NationStates Jolt Archive

How about this idea:

To try an keep an organized debate with at least some result, why don't we put some issues on trial? We can have a poster or several posters serving as the prosecution, some as the defense, a judge to maintain that the arguments stay on topic and relevant, and then a group of jurors to decide which side made the better argument.

This may have been done before, but I would like to see it tried.

So who appoints all these various people?

So who appoints all these various people?

I don't know, maybe a first come - first served basis.

I didn't bother working out the specifics, I just want some discussion threads to not circle around for 20 pages and end where they started. I thought this might be a good way to do it.

I'd be willing to be one of the ones doing the arguing.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would enjoy continuing some of my discussions with you about communism with such a system. Well you can count me as one person to be interested in the idea.

Sounds like a good idea to me. I would enjoy continuing some of my discussions with you about communism with such a system. Well you can count me as one person to be interested in the idea.

Good, if enough people show some interest maybe I will start one up.

Unfortunately, the past communism/capitalism threads have not sparked enough interest to really get a good steady thread going, so the first issue on trial will probably be one of those hot button issues.

Well, the creationism thread ran pretty hot this morning, but I didn't see a lot of cogent argument from the pro-creationism side.

Generally, the hotter the topic, the more blindingly ignorant the discussion.

I'd wonder if the judges could grade as follows (here's a suggestion).

1 to 10 scale, 1 being bad and 10 being great.

Effectiveness of evidence (the evidence you link to)
Effectiveness of logic (the logic you use in your arguments)
Effectiveness of writing (how well written your expressions are)
Touche Points (how well and often you skewered the other person).

And the overall - which is not a numeric score, but an indication of whether you convinced the juror or not.

Well, the creationism thread ran pretty hot this morning, but I didn't see a lot of cogent argument from the pro-creationism side.

Generally, the hotter the topic, the more blindingly ignorant the discussion.

That is what purpose I think the Judge should serve, to keep people in check and in line. If a judge deems a point to be invalid or irrelevant, then he points that out.

I'd wonder if the judges could grade as follows (here's a suggestion).

1 to 10 scale, 1 being bad and 10 being great.

Effectiveness of evidence (the evidence you link to)
Effectiveness of logic (the logic you use in your arguments)
Effectiveness of writing (how well written your expressions are)
Touche Points (how well and often you skewered the other person).

And the overall - which is not a numeric score, but an indication of whether you convinced the juror or not.

That would be good, but I think that should be maybe a panel of people like a jury, just so a biased judge couldn't screw the whole thing up.

i'd love to be a judge, if we're gonna start one. creationism/evolutionism is neither here nor there though, how about something more important, like does God exist?

i'd love to be a judge, if we're gonna start one. creationism/evolutionism is neither here nor there though, how about something more important, like does God exist?

I would prefer more concrete entities. Maybe we could put organised religion on trial?

I would prefer more concrete entities. Maybe we could put organised religion on trial?
ok, maybe we should pick one in particular? there are some that have problems others don't, and that could become troublesome

I would prefer more concrete entities. Maybe we could put organised religion on trial?
Well, we could pick a specific one, or a specific attribute or behavior unique to one of the religions.

Well, we could pick a specific one, or a specific attribute or behavior unique to one of the religions.
ok, i'd like to pick christianity. in particular, whether the total unchristianness of certain "christians" and actions of the "church" can discredit the whole religion, in particular, my God.

unfortunately i must leave soon, but i will be back tomorrow....God bless. by the way, i'd like to think that i'm unbiased, but i must admit that having a jury is an excellent idea

I like the idea.

Depending on the issue and when the trial was held, I may be willing to present on either side.

I'd also be glad to be the judge. I am wickedly partisan/ideological when I argue, but I have some experience in judging mock trials/events. I can be impartial in simply maintaining order, etc. (Because I would likely not be perceived as capable of being impartial, I am probably not a good choice. I will take no offense at not being selected.)

I agree that you should have a panel of judges (i.e., a jury) and that it might be nice to have scoring on style & content as well as a verdict on the issue.

Something similar was tried before, but had problems you might wish to consider:

1) although teams were selected to argue each side based on volunteers for specific issues, when the debates were started -- many members and some entire teams failed to respond.

2) There was a whole outrage over the idea of "closed" debates. Several people complained to Moderation. The idea was merely that the teams for each side, the judge, etc. should be the main posters and others should have the courtesy not to litter the thread. No Moderator action to delete or forcibly close the thread was asked for (and the Mods indicated they would provide such help and were wary of the whole idea of even a voluntarily "closed" thread). Note: I'm going from memory here. I believe the Mods said they would allow the threads "for now." Some people posted in the threads merely to complain about being asked not to clutter the thread.

I'm not saying either of these things is prohibitive. Just sharing what I remember of a relatively recent similar attempt so that perhaps these problems can be anticipated and avoided.

I would certainly see Cat Tribe as being an impartial judge, and probably one with an excellent eye to detail and logic.

ty for the contribution. if u, me, and 3 others could be judges, that should work nicely..

I like the idea.

Depending on the issue and when the trial was held, I may be willing to present on either side.

I'd also be glad to be the judge. I am wickedly partisan/ideological when I argue, but I have some experience in judging mock trials/events. I can be impartial in simply maintaining order, etc. (Because I would likely not be perceived as capable of being impartial, I am probably not a good choice. I will take no offense at not being selected.)

I would definitely worry about your ability to stay out of arguments. You do seem very, very morally bound to a certain side of various arguments. Also, you would definitely be better at issuing evidence than most of the posters here, so I would rather see you arguing issues.

1) although teams were selected to argue each side based on volunteers for specific issues, when the debates were started -- many members and some entire teams failed to respond.

2) There was a whole outrage over the idea of "closed" debates. Several people complained to Moderation. The idea was merely that the teams for each side, the judge, etc. should be the main posters and others should have the courtesy not to litter the thread. No Moderator action to delete or forcibly close the thread was asked for (and the Mods indicated they would provide such help and were wary of the whole idea of even a voluntarily "closed" thread). Note: I'm going from memory here. I believe the Mods said they would allow the threads "for now." Some people posted in the threads merely to complain about being asked not to clutter the thread.

I'm not saying either of these things is prohibitive. Just sharing what I remember of a relatively recent similar attempt so that perhaps these problems can be anticipated and avoided.

Yes, that was Euroslavia's debate teams, right? Funny how attempts at structured discussion and debate get shot down in the opening stages on NS.

As for solutions, maybe someone or a couple of people can be appointed to present their side, and they can set up a discussion thread for people to formulate their arguments. When time for the trial comes around, another thread can be started that only the representatives and judge could post in.

There's a private forum I participate on that has the main debate thread reserved for the debaters and a separate spectator thread.

Bump