done on the evolution thread, at least before it moved to a different topic. I liked the comfortable combination of point debating with a light insult here and there.

A debate without a few well turned insults isn't a real debate Blatant abuse however should get you booted."My opponent, as usual, fails to grasp even the basics of the argument" is allowable, "Nodrog you ****tard" is not

3) I would propose that the topic establishing post and information about the topic be posted, closed and stickied. Then after two days, re-opened and the debating would begin. In that two day period, anyone that wanted to join on a specific team could sign up, and impartial juries as well. Then the thread could stay open for a week or so (choose a time limit ahead of time and have it set in stone, I just don't know how much time would work best) until the jury went into deliberation.

This is where allowing just anyone to post is a problem. If a 'non-player' posts a stunning point that one of the sides jumps on to win their argument it's hardly a fair debate. It has to be participants only until the jury has voted. Once that's done it can be opened up to everyone to say who retarded both sides are

4) I think it would be best to only require 51% of the jury to agree on a verdict at the end of the debating for a winner to be declared.

Works for me

5) It would be more comfortable for debaters to be able to make their points at any time, not sit around twiddling their thumbs while their minds raced with thought and had no abilty to vent it.

The twiddling of thumbs while your mind races is part of debating though. If you had your turn as proposer/whatever and missed important facts then you should have done your job right in the first place. For instance: Creation/evolution, you KNOW the second law of thermodynamics will rear it's ugly head at some point so you pre-empt it. "No doubt the proponents will try and demonstrate their complete lack of understanding surrounding the laws of thermodynamics but don't be fooled by it, it's an irrelevance designed to confuse by people who are already confused." and so on...

'Proper' debating is an art, if you want a free for all then we already have one called GD.

Merely my opinions though

[Mong]

I guess then, we wouldn't have teams - it would just be individuals, or small groups.

M.

"My opponent, as usual, fails to grasp even the basics of the argument" is allowable, "Nodrog you ****tard" is not

Agreed.

This is where allowing just anyone to post is a problem. If a 'non-player' posts a stunning point that one of the sides jumps on to win their argument it's hardly a fair debate. It has to be participants only until the jury has voted. Once that's done it can be opened up to everyone to say who retarded both sides are

I should have been more specific. What I meant was that the thread would be opened to the people who signed up to debate.

The twiddling of thumbs while your mind races is part of debating though. If you had your turn as proposer/whatever and missed important facts then you should have done your job right in the first place. For instance: Creation/evolution, you KNOW the second law of thermodynamics will rear it's ugly head at some point so you pre-empt it. "No doubt the proponents will try and demonstrate their complete lack of understanding surrounding the laws of thermodynamics but don't be fooled by it, it's an irrelevance designed to confuse by people who are already confused." and so on...

'Proper' debating is an art, if you want a free for all then we already have one called GD

Yeah, I really didn't expect anyone to get on board with that one. But I've had little debates in school and I just couldn't stand sitting there and listening to the other team make idiotic points that could easily be countered when I wasn't allowed to counter them.

[Mong]

JammyJim has made a comment in our Mod's forum, hope you don't me pasting it here JJ?

this is the same old idea of splitting GD up again. it hasnt worked in the past and has led to 'dead' forums. The only time it was successful was with AD and AR. But those were part of PA and discussion revolving around that was inevitable.

Having a totally seperate debating forum seems a tad pointless. Surely just invoking a "debate" code so they can tick a box and it shows "DEBATE" by the side of the thread (much like "closed : ") would be a better alternative. That way the mods on gd could see which threads were 'serious' and those which were not.

any thread which didnt adhere to strict "what makes a debate thread a debate thread" rules at the top of GD would face warnings and potential 'disciplinary action' from one of the admins.


Splitting is never a good idea imo....

[JammyJim]

nope.

[acropolis]

JJ's kinder right. There's no reason that organized debate threads couldn't be mixed in with the disorganized crap of the rest of GD unless there were going to be ten or so debates going on at the same time.

I picture more like 1-2 organized ones at a time, and they could even be stickied without disrupting anything.

Oh and the best part is that we would be able to have other threads flaming the crap arguments in the debate threads. That's what excites me.

