NationStates Jolt Archive

The title is actually a misnomer, as I foresee no debating. But, who knows?
With all of the discussions of politics, religion, current events, and boy bands, arguments invariably occur on this forum. However, there aren't really any organized debates. There are rules that have to be followed, but nothing controls how long one side can speak, what the style should be, etc. Before reading any further, let me assure you I don't want what we have now to end; I think it's great. But I also thought it would be fun to have a thread organized as a structured debate (not this one). Here are the pros and cons I see:
PROS:
-Both sides will be more balanced, at least in quantity.
-There will be a more continuous thread, instead of some people arguing, some people just replying to the OP, and some people making wisecracks.
CONS:
-Almost all the threads have at least one reply that's just a joke. Some are annoying, but some are actually funny and can even lighten the mood. A debate thread wouldn't really allow these.
-Structure does not imply content will improve, and we may just have instead of a pile of a dirt, a skyscraper (I'll have to work on that metaphor a little).

This being the democratic forum that it is (and me having no power to enforce something anyway) I wanted to hear what people think about this, and what ideas for rules you have. The one I like is here (http://flynn.debating.net/genguide.htm), but obviously any existing rules would have to be changed anyway, because this is an internet forum.

EDIT:After leaving this thread, I'm going to apologize in advance for not coming back to it, as I am about to go on vacation.

C'mon, no jokes?

PROS:
-Both sides will be more balanced, at least in quantity.
-There will be a more continuous thread, instead of some people arguing, some people just replying to the OP, and some people making wisecracks.
What's wrong with wisecracks? :(

<snip>

You're serious? You expect too much of us, also even if you can get a serious debate going, how do you plan on keeping it that way?

a debate can't be serious when half the group is naked!

I would love it, but few on this forum have a clue what the difference is between argumentation and debate.

Can we debate about baked potato vs. mashed potato?

In before master debater and cunning linguist.

Who determines "quality"? (...which side?)

I support this very much, and would like to see an end to the enormous chain posts in the usual discussion.

It is my position that black people can't swim.

Would anyone like to disagree?

Eh? The hell is this supposed to be, policy debate? NEVAR!!!

It is my position that black people can't swim.

Would anyone like to disagree?

*swims across ocean to your house* Yes.

Debate...how about let's bitch about how Paris Hilton got off to early! That's news, right?







Right?
*Sarcasm*

Who determines "quality"? (...which side?)

"Quality" is overrated. :) Quantity before quality. Overwhelm your opponent with ad nauseum circular logic then backtrack and smack 'em over the head with an ad hoc attack that adds nothing to the debate, followed by a by of partisan rhetoric that doesn't answer a single thing. *nods*

"Quality" is overrated. :) Quantity before quality. Overwhelm your opponent with ad nauseum circular logic then backtrack and smack 'em over the head with an ad hoc attack that adds nothing to the debate, followed by a by of partisan rhetoric that doesn't answer a single thing. *nods*

Like I said, the hell is this supposed to be, policy debate?

Like I said, the hell is this supposed to be, policy debate?

If you have to ask then you phail at debating. You're supposed to be psychic and guess the topic and damn well hope you're right. ;)

*swims across ocean to your house* Yes.

You used water wings, didn't you? *looks suspiciously*

I haven't left yet, so I will answer some concerns:
First, I don't want this to replace the normal discussions; I just wanted to see if anyone was interested in something different. If we can work out a system on this thread, than anyone could begin a debate thread with a title like "DEBATE: Should US Withdraw From Iraq?" and have a structured debate in that thread. There could also be parody threads ("DEBATE: Should US Withdraw From North America?") like there are now.
Second, I wasn't outlining any particular system in my initial post. I was hoping that could be done here.
Finally, I make no promises about quality. One of the "pros" was the quality might improve, but that's no guarantee.

Here's an example of what I think a debate thread could look like:
OP: Should the US withdraw from Iraq?
Affirmative gets three posts (from different people) to say why it should.
Negation gets to ask six questions (two in each post)
Affirmative answers questions
Negations gets three posts to say why US should stay.
Affirmative gets to ask six questions (two in each post)
Negation answers
Affirmative rebuttal (three posts)
Negation rebuttal (three posts)
Concluding statements from each side (two posts each)
Resolution (I don't know, we agree on something, or agree to disagree, to just have smiley emoticons to show we're all friends)

This is just an example, it's not even one I would agree on. But we can decide something like this, and then carry it out in specific threads.

