A Great Debate?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Should we stage a Backroom debate on the following:

Resolved: A stronger federal government is better equipped to deal with domestic concerns than a government wherein power and decision-making is more diffused.

Affirmative: Red Harvest

Negative: Gawain of Orkeney


(Assuming we can get the agreement of the proposed participants)



Rules:

Once the thread starts, only the principals may post on that thread for a period of 48 hours.

At the conclusion of 48 hours, a second poll will be used to determine the winner.

The usual "strict" Backroom rules of decorum will apply for posts between the participants.

Seamus

[Marcellus]

I like the idea, but I would prefer a more 'international' motion, one that applies to non-federal countries more. Also, perhaps more people to each side? Two or three people, say.

[solypsist]

for every debate thread, we'd of course need a thread to comment on the debate. and another for a scoreboard.

btw, i'd be willing to do this kind of experiment, if Sir Clegane is game. if he gives approval, we can use this thread to put something together.

[Strike For The South]

Lets Do It

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

I'd definitely read something like that. I do agree, however, that the thread topic is a bit Ameri-centric. Interesting none the less, though.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Wow not only have I been volunteered but my answer has already been chosen for me. Its not as simple as that. Im sure a stronger federal government better equipped to deal with domestic concerns than a government wherein power and decision-making is more diffused. But what are we calling domestic concerns here? A stronger government means it can act more quickly. But is this what we want? I believe the constitution sought to find that balance between the two. I also believe that the Federal government has far more power now that the constituion allows for or that the founding fathers intended. The real question is just how much socialism should we allow and is there really anything in the constitution that gives the federal government the power to run such programs.

[Redleg]

Good idea - however to get full enjoyment out of it - it would have to be something that everyone can relate to.

Some possible topics - coming from previous threads.

Death Penalty as a form of punishment - Pro and con needless to say

Gun Control - this one is dicey to say the least.

Role of Government - A edit of what you orginial idea was. Focusing on how much involvement does the government need in caring for its citizens. THe Social Democracy method of Europe verus the Individualistic Republic of the United States.

Then you would need a simple scoring system based upon

content of arguement - style of arguement. Have the moderators pay close attention to the posts to provide negative scoring on arguements that are soley emotional appeal. Just a few simple things.


Also the debate should be main along the lines of a real debate.

1st Round Main Thesis - with a limit of words - and number of links allowed. Only allowing quotes of linked sources that are limited to specif information not more then three sentences and graphs as needed.


2nd Round - Rebuttal of two points of the oppenents thesis - must have a number of words limit

3rd Round Rebuttal of one of the oppenents rebuttal - again the number of words needs to be limited

For a total of three posts by each debator.

[Pindar]

Master Seamus,

I think this is a good idea. Formal debates can always be fun. I would suggest that instead of a time limit the debate should be limited to a set number or posts. Perhaps three per Pro (P) and Con (C) for example:

P - Argument
C- Objection

P- Rebuttal
C- Response

P - Conclusion
C - Conclusion

A separate moderated thread with a poll is also fun. I would have this open only after the debate had finished so the full spectrum of argument is provided and any commentary from viewers does not influence the participants.

[Pindar]

=
Then you would need a simple scoring system based upon

content of arguement - style of arguement. Have the moderators pay close attention to the posts to provide negative scoring on arguements that are soley emotional appeal. Just a few simple things.


Also the debate should be main along the lines of a real debate.

1st Round Main Thesis - with a limit of words - and number of links allowed. Only allowing quotes of linked sources that are limited to specif information not more then three sentences and graphs as needed.


2nd Round - Rebuttal of two points of the oppenents thesis - must have a number of words limit

3rd Round Rebuttal of one of the oppenents rebuttal - again the number of words needs to be limited

For a total of three posts by each debator.

Seems we had similar ideas. I should have read your post.

I don't think a strick rule of arugment is necessary. Readers can decide for themselves whether silly stances are relevant and what counts as silly.

[Kagemusha]

Sounds like a wonderfull idea.Me thinks there should be away for any patron to challence another patron in this kind of formal depate.

[solypsist]

Idaho and Redleg, steel cage, LET'S GO

[Papewaio]

It is often interesting to get the debators to debate on the side of something they (appear) to be opposed to ...

