TL;DR: A proposal for formal debates in N&D, with possibility for rules governing these debates.

-----------------------------------------


There have been a few topics here that show up in multiple threads, or have threads with numerous replies. Since the majority of the board is left-wing, the "other side" often gets buried in the popular view. There are even cases where the majority philosophy is divided on an issue.

I think it would be a good idea to hold an occasional "formal debate," maybe monthly or bi-weekly if there is sufficient interest.

The idea for a formal debate (FD) centers around a statement of the majority opinion on a topic, with a representative from both sides who volunteer the time to put together a few formalized arguments. Their debate would be a locked topic stickied at the top of the News and Debate forum, with the News and Debate moderators posting replies PM'd to them by the two parties.

The debate will also include a "peanut gallery" (PG) thread, also stickied at the top of N&D. This thread will be unlocked and open to anyone except for the formal debators (to prevent the two from debating outside of the formal thread). At the debate's conclusion, the debators may answer questions in the PG thread.

The rules for the FD thread:

1. Setup. The debate may be created by any means, including:

a) A request sent to moderators by one or both of dissenting parties in a long informal discussion;

b) A popular request for a debate in a hotly contested thread, which should be PMd to a mod;

c) A moderator observing a popular or controversial topic and calling for formal debators.

In any case, a preliminary thread would be made (by one of the mods) and stickied asking for volunteers for both sides of the issue. Volunteers should be recognized as reasonable experts on the topic and reliable enough to post within the given time constraints. The moderators will make the final decision on the formal debators.

Once the formal debators have been chosen, here are some good rules for the FD thread (stolen shamelessly from the Internet Infidels message board and edited for the different nature of RM N&D):

1) "Official setup" of the debate. In the preliminary thread, the moderator needs to define the debate topic and what MAJOR points should be discussed and not discussed (i.e. a topic "Bush is a Bad President" should not dissolve into talking about oil tycoons, but rather stick to Bush and his policies). The moderator of the debate will review the submissions and submit them to the FD thread.

The mods will ask both parties for a good starting date, which should be within no more than a week of the creation of the preliminary thread.

2) Introductory Statements. (One day for each party) An introductory statement is presented by both sides, with the side agreeing with the debate presentation posting first, and the side opposing presenting second. Although the opposing sides may include arguements against their opponent's reasoning from previous threads, this statement should primarily focus on their own reasons for taking their stance. Word limit: 1500 words per post, including quoted material. The affirmative side will be called Round I, while the dissenting side will be called Round II.

3) Cross-Examination. (One day from the end of round II to present the questions; one day for each of the replies)

Round III: Affirmative side presents three questions. At least two of these must be relevant to the introduction. Dissenting side presents three answers to those three questions. Affirmative side presents three replies to the dissenting three answers.

Round IV: Dissenting side presents three questions. At least two of these questions must be relevant to the introduction (and not to information exclusively presented in Round III). Affirmative side presents three answers to those three questions. Dissenting side presents three replies to the affirmative three answers.

Round V: Affirmative evaluates cross-examination. Then, dissenting evaluates cross-examination (but not the Affirmative evaluation exclusively).

Questions have a 75 word limit for each one. Replies to questions have a 300 word limit toward each question (900 total). Evaluations have a 1000 word limit. Quoting counts against the word limit to prevent excess.

4) Conclusion. (Round VI, VII) (One day for each reply) The conclusion should be a summary discussing why the presented positions are believed to be incorrect. The Affirmative will post first, while the Dissenting will post second (therefore giving the Dissenting the advantage that the Affirmative had with posting the introduction first). 750 word limit.

5) Behavior. As far as behavior goes, posting guidelines for the FD thread should be within the restrictions posed in the Preliminary Thread (see above). Also, posting behavior in the FD should be regulated against personal attacks, in support of good grammar and logical structure, and sticking to the topic within a reasonable range of the word count limit.

References, including referring to quotations of original points made by other posters, should be encouraged and cited at the bottom of the post. Citing of references should not count against word limits.

