Formal Debate Forum Poll

[asaratis]

Considering the proposed guidelines following the question, do you favor the installation of a Formal Debate Forum on USMB?

Proposed Guidelines:

Three sub forums:

• Challenges and Notices
• Debates
• Comments

In the Challenges sub-forum, members will propose a topic and seek a challenger. Open to serious replies from all members. Eventually, two members will agree to debate. Within this sub-forum, the two debaters agree upon a moderator, judges (usually three), rules, exact statement of the question and a start date. When the debate is started, the related challenge thread is closed. (Alternatively, Admin may choose to appoint a moderator to handle all formal debates. Since the debate threads will likely not accumulate anywhere near the rate of regular threads, this may turn out to be feasible.)

In the Debates sub-forum, only the two debaters and the moderator of that particular debate may post. Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over, the thread is closed. A debate ends when a) the agreed upon number of posts have been made and the judges have weighed in with their votes, or b) a debater defaults without forgiveness of the opponent and moderator, or c) other reasons considered sufficient by Admin to stop the debate.

In the Comments (or Kibitzers) sub-forum, anyone other than the debaters, their moderator and judges can post at anytime with comments concerning that particular debate (identical or similar thread titles). These threads remain open unless closed by Admin.

 

[Modbert]

It would never happen.

 

[asaratis]

It would never happen.

Already has....under a different label.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over

It should be limited to no more than 5 rounds, to prevent needless repetition.

 

[asaratis]

Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over

It should be limited to no more than 5 rounds, to prevent needless repetition.

Very popular these days is the 5/4 format. He who goes first goes last also. Often the Affirmative proponent starts. Depending on the agreed upon wording of the question, that person could be either for or against something.

Things like time limits, number of words limits, use of urls, who goes first and other things like those would be worked out in the challenge stage.

(I would not allow any urls at all. Every word posted should be from the debater or from a cut and pasted quote of a cited source....all words counting toward the agreed upon limit.)

(I would also not allow emoticons.)

 

[Xenophon]

Voted no.

 

[goldcatt]

I like formal debate, but this is not the place for it. When I've got a hankerin' for gettin' all highbrow, I know where to go.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Considering the proposed guidelines following the question, do you favor the installation of a Formal Debate Forum on USMB?

Proposed Guidelines:

Three sub forums:

• Challenges and Notices
• Debates
• Comments

In the Challenges sub-forum, members will propose a topic and seek a challenger. Open to serious replies from all members. Eventually, two members will agree to debate. Within this sub-forum, the two debaters agree upon a moderator, judges (usually three), rules, exact statement of the question and a start date. When the debate is started, the related challenge thread is closed. (Alternatively, Admin may choose to appoint a moderator to handle all formal debates. Since the debate threads will likely not accumulate anywhere near the rate of regular threads, this may turn out to be feasible.)

In the Debates sub-forum, only the two debaters and the moderator of that particular debate may post. Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over, the thread is closed. A debate ends when a) the agreed upon number of posts have been made and the judges have weighed in with their votes, or b) a debater defaults without forgiveness of the opponent and moderator, or c) other reasons considered sufficient by Admin to stop the debate.

In the Comments (or Kibitzers) sub-forum, anyone other than the debaters, their moderator and judges can post at anytime with comments concerning that particular debate (identical or similar thread titles). These threads remain open unless closed by Admin.

Thats too complicated. I've seen it attempted and it never works out. But feel free to try it again, maybe you can get it right.

 

[asaratis]

Voted no.

Do you understand that chickens shit?

I like formal debate, but this is not the place for it. When I've got a hankerin' for gettin' all highbrow, I know where to go.

I seldom visit US Law for Jabrones - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . There have been 6 threads started there since its inception. I venture there would be 600 threads started in such a forum as I propose within one month.

Can you share a destination by PM or are you just being coy?

Considering the proposed guidelines following the question, do you favor the installation of a Formal Debate Forum on USMB?

Proposed Guidelines:

Three sub forums:

• Challenges and Notices
• Debates
• Comments

In the Challenges sub-forum, members will propose a topic and seek a challenger. Open to serious replies from all members. Eventually, two members will agree to debate. Within this sub-forum, the two debaters agree upon a moderator, judges (usually three), rules, exact statement of the question and a start date. When the debate is started, the related challenge thread is closed. (Alternatively, Admin may choose to appoint a moderator to handle all formal debates. Since the debate threads will likely not accumulate anywhere near the rate of regular threads, this may turn out to be feasible.)

