I'm your man!

I also understand Justin is still working on that part of the form and he wanted me to help him al little with it. So I'd give it a little more time.

sounds interesting. theology in philosophy seemed to be a hot topic. (e.g. http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/philosophy-religion/1171-problem-religious-philosophy.html )

How complicated would it be to have teams?

Would we implement debate rules?

Dan.

Those sound like good ideas. I am going to await Justin for a moment though. He is taking his time reseaching debates at first, then wants to discuss some options/rules and after that open the debate subforum. I bet it is going to take a nice bit of work moderating too.

Anyway, I think Justin has in mind that the debates should contribute something to everyone who wants to know more on a subject; all posts should contribute something to the discussion. If you have some good ideas on the matter, there is a nice topic for that:

Debates are in progress. We are going to be setting up organized debates with rules and much more. I'm researching all areas of debates and forum debating in an organized fashion. Right now not sure about the team thing but there are going to be a couple forums set up for this. One will be a debate organization forum where members can call other members into a debate. We'll schedule the debate and the members debating will be allowed a response within a certain time frame. The debates will go X number of rounds with a summary to close it off. We're going to want narrow topics with supporting information etc.

Looks like it is going to be kind of fun.

i'd like to have a debate - but i'm right about everything! iconoclast.

I might as well just restate what I said before on the previous thread about the debate forum - we could just have an "organized debate" with an admin or mod starting the debate thread and giving certain rules that the debaters agreed upon - i.e. there will be personal arguments, then refutations, then rebuttals, and then conclusions, each debater will have 24 hrs to respond to their opponent's last post.

So the format would look something like this:
Person A - Opening Statements
Person B - Opening Statements; Refutation
Person A - Refutation; Rebuttal
Person B - Rebuttal
Person A - Conclusion
Person B - Conclusion

Of course, the order could be varied somewhat and limits on length could be given.

But whatever Justin can find will probably be better, I'm just speaking about what I've seen previously.

All these suggestions are helping. Tuesday I'm going to be putting some more time into it. Thanks for all the input. I think it's going to be both fun and educational.

I'd be thrilled to debate Didymos Thomas on the role of government in the economy (philosophy of economy).

Can I be the third wheel on the wagon?

Are not DT and KK already engaged in debate of the american economy? further, is there a specific proposition upon which opposite points of view can be adopted? For this reason suggest moral, existential or epistemological question... where a dichotomy of opinion might be debated if X is right/exists/is true or not??? to be fair though i must admit i'm already engaged in such debate. iconoclast.

I take all challenges. If you have a claim, I'll do my best to destroy it.

To be honest, KK, I'm not sure we disagree that much. PM me with whatever claim you want to begin with, and I'll let you know if I disagree enough to debate it. Unless you just wanted a devil's advocate - I'm down for that, too.

Dear All, If the debate is to be a test of rhetorical force, knowledge and philosophical coherence, rather than a rehashing of old debates - with no end in sight, shouldn't the question and the position to be defended be set for A and B, by C - with C acting as impartial judge? iconoclast.

I object on the grounds that C would be a moderator and I am not one.

Sounds interesting...

If you have opening statements limited to a paragraph per person, this would limit the amount people could say, force people to be more precise, and make it harder in general. Anything over a paragraph would be deducted from the final score percentage.

The actual exchange in debate would operate under the same rules, say a paragraph or so. The rules to be determined, though common debate procedure seems best. Say, if one argument requires more than a paragraph of explanation, a person can ask to deliver further testimony. It is the choice of the opponent to allow it or deny it. Debate formality is also a wise thing to uphold as well. Also, a time limit is a MUST.

It would also be wise to limit the number of arguments for a position, as an argument could go on for a long time. More arguments given than the limit would necessitate a percentage deduction from the overall score or disqualification.

The overall score should consist of two polls. I'm sure these widgets are easy to construct. One poll would be for regular members and another for administrators (the administrators (or appointed judges) weighed 70% and than the regular members at 30%)

What I have experienced in debates that is most problematic is that the rules are unwritten. There has to be a constructed document stating what the rules are and provisions for each instance with the approval of the administrators that can be cited and clearly read to legitimately overrule or protect ones interest. (As a side note, I'd be more than glad to formulate a debaters bill of rights if the need be.)

Justin, I believe this debate was your proposal, and that you are a moderator, yet you haven't contributed for ages. I find myself waiting for an authoritative decision on the suggestions i and others have made - and speaking for myself, would happily submit to your judgement in these matters. iconoclast.

A debate is being worked on. Takes some setting up and lots of time for the rules and basic organization of the debates. I've also been very busy with other things. I do read all the comments on here and have started the process. Everything is being taken into consideration and the debates are going to come soon. There's going to be an interesting twist to these debates though that are somewhat hush hush for the moment until everything is organized.

I hope to have more time to spend on the structure and organization of these debates shortly.

Justin, My impatience is unforgivable, forgive me. iconoclast.

No worries. Videcorspoon makes a good point about having the rules written very clearly. This is something that needs to be done to have a successful succession of debates. I know everyone wants to debate... yesterday. There are some more pressing issues right now with the search in the forum not working that has to be dealt with. Hope to get this resolved soon so we can start the debates. I'll PM Videcor about that bill of rights as well. Than you all for participating in this discussion. You know, we could start out debating about debates... LOL.

Quite honestly, I don't have a lot of time to engage in a formal debate now, besides what me and Didymos are already debating in other threads. And yes, I do realize we probably agree to more than we know.

Arjen would be more than welcome to join.