Anyone want to have a formal debate? - Page 5 - Religion, God, and Theology

Zumby/Gangstaman seems like a good start. I have no idea what topics gangsta is interested in though, or anything about his beliefs in order to propose something that might work for those two. Maybe just the debate from the OP?

I would be interested in debating theism vs atheism on the problem of evil, the value of faith, or the general "is it reasonable to be religious" of the OP. I'd also be interested in debating any of the topics I had suggested before.

I'll second zumby vs gangstaman, Faith Is a Virtue

Quote

06-10-2013 , 03:10 AM

#102

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,571

Quote:

Originally Posted by BustoRhymes

Would we want to make it so a public poll determines the winner of each debate? Or should we have an anonymous moderator?

Public poll is good. Is one of the moderation options to make a thread have a poll but only make it available AFTER a certain amount of time?

Another way you can do it is survivor style. As in if you really get 16 people in a championship debate, the winner of a given debate is determined by votes of the other 14 people. But I somewhat doubt we will get that many structured debates happening.

Quote

06-10-2013 , 05:35 AM

#103

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeaucoupFish

I'll second zumby vs gangstaman, Faith Is a Virtue

I'm game if gman is.

Quote

06-10-2013 , 05:47 AM

#104

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 18,062

Quote:

Originally Posted by BustoRhymes

We could do more than one match up a week then. It'd be cool tho to do this tournament style. Three match ups a week. Might take a month and a half to finish, but there'd be some glorious lurking to do during that time.

Would we want to make it so a public poll determines the winner of each debate? Or should we have an anonymous moderator? I'd say OrP for that except we need him to debate.

I think a public poll to determine the "winner" is a poor idea. I think it is better that the debaters agree on a judge. Gentleman's agreement.

Quote

06-10-2013 , 06:13 AM

#105

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

I'm not sure the debates need judging at all. If they do I'd like a debate moderator though I'm pretty sure the names mentioned so far will be able to honestly evaluate how the debates go.

Given that zumby's agreed and ganstaman seems up for it I'd be very happy with that debate.

I don't use emoticons but if I did I may just post the popcorn one.

Quote

06-10-2013 , 07:32 AM

#106

ganstaman

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 11,123

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumby

I'm game if gman is.

I may have been bluffing this whole thing but I'll go along with it.

Quote

06-10-2013 , 08:24 AM

#107

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Suddenly very excited!!!

Quote

06-10-2013 , 12:54 PM

#108

All-In Flynn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 10,923

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

I think a public poll to determine the "winner" is a poor idea. I think it is better that the debaters agree on a judge. Gentleman's agreement.

This, mostly because a public poll will be an atheist landslide more or less regardless of performance.

Quote

06-10-2013 , 02:19 PM

#109

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Hmmm. I would think otherwise given the intelligence and objectivity of RGT regs, but since we could also expect a high degree of unknown lurkers to vote, you may have a point.

Quote

06-11-2013 , 02:45 PM

#110

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,571

That's why I kinda like the survivor style voting. It means that there are a) roughly an equal number of atheists and theists (or at least an equal number of those arguing for those sides) and b) all have a vested interest so you don't get any "lol debate between atheists and theist I vote my camp" type folks.

Quote

06-11-2013 , 05:17 PM

#111

jokerthief

No reason to get excited

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 4,765

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

I think a public poll to determine the "winner" is a poor idea. I think it is better that the debaters agree on a judge. Gentleman's agreement.

I think this is a good idea. I think the debaters should consider Original Position. He seems pretty evenhanded.

Quote

06-11-2013 , 09:33 PM

#112

DeuceKicker

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 5,359

If the plan is for multiple debates, what about a panel of judges?

Say, pick a pool of 5 or 7 judges, and 3 from that pool are chosen to judge each debate. This lets OrP avoid having to judge every debate

Last edited by DeuceKicker; 06-11-2013 at 09:38 PM.