In the Debates sub-forum, only the two debaters and the moderator of that particular debate may post. Their postings continue until the debate is ended. When the debate is over, the thread is closed. A debate ends when a) the agreed upon number of posts have been made and the judges have weighed in with their votes, or b) a debater defaults without forgiveness of the opponent and moderator, or c) other reasons considered sufficient by Admin to stop the debate.

In the Comments (or Kibitzers) sub-forum, anyone other than the debaters, their moderator and judges can post at anytime with comments concerning that particular debate (identical or similar thread titles). These threads remain open unless closed by Admin.

Thats too complicated. I've seen it attempted and it never works out. But feel free to try it again, maybe you can get it right.

It would not be me. It would be us...as in USMessageBoard

 

[Xenophon]

Voted no.

Do you understand that chickens shit?

You are too new to know this has been discussed at length and the reason many of us think its a waste has been stated.

Feel free to dig up the old threads.

 

[goldcatt]

I like formal debate, but this is not the place for it. When I've got a hankerin' for gettin' all highbrow, I know where to go.

I seldom visit US Law for Jabrones - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . There have been 6 threads started there since its inception. I venture there would be 600 threads started in such a forum as I propose within one month.

Can you share a destination by PM or are you just being coy?

Your PM is in your inbox.

This forum just isn't set up for it. There are a few that are. Different strokes and all that.

 

[Modbert]

Your PM is in your inbox.

This forum just isn't set up for it. There are a few that are. Different strokes and all that.

Different strokes for different folks.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjX2MKaZ-rg]YouTube - Sly & The Family Stone - Everyday People[/ame]

 

[asaratis]

Voted no.

Do you understand that chickens shit?

You are too new to know this has been discussed at length and the reason many of us think its a waste has been stated.

Feel free to dig up the old threads.

New has nothing to do with it. For you to say that I am "too new" is boastful. I propose no new ideas. Adding a forum of any sort does no harm since no posters are required to visit any forum. Ignoring of forums happens continuously.

There is no need to think that such a forum would be required to be censored in any way. There is no need to attach the term "highbrow" to it. This is certainly not the site to be considered highbrow in any regard. Any poster would be welcome to use whatever words are chosen in arguing any point. The judges would decide who won the debate and the kibitzers could rant amongst themselves forever in the same fashion as occurs day-in/day-out in the The Flame Zone - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum .

Goody-Two-Shoes is not the intent. Logical, one-on-one debate with comments is the intent. Filling the broadband with information glut that attracts viewers to the commercial stage is the intent. Advertisers would pay big bucks to have nine thousand people read the record of your getting your ass waxed in a serious fuckin' debate....with no interruptions from the peanut gallery.

 

[Xenophon]

Its a bad idea.

 

[Modbert]

Its a bad idea.

Never mind the amount of moderation it would require.

 

[Xenophon]

Its a bad idea.

Never mind the amount of moderation it would require.

Or the idiotic concept that someone actually 'wins' on the internet.

 

[asaratis]

I like formal debate, but this is not the place for it. When I've got a hankerin' for gettin' all highbrow, I know where to go.

I seldom visit US Law for Jabrones - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum . There have been 6 threads started there since its inception. I venture there would be 600 threads started in such a forum as I propose within one month.

Can you share a destination by PM or are you just being coy?

Your PM is in your inbox.

This forum just isn't set up for it. There are a few that are. Different strokes and all that.

Thanks for the lynx. I repped you for them. I've been to two of the three. One sucks, the second is boring. Thanks for the third. Keep on strokin'! No jokin'! You're good folkin'!

You just got no balls. That's all.

 

[asaratis]

Its a bad idea.

Well, I guess your appeal to authority here settles it.

Its a bad idea.

Never mind the amount of moderation it would require.

Only the actual debates between two posters would need attention. The challenge threads and the kibitzers threads would be no different from what exists all over the site. The only restricted sub-forum would be the Formal Debates.

Its a bad idea.

Never mind the amount of moderation it would require.

Or the idiotic concept that someone actually 'wins' on the internet.

Coming from you, that is laughable!

I thought you knew better.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

(I would not allow any urls at all. Every word posted should be from the debater or from a cut and pasted quote of a cited source....all words counting toward the agreed upon limit.)

URLs to sources should be included in the 'sources' section at the bottom, IMO.

 

[FireGod]

Its a bad idea.

Never mind the amount of moderation it would require.

A PITA for admin to setup the first time or two, in reality pretty easily doable as only the debaters would be allowed to post in the debated thread (mods/admin get that automatically (yes I do know what I am talking about)).

*Off to digup old threads