My friend, There are alot of serious debate sites out there. This is NSG, the core game that inspired it isn't all that serious.:p

I haven't left yet, so I will answer some concerns:
First, I don't want this to replace the normal discussions; I just wanted to see if anyone was interested in something different. If we can work out a system on this thread, than anyone could begin a debate thread with a title like "DEBATE: Should US Withdraw From Iraq?" and have a structured debate in that thread. There could also be parody threads ("DEBATE: Should US Withdraw From North America?") like there are now.
Second, I wasn't outlining any particular system in my initial post. I was hoping that could be done here.
Finally, I make no promises about quality. One of the "pros" was the quality might improve, but that's no guarantee.

Here's an example of what I think a debate thread could look like:
OP: Should the US withdraw from Iraq?
Affirmative gets three posts (from different people) to say why it should.
Negation gets to ask six questions (two in each post)
Affirmative answers questions
Negations gets three posts to say why US should stay.
Affirmative gets to ask six questions (two in each post)
Negation answers
Affirmative rebuttal (three posts)
Negation rebuttal (three posts)
Concluding statements from each side (two posts each)
Resolution (I don't know, we agree on something, or agree to disagree, to just have smiley emoticons to show we're all friends)

This is just an example, it's not even one I would agree on. But we can decide something like this, and then carry it out in specific threads.

I stand by my original question.

I stand by my original question.
Not necessarily. Policy debate is what I'm used to, but you could easily apply its structure to something like "Is the iPhone worth the wait?" or "Should I Buy a Saturn or a Honda Civic?"

Not necessarily. Policy debate is what I'm used to, but you could easily apply its structure to something like "Is the iPhone worth the wait?" or "Should I Buy a Saturn or a Honda Civic?"
Will I have to explain how buying a Civic will lead to global nuclear war?

Will I have to explain how buying a Civic will lead to global nuclear war?
You don't have to. But if you think it will, and have evidence, you are welcome to.

No the troops shall and wil stand:mad:

Here's an example of what I think a debate thread could look like:
OP: Should the US withdraw from Iraq?
Affirmative gets three posts (from different people) to say why it should.
Negation gets to ask six questions (two in each post)
Affirmative answers questions
Negations gets three posts to say why US should stay.
Affirmative gets to ask six questions (two in each post)
Negation answers
Affirmative rebuttal (three posts)
Negation rebuttal (three posts)
Concluding statements from each side (two posts each)
Resolution (I don't know, we agree on something, or agree to disagree, to just have smiley emoticons to show we're all friends)

This is just an example, it's not even one I would agree on. But we can decide something like this, and then carry it out in specific threads.

Sounds like authoritarian nonsense to me.

Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a hundred schools of thought contend.*




* ...and, yes the irony is not lost on me.

No it isn't!

(How am I doing?)

This is just an example, it's not even one I would agree on. But we can decide something like this, and then carry it out in specific threads.

"This is just an example, it could be something much better..."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=i_Maji6nXtg

Will I have to explain how buying a Civic will lead to global nuclear war?

Dude you realize how easy that is:

Buying a civic = more pollution = global warming = environmental destruction = global nuclear war.

Come on man think like a policy debater. (This is all coming from a LDer btw)

Sounds like a good idea to me, I often go the Union at my uni to listen to organised debates, with both serious and comedy motions. Problem is, how could it be enforced unless we had a moderator present the whole time and the contestants all agreed to be online for a set time one evening with prepared speeches.

Poll has been added.

Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a hundred schools of thought contend.

There's certainly no shortage of fertiliser on these forums. ;)

To the OP: Sounds like a good idea, but I don't think 'teams' would be a good idea. 1 vs. 1 is the best format.

The idea seems fun.

I support this very much, and would like to see an end to the enormous chain posts in the usual discussion.The potential rules that New Limacon suggested would help reduce those chain posts, so that might work, yes.

Would anyone like to change the rules in any way?

-There will be a more continuous thread, instead of some people arguing, some people just replying to the OP, and some people making wisecracks.
CONS:
-Almost all the threads have at least one reply that's just a joke. Some are annoying, but some are actually funny and can even lighten the mood. A debate thread wouldn't really allow these.


In a place like this, full of phail, doomed.
Doomed.

Nice sentiment though.
*wipes tear from eye*

It is my position that black people can't swim.

Would anyone like to disagree?

Ever see a functional swimming pool in the projects?