Quote

06-11-2013 , 10:00 PM

#113

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,571

Incidentally, often the best part of the debate is audience questions. (And often the worst). This could also be answered by posters providing short questions and the debaters expected to respond to a few with short answers.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 12:59 PM

#114

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

^^^A+

I hope this happens. I really enjoy debates that allow time for thoughtful responses. I've heard some excellent debates from the Reasonable Doubts podcast where both sides would consider their opponent's statements, then take a few days to record their counterargument. I imagine the same would happen here. Even if the posters are kept to responding within 24 hours of each other, I'd expect much higher quality than if they had to immediately respond.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 01:05 PM

#115

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

Quote:

Originally Posted by BustoRhymes

^^^A+

I hope this happens. I really enjoy debates that allow time for thoughtful responses. I've heard some excellent debates from the Reasonable Doubts podcast where both sides would consider their opponent's statements, then take a few days to record their counterargument. I imagine the same would happen here. Especially if the posters were not allowed to respond in under 24 hours of each other, I'd expect much higher quality than if they had to immediately respond.

fyp

Quote

06-12-2013 , 01:10 PM

#116

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Ganstaman and I (and OrP when he next checks his PMs) have been discussing logistics in PM, just FYI to all. Hopefully will confirm format etc later this evening. Not had any discussion on post-debate judging so if anyone else has thoughts now is a good time to chime in.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 01:11 PM

#117

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

woot

Quote

06-12-2013 , 01:13 PM

#118

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Quote:

Originally Posted by fretelöo

fyp

You right, you right.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 01:36 PM

#119

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by zumby

I would favor a panel of posters, where the panel is given a set of criteria upon which to judge the debate. It will help make the judging "feel" more fair (not that it necessarily wouldn't be fair, but it would at least be appear less arbitrary). Knowing the criteria will also guide the debaters in their approach as well.

Regarding questions "from the audience" I think that the questions should be submitted to the debate moderator, who can then select the best questions. I think this will maximize the signal and minimize the noise.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 02:34 PM

#120

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 16,571

Riffing on the theme, perhaps the best option is to have questions posted in the companion discussion thread (with some easy for the moderator to find identifier) like "FORMAL QUESTION: _____________". Then proceed as per Aaron's suggestion, with a moderator selecting the best questions to pose in the actual debate thread. This way it widens the area for discussion amongst the observers as they can discuss and answer each others questions.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 06:10 PM

#121

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Agreed. We should also make sure that the moderator is secretly allied with one of the debaters. It wouldn't be a proper debate unless the moderator was feeding questions that favored their preferred side. Might also need to exercise mod powers to silence the opponent if they make any good points. Not banning, but ninja edits maybe? Let's think this through.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 06:19 PM

#122

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,078

sadly, mods cannot make ninja edits. I have some prior experience in this regard

Quote

06-12-2013 , 06:20 PM

#123

zumby

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 4,277

Righto.

We will be using the following format:

- Opening statements (1000 words max)
- 1st rebuttal (600 words max)
- 2nd rebuttal (600 words max)
- Closing statements (400 words max)

The topic is "Faith is a virtue". Opening statements will be posted on Monday with each round of rebuttals etc following around a day later. There will be a rail thread and moderated Q&A. We aren't especially interested in formal judging/voting, but if the forum wants it I'm sure you guys can work out a way to do it.

I think that covers most of the details, but still a few days for further suggestions or w/e.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 06:49 PM

#124

BustoRhymes

Grand Elf

Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 26,670

Could we go ahead and nit it up over definitions of the terms "faith" and "virtue"? I don't want to read 1k, 600, 600, and 400 words explaining to the other side that those words don't mean what they think they mean.

Quote

06-12-2013 , 07:00 PM

#125

fretelöo

Mean? Me?

Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 10,219

^+1, though, given that I'm currently proof-reading two dissertations simultaneoulsy, what harm can an additional 2.6k words of people talking by each other do, really.

Quote

Page 5 of 11

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 5 of 11

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Last