A Debate Challenge Board

[BluePhantom]

You know what would be really interesting is a board with a set structure for quick debates and maintain win/loss records. I get the Debate Now boards are there but I am thinking team structure, quick, to the point, make statements, and let voters decide the winner. Win/loss records are displayed on your profile or avatar somewhere.

So let's say I decide to challenge Derideo_Te to an "official sanctioned debate" on the topic of "Does the Bible have a positive or negative impact upon race relations in the Unites States" I am just brainstorming and pulling this off the top of my head. So he accepts the challenge and we each put together our teams. Let's say I put together a team of JakeStarkey, Meriweather, and myself and DT brings in two other posters that he is comfortable and confident in....say Sealybobo and Orogenicman just off the top of my head. Mods lock the thread so only participants can post.

We take turns posting arguments of no more than say 1,000-1,500 words one after the other. Each poster can make two posts in whatever order is determined by prior agreement. So say in this scenario, since I made the challenge I get the opening word and I must give the closing word to DT. So we decide on a posting order of:

Round One
Myself
DT
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman

Round Two
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman
Myself
DT

Once the posts are made, it's over. No more posting. Mods lock the thread and open up a poll for other posters to determine the winner. The poll stays open for a set period of time...say a week. Then it's locked and in the books and the winners and losers are determined. Win/loss records are updated and it's game, set, and match.

I think it's a pretty interesting idea if the mods can make it work with the software. Hey cereal_killer do you think this can be created? Think it has merit?

 

[DarkFury]

You know what would be really interesting is a board with a set structure for quick debates and maintain win/loss records. I get the Debate Now boards are there but I am thinking team structure, quick, to the point, make statements, and let voters decide the winner. Win/loss records are displayed on your profile or avatar somewhere.

So let's say I decide to challenge Derideo_Te to an "official sanctioned debate" on the topic of "Does the Bible have a positive or negative impact upon race relations in the Unites States" I am just brainstorming and pulling this off the top of my head. So he accepts the challenge and we each put together our teams. Let's say I put together a team of JakeStarkey, Meriweather, and myself and DT brings in two other posters that he is comfortable and confident in....say Sealybobo and Orogenicman just off the top of my head. Mods lock the thread so only participants can post.

We take turns posting arguments of no more than say 1,000-1,500 words one after the other. Each poster can make two posts in whatever order is determined by prior agreement. So say in this scenario, since I made the challenge I get the opening word and I must give the closing word to DT. So we decide on a posting order of:

Round One
Myself
DT
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman

Round Two
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman
Myself
DT

Once the posts are made, it's over. No more posting. Mods lock the thread and open up a poll for other posters to determine the winner. The poll stays open for a set period of time...say a week. Then it's locked and in the books and the winners and losers are determined. Win/loss records are updated and it's game, set, and match.

I think it's a pretty interesting idea if the mods can make it work with the software. Hey cereal_killer do you think this can be created? Think it has merit?

I saw a version of your idea on a site I server mod called "Thunder Dome". Battles could be epic and last for days. Members would vote either red dot or blue dot to call which group won.

It's a mod nightmare because rules tend to get broke but it's also a record buster for getting your on line activity rate up. And THAT means money.

 

[Pogo]

You know what would be really interesting is a board with a set structure for quick debates and maintain win/loss records. I get the Debate Now boards are there but I am thinking team structure, quick, to the point, make statements, and let voters decide the winner. Win/loss records are displayed on your profile or avatar somewhere.

So let's say I decide to challenge Derideo_Te to an "official sanctioned debate" on the topic of "Does the Bible have a positive or negative impact upon race relations in the Unites States" I am just brainstorming and pulling this off the top of my head. So he accepts the challenge and we each put together our teams. Let's say I put together a team of JakeStarkey, Meriweather, and myself and DT brings in two other posters that he is comfortable and confident in....say Sealybobo and Orogenicman just off the top of my head. Mods lock the thread so only participants can post.

We take turns posting arguments of no more than say 1,000-1,500 words one after the other. Each poster can make two posts in whatever order is determined by prior agreement. So say in this scenario, since I made the challenge I get the opening word and I must give the closing word to DT. So we decide on a posting order of:

Round One
Myself
DT
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman

Round Two
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman
Myself
DT

Once the posts are made, it's over. No more posting. Mods lock the thread and open up a poll for other posters to determine the winner. The poll stays open for a set period of time...say a week. Then it's locked and in the books and the winners and losers are determined. Win/loss records are updated and it's game, set, and match.

I think it's a pretty interesting idea if the mods can make it work with the software. Hey cereal_killer do you think this can be created? Think it has merit?

It looks good on paper.

But in practice, knowing this place, I fear the voting would all be partisan echoes of "whoever my usual ally is".