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by acropolis
Oh and the best part is that we would be able to have other threads flaming the crap arguments in the debate threads. That's what excites me.

That's cool So long as it doesn't happen in the actual debate thread.

[queball]

The only time it was successful was with AD and AR

Personally i think a debating forum (yes a seperate forum) would be a good one. Quite frequently i've decided against posting on GD because of all the flame etc its likely to get, and i'm sure others feel the same. Debating is healthy (and this isnt because im in the debating society at college ) and in reply to someones earlier comment, there are infact a whole range of subjects to debate, local, national and international topics that are on everyones mind, but they lack either the time or the place (hence the forum!) to discuss them seriously, as everyone has views and opinions, and there are always some who seem to want to interrupt this with lame comments

Also i believe it doesnt need to be strictly modded, but have the discussion in a private forum where only the debatees can post, but others can view the posts (if thats possible). SOmething Similar would be good.

Everyone is up for a debate one time or another, so i especially want this idea to go ahead

Strifeh

[Nondescript Human]

GD minus remaining semblance of seriousness = Utter ****e.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Mong
Now the point isn't so much to be right - it's to win the argument. I've debated and won, when I've actually been totally opposed to the argument I've been championing.

I really hate that type of debate. I don't mind endlessly pedantic argument which go on forever achieving nothing, but for god's sake, at least believe in what you're saying. Pretend debate is just a slightly more elegant form of trolling. If I want to masturbate, it won't be mental masturbation- I'll just find some high resolution pictures of Alessandra Ambrosio and get on with the real-thing.

As to the overall idea : It's not bad, although most of the "interesting" threads I've read have started with idiotic beginnings, or middles, and have only become interesting due to some random intervention. The file-sharing argument I wouldn't have posted in if Mong hadn't posted his "IP Theft" rant.

Conversely, there's plenty of interesting debates which I see and think "Hmm, I'll post in that later" only to get sidetracked by some shiny object or whatever. I don't think the people here are disciplined enough to do something like this. You'd just get a well researched three page start from the originator, and then plenty of "Yeah, me too" type posts.

[Bloomers III]

This is a bad idea. Because then all the serious posts from GD will go somewhere else, and then it would be just like spam here and that's bad as in not good.

[W]

Originally posted by queball
There are no interesting topics to debate, only interesting topics to flame upon. If this idea was inspired by the "File renamers/fake sharers" thread, then you may find it fun to play devil's advocate but you and Nodrog come across as yet another couple of fascist IP trolls. I've never understood play-debating on the Internet. If you aren't trying to put forward real arguments then you're just writing meaningless crap.

Well, that's kinda your problem, innit. Plenty other people understand and enjoy it, just like they might enjoy a good game of poker (which might not contain any real arguments either).

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I really hate that type of debate. I don't mind endlessly pedantic argument which go on forever achieving nothing, but for god's sake, at least believe in what you're saying. Pretend debate is just a slightly more elegant form of trolling. If I want to masturbate, it won't be mental masturbation- I'll just find some high resolution pictures of Alessandra Ambrosio and get on with the real-thing.

Same view formulated a little differently. Debating is about learning how to put forward a good case, to yourself as well as others. If you only argue for, research in, and generally think about, stuff that you beleive in, you will never change your mind about anything. Debating isn't just about the sport (tho that's a big part of it), it's also about training your mind, making it more flexible. You might find that if you argue the other sides case, that you might actually find that it is more solid, that THAT is what you now believe.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
Debating is about learning how to put forward a good case, to yourself as well as others. If you only argue for, research in, and generally think about, stuff that you beleive in, you will never change your mind about anything.

I would hope that anyone who takes intellectual honesty seriously would expose themselves (at semi-regular intervals) to their opponents views. I try do, which is why my bookshelf contains Hayek, Rand, Hitler, Friednman, etc as well as infinite amounts of Chomsky/Marx and co.

Yes, I'm sure it's productive for some to pretend they don't believe in evolution and have hours of fun posting "What good is half an eye" even though they know the answer. For me, it just reeks of a waste of time. Each to his own.

Perhaps my experience was just coloured by the numerous debates I had to endure at school when the teachers thought it would be funny to force "the commie" to debate in favour of Thatcherism/Monetarism or whatever.

