This thread is so gay, it has come full-circle and is now straight.

Or...

OK, I've been thinking about it, and reading what's here, and googling, and reading links that have been recommended to me, and here's what I'm thinking:

1. Everyone who is interested, send me a pm saying so.
2. From these names, I will choose 3 judges and 2 captains.
3. The 2 captains will each pm me a list of the remaining players, in order of desirability.
4. I will make 2 teams based on those lists.
5. The issue will be chosen, and one team randomly assigned the affirmative, and the other the negative.
6. The captain of the affirmative team will post first, a statement arguing in favor of the issue, covering all aspects of it.
7. The captain of the negative team will post next, a statement arguing against it, etc.
8. One player nominated by the affirmative team's captain will post next, rebutting the negative argument, etc.
9. One player nominated by the negative team's captain will post next, rebutting the affirmative argument, etc.
10. Anything goes. At this point, things will resemble a typical thread here, only it's being judged, so ... a little more careful. Points will be given for arguments well made or well refuted, and taken for namecalling, ad hominem attacks, various logical fallacies, etc. Links to supporting websites should be provided only as a means of checking authenticity, not as a substitute for writing the arguments yourself. Do not post someone else's work without putting it in quotes or in a quote box and crediting the author. This is plagiarism.
11. After a set amount of time (3 days?), measured from step 9 above, arguments are closed. At this time the three judges should read carefully every post in the thread.
12. Each judge will write one post evaluating each team's performance and declaring a winner. Judges are also encouraged to point out particularly well formed arguments and glaring logical fallacies. Also, "well played"s should be given for clever comebacks and witty banter, although that kind of thing should not have a bearing on declaring a winner. Judges should also, of course, not consider their own opinion on the topic at hand, only which team argued its case more effectively. Concise and compact arguments should be given more points, while gratuitous, repetitive posts should be given demerits. Judges are instructed to only evaluate information and arguments that appear in posts in the debate thread. Links to websites should be provided by posters to show the authenticity of information, but the relevant information itself should appear in the post.
13. The team that receives at least 2 votes from the judges is the winning team. The captain of this team performs steps 1 through 5 above for the next round. The winning captain may make himself a judge in the following round, but no captain in one round should be one in the next round, nor should a judge in one round be a judge in the next.

What do people think about this? Does anyone have any suggestions for improvements? Or any questions? If this seems reasonable, maybe I can get this started soon...


Edits: The bits in bold, mostly inspired by suggestions from deleuze (see below)

I think this is a brilliant idea and the suggested format seems simple and eminently sensible.

Good call.

Thank you for the kind words, Champion Rabbit!

Everyone who's interested, please go ahead and pm me now, and I think maybe we'll try a test run according to these rules, and then we'll see what needs to be tweaked, what added, and what thrown out.

Everyone: I will add one thing: when you pm me to be included, please tell me if you do not want to be a captain or if you do not want to be a judge. Otherwise, you will be considered eligible for either position. Also, please do not tell me if you do want to be a captain or you do want to be a judge. This will all but disqualify you from either position.

Thanks!

Linus Van Pelt wrote:What do people think about this? Does anyone have any suggestions for improvements? Or any questions? If this seems reasonable, maybe I can get this started soon...

I would suggest choosing a post limit instead of a time limit. I think that would help keep things a little tighter and clearer. Also, maybe you should clarify how outside evidence is to be used. Is just linking a bunch of websites acceptable? Does one have to summarize them as well or quote important sections? Otherwise, those seem like decent rules.

Also, I've been informed by someone in the know that Steve used to debate in high school back in Missoula. Perhaps this will give him a chance to relive his glory days.

deleuze wrote:

Linus Van Pelt wrote:What do people think about this? Does anyone have any suggestions for improvements? Or any questions? If this seems reasonable, maybe I can get this started soon...

I would suggest choosing a post limit instead of a time limit. I think that would help keep things a little tighter and clearer.

I was thinking about that, but I think the judges will be rewarding tightness and clarity, so an excess of posts is really not in anyone's interest. I don't think a post limit is necessarily a bad idea, but I do think a time limit is better - this first debate is a sort of test run anyway, maybe you'll be shown right.

Also, maybe you should clarify how outside evidence is to be used. Is just linking a bunch of websites acceptable? Does one have to summarize them as well or quote important sections?

Good point. I'm thinking, all your arguments should be in your posts. I think a post that reads

Here's a link to a website that backs me up: http://www.purple.com

is bad, for a lot of reasons, and should be pretty much ignored by the judges. In your post, you should say why you're right, spelling it out explicitly, and then, if you got information from a source, it would be good to put a link to the source. I don't think there should be some rule requiring this, though - just instruct the judges to judge accordingly, and people will be encouraged to cite their sources. The only rule I could see adding in this regard is a "no plagiarism" rule: any material actually written by someone else should be put in quotes or in a quote box, and the author should be credited.

Otherwise, those seem like decent rules.

Thanks!

Also, I've been informed by someone in the know that Steve used to debate in high school back in Missoula. Perhaps this will give him a chance to relive his glory days.

Cool! A lot of ex-debaters here... I think that makes 4 that I'm aware of... I wish I had when I had the chance....

I am terrible at real debates, but as soon as one of these satin jackets ends up in the virtual thrift store, I am very interested in buying it.

Can I just clarify something. Is it entirely possible that one will be required to argue for something they dont believe in, or argue against something they do believe in?

(this is all new to me)

Rotten Tanx wrote:Can I just clarify something. Is it entirely possible that one will be required to argue for something they dont believe in, or argue against something they do believe in?

(this is all new to me)

I assume that will be true...it's about the strength the skill of the debater rather than the validity of the subject debated, right?