[Devastatin Dave]

Sounds like a good idea, only if Soly doesn't pile up warnings on the persom whom's opinion he disagrees on.

[Redleg]

Idaho and Redleg, steel cage, LET'S GO

No steel cage for me - I prefer the desert floor or is it the dessert tray. Your pick Idaho - Peach Cobbler at 10 meters sounds good to me. Winner gets to have his with Ice Cream.

[Redleg]

It is often interesting to get the debators to debate on the side of something they (appear) to be opposed to ...

That is actually the best way to do have such a debate. Or the topic is randomly assigned along with pro or against arguement.

[solypsist]

you're close to ruining this thread with your unneccessary sniping. keep it on topic.

Sounds like a good idea, only if Soly doesn't pile up warnings on the persom whom's opinion he disagrees on.

anyway, we're all still waiting for the other backroom mod to say good idea or bad.

[Devastatin Dave]

That is actually the best way to do have such a debate. Or the topic is randomly assigned along with pro or against arguement.

So then would we have a poll on what the topic is and then another poll on who is will debate the "for" arguement and who will debate the "against" arguement? Or shall it just be randomly chosen, maybe we can elect a debate president who will choose the grudge match participants, if they are willing of course...

[Devastatin Dave]

Oh and one more idea, the winner will earn the title of "Master Debator".

[Red Harvest]

I've never been in any sort of official debating contest before. Boxing matches, yes, debating, no. I have no idea how to score debates.

The topic seems a bit broad (though Americentric), perhaps that breadth is normal? I'm more federal in approach and believe in central govt, but part of that is *efficiency*. 50 (or 51) differing systems (and bureaucracies) to do the same thing is maddeningly inefficient/wasteful/redundant to my engineer hardwiring. (Yes, I realize that an overly large organization can create new levels of inefficiency or be out of touch as well.) I'm all for regional adjustments and appropriate autonomy, but within a framework. What is important is where should the boundary be? And of course, as Gawain has pointed out, there is the concern of strong central (or state) govt. vs. individual liberty. The most efficient system is a well run benevolent enlightened dictator...but such leaders are hard to find and they system falls apart rather quickly, it has no sustainability.

In general, I find it more interesting to have a mix of responses from different people with more diverse backgrounds. You can never be sure when a particular member is going to have something enlightening to add, or first hand knowledge, or well directed passion to give a subject a full airing.

[Red Harvest]

Oh and one more idea, the winner will earn the title of "Master Debator".

Why do I get the feeling that is going to be contracted rather quickly...

[Bartix]

It is often interesting to get the debators to debate on the side of something they (appear) to be opposed to ...

Then they must be motivated to show off skills, or they wil be saying

I am stupid person with silly opinion! look at me!

or in some less obvious way be loosing debate

[Adrian II]

Why do I get the feeling that is going to be contracted rather quickly...

Exactly my sentiment, brother Red Harvest.
I don't care for such 'debates' at all. They get bogged down in nit-picking and obsessive dictionarism. I think it is a very bad idea.


'Objection, Your Honour!'

[Ser Clegane]

Sounds like a very interesting idea to me.

I like the idea of having this somewhat formalized in a way like Redleg and Pindar suggested (this might also help to avoid the excessive "nit-picking" and "dictionarism" Adrian is referring to).

I see no reason why we shouldn't try something like this - might turn out to be a new approach to discussions that could be done more often if the interest of patrons is there (and we could the try out variations like "team debates" or argueing for the opposite)

If the thread somehow doesn't work out - well it's not like we are investing money here to set it up.

So if we have a topic and two participants, I would say let's just go ahead

Thanks for bringing up this idea, Seamus

[Adrian II]

I like the idea of having this somewhat formalized in a way like Redleg and Pindar suggested (this might also help to avoid the excessive "nit-picking" and "dictionarism" Adrian is referring to).

LOL. That would only make it worse because we would have a parallel procedural meta-debate (whip out your Websters, guys) as well. It is a recipe for lethal boredom.

I know I should find a nicer way to put this, particularly because I value Seamus Farmanagh's contributions to this forum very highly and I hate to contradict him.