[JonnyBGood]

Only by challenging assumptions can true knowledge hope to be attained.

Originallysaid by JammyJism
this is the same old idea of splitting GD up again. it hasnt worked in the past and has led to 'dead' forums. The only time it was successful was with AD and AR

Programming and IT is also a success. Remember, pirate.planetarion.com is a dead forum anyway!

[Jester]

Originally posted by Idi
Programming and IT is also a success.

RP wasn't though. That was a failure and led to a dead forum.

Jester

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I would hope that anyone who takes intellectual honesty seriously would expose themselves (at semi-regular intervals) to their opponents views. I try do, which is why my bookshelf contains Hayek, Rand, Hitler, Friednman, etc as well as infinite amounts of Chomsky/Marx and co.

Yes, I'm sure it's productive for some to pretend they don't believe in evolution and have hours of fun posting "What good is half an eye" even though they know the answer. For me, it just reeks of a waste of time. Each to his own.

Perhaps my experience was just coloured by the numerous debates I had to endure at school when the teachers thought it would be funny to force "the commie" to debate in favour of Thatcherism/Monetarism or whatever.

I think you missunderstood the point of this idea completely. I can understand that you're bitter about your treatment at school, but a debate is not pretending you have a belief. It is arguing a belief, that you may or may not agree to. And it's not like arguments that you know how to counter will be any good, you have to put in an effort; if you know how to counter your argument, your opponent most likely does too.

Perhaps the problem is simply that you're no good at understanding the others viewpoint, no good at debating _per se_ because you think those disagreeing with you must simply not have access to the information you do, or are too stupid to see it. It might do you good to participate in this, and try out "the other side" as part of a team. While you may understand objectivism, you don't get to understand an objectivist, by reading Rand. You don't understand a nazi or neo-nazi by reading Hitlers work.

[inf]

most good debates are from impulse, and not prepreared.

[Starbucks]

Originally posted by inf
most good debates are from impulse, and not prepreared.

******** WHORE!

[Dante Hicks]

W, you could be right on the debating point. I'm not really that interested as to why anyone believes anything (it is a fairly interesting subsection of sociology or psychology, but not something I'm keen on). Any arguments I've ever seen as to why people hold political ideas generally descend into infantilism (i.e. "You're only right wing because your dads loaded you middle class tosser!", etc.) I don't think people who disagree with me are ignorant or misinformed - sometimes they might be approaching from a whole other angle, othertimes (perhaps most often) it's they simply hold a different set of morals.

I think this is where my main objection with "debating as sport" comes into it - aside from the whole sheer intellectual dishonesty of it. Most arguments that I'm involved in are at their core moral arguments - and someones morality can't be wrong (as such) merely inconsistent or objectional. Part of why I do debate people on-line (and elsewhere) is simply to see how much of our disagreement over a certain subject is moral and how much is simply a matter of facts.

If, for example, I think Microsoft's ASP language is superior to PHP then I'm sure this argument can be settled with a few technical comparisons, so long as we can agree guidelines. So if one language is "proved" to be faster, more flexible, quicker to learn, etc then we can both agree it's the better language. If the argument becomes more "moral" since PHP is open-source (or whatever, you know what I mean) and ASP isn't, then we get into an argument which is more about core values. I think the purpose of any argument (or discussion) should be about stripping down to core values. So my core values are that I want people to be free, in control of their own lives where possible, equal to others and in some kind of voluntary association with others. Other's moral concerns (core values) might be completley different - but if we're in a debate-sport then there is no real core value it's just all sophistry and cleverness.

As to arguments my own opinions - perhaps I'm being dreadfully totalitarian here, but I don't think there are any unanswerable arguments against anything I believe in. If there are, I will consider them as best I can, and then either abandon my original viewpoint or simply accept a particular downside, etc.

[Xillah]

I like the sound of this actually. bring it on, me iz teh dabiter.

[Cyp]

I suppose debating would be the sort of thing as, for a topic such as "Is football smart?", if one is on the "yes" team, arguing that due to FNT, Frontal Neuron Transfer, the neurons of the football players get transferred into the football, and the air from the ball gets transferred into the football players heads, resulting in the football players becoming stupid, and the football becoming smart?

[Mong]

Cyp: That kind of thing, yes

M.