Word count can go a little over if necessary, at the mod's discretion, but no more than 10% of the total normal word allowance. If it's generally considered at the beginning that the positions can't be properly stated within 10% of the wordcount guidelines, mods can adjust the rules in the Preliminary Thread as they see fit.

FD posters should refrain from posting in the Peanut Gallery or any other thread discussing their topic from the time between the declaration of the official FD thread and the time of the posting of the last conclusion.

"Teaming up" and discussing the issue with an FD poster is not allowed, as it falls under the "posting in threads with the same topic" rule. However, an FD poster may discuss with people of a like (or dissenting!) view via PM, chat, or some other forum/method of discussion. The two FD posters should not talk about the subject during the debate, although this of course can't be moderated.

6) Time limits and post moderation. When it is time for a poster to put up his post, the mod will send him a brief PM saying so. The poster will have 24 hours from the time of the PM to reply to the moderator. If the poster does not reply within 24 hours, he is determined to have left the discussion in forfeit. Of course if a position is submitted just a few minutes late it should not be subject to forfeit (see below).

If a poster is from a country outside the contiguous United States/Canada, that poster should be given 36 hours for his/her response should that poster request it.

The debate moderator should plan to be around within a few hours of the final submission deadline. If he does not plan to be around, another moderator should step in and check the posts for that part.

The moderator will read the post PM'd to him, and if the post doesn't grossly overstep the guidelines (i.e. personal attacks, horribly off-topic comments, too long, etc.) then the moderator should send the post back, and give the debator a one-time attempt to rewrite his reply with another 24-hour time limit.

A moderator should only send back a reply if it's in obvious violation of the rules; this isn't super-formal here. If a moderator can edit a few pieces, then he should; any poster in an FD thread should recognize that his post can possibly be changed. Under no circumstances should a moderator change a submitted post because he does not agree with the position or statement. Even the most idiotic statements should be allowed if they are not in violation of the rules.

Time limits may be extended at the discretion of the moderator. The FD poster should PM the moderator with how long he needs and his reason for needing it. Like word count, time limits should also be adjusted in the Preliminary Thread if the moderator feels that more time is needed to think about and research the position.

Time limits are determined by the timestamp on the PM sent by the moderator, and the timestamp on the PM sent to the moderator.

7. Forfeit. A user forfeits a formal debate if:

1. He passes over twice the time limit in one reply, or after the time limit but within twice the time limit in two replies;

2. He has more than one reply in a single turn returned to him by a moderator, or has more than three replies total returned to him;

3. He formally declares to a moderator that he does not wish to continue the argument;

4. He is banned;

5. He constantly discusses the issue in related threads during the ongoing debate.

A forfeit means the debate immediately concludes. At a moderator's decision, another member may continue the argument where the original FD poster left off. This member should be recommended by the FD poster himself, whenever possible. An FD poster who for whatever reason can't continue may recommend a replacement him/herself at the mod's decision.

I'd like to see some discussion on this, so please sticky if possible. Let me know what you think. I've worked on this for a few hours in my Spring Break time so hopefully it won't go to waste. I think it would be fun

Perhaps we could have a poll and see what everyone thinks.

TL;DR

Actually I read the first 1/2 or so, but the rules got boring.

I like this idea. I don't know if it needs to be held regularly, or just when a particular subject seems to warrant such a forum.

I think it's a good idea to do this every month, and to archive them like the interviews (with the header posts like the interviews explaining the rules, etc.). There's enough grist for that mill right now to keep it going for two years. I'm about to go to dinner, but I will return with some good topic ideas.

Can I get this stickied and polled?

i wish i'd read the tl; dr part before i'd read most of the post , but that aside, i think it's a good idea. does anyone have any suggestions for topics? i thought of a few right off the bat

i like the idea, i probably shouldn't participate, but who knows.

i'm just afraid it's gonna be a Leninflux v. RM.

I'd like to do this.