Now if you could maybe disguise the participants' names, so that only their arguments show... that is, so that no "side" can be identified...

 

[Tuatara]

We all know that people would vote with their political idealogy so I suggest that their should be 2 votes, one for one side of the argument and one for the other side of the argument. I like the anonymous part also.

 

[BluePhantom]

You know what would be really interesting is a board with a set structure for quick debates and maintain win/loss records. I get the Debate Now boards are there but I am thinking team structure, quick, to the point, make statements, and let voters decide the winner. Win/loss records are displayed on your profile or avatar somewhere.

So let's say I decide to challenge Derideo_Te to an "official sanctioned debate" on the topic of "Does the Bible have a positive or negative impact upon race relations in the Unites States" I am just brainstorming and pulling this off the top of my head. So he accepts the challenge and we each put together our teams. Let's say I put together a team of JakeStarkey, Meriweather, and myself and DT brings in two other posters that he is comfortable and confident in....say Sealybobo and Orogenicman just off the top of my head. Mods lock the thread so only participants can post.

We take turns posting arguments of no more than say 1,000-1,500 words one after the other. Each poster can make two posts in whatever order is determined by prior agreement. So say in this scenario, since I made the challenge I get the opening word and I must give the closing word to DT. So we decide on a posting order of:

Round One
Myself
DT
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman

Round Two
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman
Myself
DT

Once the posts are made, it's over. No more posting. Mods lock the thread and open up a poll for other posters to determine the winner. The poll stays open for a set period of time...say a week. Then it's locked and in the books and the winners and losers are determined. Win/loss records are updated and it's game, set, and match.

I think it's a pretty interesting idea if the mods can make it work with the software. Hey cereal_killer do you think this can be created? Think it has merit?

I saw a version of your idea on a site I server mod called "Thunder Dome". Battles could be epic and last for days. Members would vote either red dot or blue dot to call which group won.

It's a mod nightmare because rules tend to get broke but it's also a record buster for getting your on line activity rate up. And THAT means money.

Yeah it would be a bitch for the mods. The main problem I see is being able to lock the threads up to only allow access to people who are able to post. I don't know if that is even possible...perhaps it's easy. Who knows? It would be interesting though.

USMB could even advertise "the battle of the month" where posters voted on who they wanted to see go head to head in a challenge debate on a given topic. It would be interesting to me because it would get rid of the distracting side chat from other posters who troll and derail threads and because debaters would know they have a limited amount of words to make their argument, they would have to be concise and stick to the point. Better yet, resolution is gained according to a set limit and it doesn't drone on and on into side topic after side topic.

I think it would be great if it's not too much of a headache for the mods

 

[BluePhantom]

You know what would be really interesting is a board with a set structure for quick debates and maintain win/loss records. I get the Debate Now boards are there but I am thinking team structure, quick, to the point, make statements, and let voters decide the winner. Win/loss records are displayed on your profile or avatar somewhere.

So let's say I decide to challenge Derideo_Te to an "official sanctioned debate" on the topic of "Does the Bible have a positive or negative impact upon race relations in the Unites States" I am just brainstorming and pulling this off the top of my head. So he accepts the challenge and we each put together our teams. Let's say I put together a team of JakeStarkey, Meriweather, and myself and DT brings in two other posters that he is comfortable and confident in....say Sealybobo and Orogenicman just off the top of my head. Mods lock the thread so only participants can post.

We take turns posting arguments of no more than say 1,000-1,500 words one after the other. Each poster can make two posts in whatever order is determined by prior agreement. So say in this scenario, since I made the challenge I get the opening word and I must give the closing word to DT. So we decide on a posting order of:

Round One
Myself
DT
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman

Round Two
JakeStarkey
Sealybobo
Meriweather
Orogenicman
Myself
DT

Once the posts are made, it's over. No more posting. Mods lock the thread and open up a poll for other posters to determine the winner. The poll stays open for a set period of time...say a week. Then it's locked and in the books and the winners and losers are determined. Win/loss records are updated and it's game, set, and match.

I think it's a pretty interesting idea if the mods can make it work with the software. Hey cereal_killer do you think this can be created? Think it has merit?

It looks good on paper.

But in practice, knowing this place, I fear the voting would all be partisan echoes of "whoever my usual ally is".

Now if you could maybe disguise the participants' names, so that only their arguments show... that is, so that no "side" can be identified...

That's an excellent point. I like it. Otherwise it becomes partisan dog-piling or even worse...a popularity contest. I agree....anonymity is vital.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"You know what would be really interesting is a board with a set structure for quick debates and maintain win/loss records. I get the Debate Now boards are there but I am thinking team structure, quick, to the point, make statements, and let voters decide the winner. Win/loss records are displayed on your profile or avatar somewhere."

