True Debate Variation

[pdog]

I really like the idea of these true debates - finally content driven towards my purpose of joining the site (learning) rather that back and forth hyperbole and unsubstantiated shlock. However, might I propose one slight variation? I saw a moderators warning about posting arguments in the discussion thread during the debate and thought that rule might be an interesting one to omit in some debates. Could some of these debates actually have a support thread where the two participants can rely on the help of fellow posters? In such a debate, I believe it would make the debate a little more about the topic instead of the two people. I realize when questions of character or knowledge occur between two people, this rule is exactly what gives the two people the pistols-at-ten-paces environment that they are looking for. However, with the rule eliminated, it may create incredibly complete posts that people will refer to for a very long time - ie, the row v. wade or the brown v. BOE of debatepolitics.com

 

[Fisher]

You could start a thread in another forum and debate the issues with a wider audience. My concern is that the point-counterpoint way these things are shaping up have the potential to derail substantive arguments anyway, and to put more people into it, would kind of make that even worse. I am a fan of simple "introduction--make your case, respond to your other person's position, and then conclude as opposed to well let's say some stuff, argue about it, then say some more stuff and argue about, etc.

 

[pdog]

You could start a thread in another forum and debate the issues with a wider audience. My concern is that the point-counterpoint way these things are shaping up have the potential to derail substantive arguments anyway, and to put more people into it, would kind of make that even worse. I am a fan of simple "introduction--make your case, respond to your other person's position, and then conclude as opposed to well let's say some stuff, argue about it, then say some more stuff and argue about, etc.

I see it going exactly the way the true debates are going now - A thread limited to two participants. Like the current format, there would a parallel thread for discussion. However, unlike the current format where posting arguments for use by the debaters is forbidden, this format would allow it. More like team debating - the captain still makes all the decisions on the debate, but has a team providing him with research to support possible assertions. It still has the control of just two people but might have the support that would normally be found over 60 pages between random partisan blurbs in a regular thread.