Possible Topics (the "affirmative" position is stated)
---------------------------

1) A personal God exists, and his Son Christ died and rose for our sins. (Stated positively due to logical progression, even though it's not the "majority position" here)

2) Global warming is real, and would not be currently happening if man did not exist.

3) Muslim violence is caused by political strife, and not by their fanatics' hatred for the Jewish race and American freedom.

4) Pot should be legal to buy and sell in small amounts, or in any amount. (Vs. outright illegality)

5) Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

6) Evolution explains the progression of life on Earth (as opposed to either Intelligent Design or outright Creationism)

7) Eating meat is morally wrong.

8.) One has the right to marry a member of the same sex.

9) American presence in the Middle East should end.

10) Large corporations such as Wal Mart, Microsoft, and McDonalds do humanity more harm than good.

11) The United States government should increase taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations.

12) Stem Cell research is beneficial to humanity.

I'm not stating my opinions here, merely saying whether i think it's a valid topic or not. and so on.

1) A personal God exists, and his Son Christ died and rose for our sins. (Stated positively due to logical progression, even though it's not the "majority position" here)

2) Global warming is real, and would not be currently happening if man did not exist. - I absolutely think we should have a debate on this topic, but i STRONGLY do NOT believe that debate should be centred around 'whether it is real or not'. the world debate has moved on; let's not be stuck in the past, please. may i suggest a debate on the solution/s instead?

3) Muslim violence is caused by political strife, and not by their fanatics' hatred for the Jewish race and American freedom.

4) Pot should be legal to buy and sell in small amounts, or in any amount. (Vs. outright illegality)

5) Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

6) Evolution explains the progression of life on Earth (as opposed to either Intelligent Design or outright Creationism)

7) Eating meat is morally wrong. - i'm tossing up between and changing the wording of this one; anyone have an idea?

8.) One has the right to marry a member of the same sex.

9) American presence in the Middle East should end.

10) Large corporations such as Wal Mart, Microsoft, and McDonalds do humanity more harm than good.

11) The United States government should increase taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations.

12) Stem Cell research is beneficial to humanity.

I think these work better. Number 8 I had particular problems with, but the others I just edited because I don't really think the opposing point of view needs to be decided prior to the debate. It sort of walls in the debater.

I'd love to be in on one of these.

What about illegal immigration?

I have a real problem with the Pentagon one. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that more of a whack-job-conspiracy theory topic, rather than something worthy of actual debate?
At least, I expect that's what the families of those who were on board Flight 77 would think.

Yeah ... very few here believe in the "conspiracy theory" side of things, and things get a little too hot whenever that topic and others, such as the moon and etc. come up. So replace the Flight 77 one with the debate over immigration, and revise the "gay marriage" debate to how PVW put it.

didn't know i was in the minority on this

Great idea Darrin

I love formal debates. This will ensure solid arguements rather than mindless bashing.

I'm all for it.

Does this mean no inappropriate jokes and funny pictures?

Does anyone remember waaaaay back in the day when I was an N&D neophyte when I started those Issues of the Week, or something like that? Except this idea is much more structured than what I came up with.

I probably won't be participating (I'm getting kind of N&D'd out right now), but the concept gets a thumbs up from me, Darrin.

A couple comments:

--I think #7 is being approached from the wrong angle. Arguing the morality is pointless because how people view the life of animals is based in belief, not facts. I think a better statement would be something like this: "Eating meat is harmful to human and ecological health."

--#1 suffers the same problem, to a lesser extent. I think if you took the Christian part of the statement out, it would function better.

--It might be tough to find people on this board for both sides of #1 and #8 (and maybe #4 unless Peeps is willing to participate. ). Overall, though, I think you did a good job in picking topics that tend to get plenty of debate on this board anyway.

I'd be willing to participate on #1 and #8. But I'm not into writing the 1500 word opening salvo.

You know guys, I don't think we really need to debate the phrasing of a dozen hypothetical future questions at this time. Believe me, by the time a debate actually begins, I doubt that any of the exact phrasings above will survive.

communism vs libertarianism

It's a limit. You can write 50 words if you like