Snag is liberals will vote for liberal contestants and conservatives for conservatives – having nothing to do with the merits of the arguments – exactly as occurs now.

For such a format to be successful debates should be subject to the decisions of impartial, non-partisan judges using settled and accepted criteria as to what constitutes a successful argument.

In addition, liberals would be required to advance and defend conservative positions, and conservatives would be required to advance and defend liberal positions on the issues.

Now that would be challenging, interesting, and worthwhile.

 

[BluePhantom]

"You know what would be really interesting is a board with a set structure for quick debates and maintain win/loss records. I get the Debate Now boards are there but I am thinking team structure, quick, to the point, make statements, and let voters decide the winner. Win/loss records are displayed on your profile or avatar somewhere."

Snag is liberals will vote for liberal contestants and conservatives for conservatives – having nothing to do with the merits of the arguments – exactly as occurs now.

For such a format to be successful debates should be subject to the decisions of impartial, non-partisan judges using settled and accepted criteria as to what constitutes a successful argument.

In addition, liberals would be required to advance and defend conservative positions, and conservatives would be required to advance and defend liberal positions on the issues.

Now that would be challenging, interesting, and worthwhile.

Definitely an interesting twist. Can you imagine a debate between Ravi and PoliticalChic where Ravi is taking the conservative side and PolChic is taking the liberal side? I'd love to see it, but that would be really painful for both. On the other hand, it's a good exercise in walking in the shoes of the other side. It might actually contribute to finding common ground and reducing political polarization.

I can't imagine myself arguing in favor of higher taxation. Now for the sake of the exercise, if I was in that position I would argue for it to the best of my ability, but boy I would need a drink afterwards...and maybe a shower.

 

[Derideo_Te]

"You know what would be really interesting is a board with a set structure for quick debates and maintain win/loss records. I get the Debate Now boards are there but I am thinking team structure, quick, to the point, make statements, and let voters decide the winner. Win/loss records are displayed on your profile or avatar somewhere."

Snag is liberals will vote for liberal contestants and conservatives for conservatives – having nothing to do with the merits of the arguments – exactly as occurs now.

For such a format to be successful debates should be subject to the decisions of impartial, non-partisan judges using settled and accepted criteria as to what constitutes a successful argument.

In addition, liberals would be required to advance and defend conservative positions, and conservatives would be required to advance and defend liberal positions on the issues.

Now that would be challenging, interesting, and worthwhile.

Definitely an interesting twist. Can you imagine a debate between Ravi and PoliticalChic where Ravi is taking the conservative side and PolChic is taking the liberal side? I'd love to see it, but that would be really painful for both. On the other hand, it's a good exercise in walking in the shoes of the other side. It might actually contribute to finding common ground and reducing political polarization.

I can't imagine myself arguing in favor of higher taxation. Now for the sake of the exercise, if I was in that position I would argue for it to the best of my ability, but boy I would need a drink afterwards...and maybe a shower.

Hmmm! Good point, how would I argue in favor of lower taxation? That would be a stretch and it would mean ignoring all of the facts proving that it harms the nation. But I am willing to give it a try. I can already make a sound fiscal conservative argument in favor of contraception and higher minimum wages so I could probably come up with something that would work for lower taxes.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tis a training tactic is school already..............where some have to actually argue the opposite of their belief...................................

To go completely Liberal, you'd have to get all emotional on all matters and ignore the facts............tough job having to take that side of the equation.........................

 

[Pogo]

Tis a training tactic is school already..............where some have to actually argue the opposite of their belief...................................

To go completely Liberal, you'd have to get all emotional on all matters and ignore the facts............tough job having to take that side of the equation.........................

Actually you'd have to understand the distinction between the philosophical and the personal before you even start, so ....no.

 

[Tuatara]

Tis a training tactic is school already..............where some have to actually argue the opposite of their belief...................................

To go completely Liberal, you'd have to get all emotional on all matters and ignore the facts............tough job having to take that side of the equation.........................

There are many people on the opposite side of the political spectrum that bring up relevant points, that do their research and are quite reputable for being good debaters. I at least recognise this. Then there are those who spew out empty meaningless rhetoric like yourself.

 

[eagle1462010]

Tis a training tactic is school already..............where some have to actually argue the opposite of their belief...................................

To go completely Liberal, you'd have to get all emotional on all matters and ignore the facts............tough job having to take that side of the equation.........................

There are many people on the opposite side of the political spectrum that bring up relevant points, that do their research and are quite reputable for being good debaters. I at least recognise this. Then there are those who spew out empty meaningless rhetoric like yourself.

Realty according to ones own beliefs...................when someone disagrees it is empty meaningless rhetoric.....................If my view agrees with yours, then suddenly it isn't rhetoric......................

 

[eagle1462010]