It is just that I think this is one very bad idea. I will shut up now and let nature run its course.

Sorry Seamus, I will make it up to you some time.

[Ser Clegane]

LOL. That would only make it worse because we would have a parallel procedural meta-debate (whip out your Websters, guys) as well. It is a recipe for lethal boredom.

Of course it might get boring.

If it does - so what? It's not that we would temporarily shut down all other Backroom discussions and force everybody to watch the "duel", so I see hardly any risk involved here, except perhaps some disappointment that things did not quite turn out as hoped.

If it does not get boring -

[solypsist]

well okay so right now it's a go.

people need to agree and realize that a debate thread would have its own set of guidelines beyond that of the forum rules.; this is why i was waiting for SC to reply.

if we can agree to that, let's move forward. just work things out and let one of the staff in here know when you're ready so we can be around to support the process, etc.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well now.....

Clearly the idea is growing beyond my original point -- a healthy thing.

Teams might be a good idea, but I'd limit it to 3 per side in the interest of focus.

I am not married to the resolution suggested -- I simply put it forward as a springboard since so many of our discussions involve the strong central v diffused government theme (I attempted to keep the language neutral enough to avoid Amero-centrism, though I clearly didn't hit the mark full.

Since the vote shows clear support for the idea but suggests improvements, how about the following:

1. Have Red H and Gawain function as captains and pick their teams (using PM's as needed to coordinate/screen). Members need to be published prior to the start of the debate.

2. Have members submit resolution ideas (as with Redleg's post) in this thread on or prior to Monday 9am U.S. Eastern Daylight; I'll screen these down to 10 possible and then put out a poll to determine the choice for the debate.

3. Adopt Redleg's framework (a touch less formalized than Pindar's though same concept), modified to allow all three per team to participate (but this will control the post process a notch). I would propose a 1k word limit per debater (any graphic counts as 50 words, no limit on smilies) in the opening statements, then 500 each for the rebuttals. Posts should be in following order.

A1, N1, A2, N2, N3, A3 [all completed in 6 hours or less]; One Hour must elapse.
nA, aA, aB, nB, aC, nC [all completed in 6 hours or less]; One hour must elapse.
a2, n2, n3, a3, n-capt., a-capt [all completed in 6 hours or less].

4. I would nominate AdrianII as my "debate procedural" referee, since his attitude of "don't let this bog down in debatese minutae" is PRECISELY on target for this forum (and no offense taken Ad', consider this your "punishment" . [Note: who'll volunteer as an alternate for this role if Adrian ends up on a debate team, or tells me (politely) to go stick my head in a pig?] This might be almost duty free, or require judge's notes to be posted with the victory poll.

5. Cleggy and Solly are correct as to the need for a commentary thread for viewers to vent as well as the poll thread to determine winner. I thank them for their support for the concept thus far. And what game did you get the cheesy cage match graphics from? Looks almost as pixeled as my old atari Adventure game. As moderators, we're asking them for a bit more than average focus on these threads if things get ^%$&^$y, so it is appreciated.

Thoughts?

Seamus

[Adrian II]

4. I would nominate AdrianII as my "debate procedural" referee, since his attitude of "don't let this bog down in debatese minutae" is PRECISELY on target for this forum (and no offense taken Ad', consider this your "punishment" .

I must gracefully decline the honour since I am not even sure I will be online over the coming days, let alone next week. As stated, I will refrain from further unsportsmanlike behaviour. Have at 'em on the top of the wave, Mr Fermanagh, but not before we can spot the whites of their eyes!

[Byzantine Prince]

*sigh* A great debate eh?

Well I voted yes because I want to bet on who is better at lying, but I guess whichever side wins it will be decided by the mob... errr... I mean orgahs.

[Geoffrey S]

Sounds like an intriguing idea. There are a number of members here who have proven to be excellent at debating, and it could be interesting to see what happens when they're focused on a particular topic without things devolving into anarchy or pointless details. As Adrian said the problem could be a decline into nit-picking, but hopefully contestants will refrain from such things if the entire forum is watching. This could also be avoided with a strict set of rules with regards to who posts when, and how long a post may be.

Why do I get the feeling that is going to be contracted rather quickly...

We're not that childish, surely...