Quote Originally Posted by Sigurd View Post
You mean like a formal debate setup?

How would there be a ruling on this debate and which other limitations would you implement? (e.g. number of rounds)
Are both contestants going to open with an affirmative position?
I do not think a ruling is possible in this case. I don't even think a ruling would be a good idea. The question has such a big implication on peoples life that a "X scored 2 points" isn't really viable. However, everyone can of course read it and see what they themselves think. We could set the time limit at 15 posts each (30 posts all in all, or about a month in time). With a possible extension if both parts feel there is more to add.

A post would look (after the opening)

*reply to anything yet unsettled
* reply to last post
* new question



I think the easiest would be for one poster to open. Not with a huge rant though, but with ONE short question. The other side can then answer it elaborately and come with a new question of his choice. After this the first poster can then elaborate on his own initial question.

That way no side has an advantage in the opening, and we will avoid loooooooooong opening rants trying to cover everything.

Am more than ready to let the other side choose if they want to open up or not, so def not trying to get some strategical advantage. Will most def do my best to make it fair :)