Nominate yourself for a one-on-one debate with TruthSeeker1234

[Loss Leader]

You know, we think Shmendrick1234 is in New York. I could arrange for him to debate Gravy (or other New Yorker) in front of a high school social studies class - winner decided by vote of the students - and the whole thing video-ed and put up on the web.

 

[chipmunk stew]

1) The idea interests me, but I don't think the terms are spelled out at all.

2) How is airtime regulated? Who gets what amount of ink?

3) When is an issue "settled"?

4) What are the time parameters?

5) How would it be any different than what's happening now?

6) 9/11 is so deep and so wide, should we break it into narrow topics, or not?

1) You, of course, have a say in spelling out the terms. I can propose some things based on input from this thread, but of course any participants would have to agree to them.

2) I propose, first off, that a moderator be agreed upon. This person would be a minor participant whose job is to help the debate stay on topic, coordinate the transition from one topic to the next, and flag any violations of agreed-upon rules.

I propose that the participants take turns posting, with no artificial limit on the length of a post.

3) I propose that an issue is "settled" when:

• One side concedes the point, or
• The participants reach a consensus that the point is at an impasse, or
• The moderator (with input from the participants and the peanut gallery) declares that concession or consensus are unlikely, or
• One side concedes by technicality (see point 4)

4) I propose that the debate last no more than four weeks (or some other time period to be determined).
I propose that each participant has no more than 24 hours to respond to his opponent's last post. Failure to meet this limit shall result in a technical concession of the point.

5) This would be a formal(ish) debate with rules backed by mutual agreement. The topics would be narrow, the discussion would be contained in a single thread, and participation would be limited.

6) Definitely narrow topics. I propose that topics be collected on a separate thread, and the moderator (with input from the participants and others) presents the topics to the participants in the debate thread one at a time, alternating between one side and the other.

7) Additionally, I propose that the two main participants be given the opportunity to nominate a proxy to argue a given topic before discussion on that topic begins. If a participant finds a willing proxy who is not a member of this forum, the topic shall be deferred until after the proxy has completed the registration process, in order to keep the debate moving.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Would you want this thread to be formally moderated (i.e. every post has to be approved by a moderator before it goes public)?

The plus side--no one but the agreed upon debators can post.

The down side--posts will have to wait for a mod to see them.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Would you want this thread to be formally moderated (i.e. every post has to be approved by a moderator before it goes public)?

The plus side--no one but the agreed upon debators can post.

The down side--posts will have to wait for a mod to see them.

Personally, I'd say no. Ideally it could be self-policed. But it would ultimately be up to the participants how formal they'd want to get with it.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

I would recommend starting two threads. One for the actual debate and one for the popcorn-eaters.

 

[chipmunk stew]

I would recommend starting two threads. One for the actual debate and one for the popcorn-eaters.

Good idea.

 

[Stellafane]

I would recommend starting two threads. One for the actual debate and one for the popcorn-eaters.

Funny thing is, if TruthSeeker so much as shows up for the debate, it'll be the best performance ever for a CTist on this board.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Funny thing is, if TruthSeeker so much as shows up for the debate, it'll be the best performance ever for a CTist on this board.

Considering how low our expectations have been driven down, this in itself might easily be mistaken for a win.

 

[T.A.M.]

I agree two threads.
I also say not limit it to Truthseeker1234. I say any of the visitors may throw down the gauntlet, and any challenger may take it up, but once it has been decided, no other may do so.

For instance:

Truthseeker wishes to debate "controlled demolition" versus accepted theory. several people wish to accept the challenge, but they agree amongst themselves that JREFer X is the best person for the job.

Oliver wishes to debate the "Missile hit the Pentagon" topic. same thing occurs as in first example.

Personally I am not debating with them anymore, so I am out, but I would love to be in the silent peanut gallery.

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

There would certainly have to be a way that each side got the same amount of ink. Ink means words. Space. The online equivalent of equal time. There would need to be a debate structure. Something like a statement, a rebuttal, questions, answers, switch sides, statement , rebuttal, questions, answers,

something like that.

On this forum, we already know that approximately 100% of the members will decide that I "lost" and the other side "won". That's OK, I'm not bothered by that, science is not a democracy. Once upon a time, 99% of people were certain the earth was flat.

I am confident that what would emerge is a document that I would be very proud of, and I suspect that many of you feel the same.

 

[WildCat]

There would certainly have to be a way that each side got the same amount of ink. Ink means words. Space. The online equivalent of equal time.

Write all you want, why limit a response?

 

[greyleonard]

There would certainly have to be a way that each side got the same amount of ink. Ink means words. Space. The online equivalent of equal time.

Ok, how about if we agree that you get no more than 30% more ink than your opposition?
Personally, I don't think ink is an issue. More likely than not, "more ink" means some irrelevancy - non sequitur or red herring - are involved. I'd bet your opposition will probably tend to keep things on point and not ramble.

 

[greyleonard]

I agree two threads.
I also say not limit it to Truthseeker1234. I say any of the visitors may throw down the gauntlet, and any challenger may take it up, but once it has been decided, no other may do so.

I'm afraid that might detract from the attempted formality of the debate.
I'd agree if the different subject challenges were kept in the popcorn thread.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Write all you want, why limit a response?

I agree. Write all you want. The only limit is the forum software, which only allows (I think) 10,000 words in a post.

 

[Dog Town]

On this forum, we already know that approximately 100% of the members will decide that I "lost" and the other side "won".

Have you learned nothing in your time here? Prove your point, you will be seen as such! Good luck! You'll need it!

 

[T.A.M.]

I'm afraid that might detract from the attempted formality of the debate.
I'd agree if the different subject challenges were kept in the popcorn thread.

Yes I agree, perhaps a seperate "Challenge" thread where subjects can be thrown out, and debaters can be selected or offer themselves for said debate. The debate thread itself should only be accessible, from a posting pov, by debaters and arbitor.

TAM

 

[greyleonard]

Yes I agree, perhaps a seperate "Challenge" thread where subjects can be thrown out, and debaters can be selected or offer themselves for said debate. TAM

Exactly - the "audience" should be roped off to protect the referee's safety. The way you've described it also allows for new-topics to get their due respect in their own thread at a later date. Which brings up another point. edit: which chipmunk stew already brought up. duh. /edit
Maybe there should be a time limit (in hours) for posting replies and one for the entire debate itself? It may help to add a sense of urgency ... and drama.

 

[T.A.M.]

Exactly - the "audience" should be roped off to protect the referee's safety. The way you've described it also allows for new-topics to get their due respect in their own thread at a later date. Which brings up another point. edit: which chipmunk stew already brought up. duh. /edit
Maybe there should be a time limit (in hours) for posting replies and one for the entire debate itself? It may help to add a sense of urgency ... and drama.

lol...the referee isn't who I was worried about. If we are going to have a chance of seeing any of the CTers come in here, than we have to show them that we will back off and let them battle one person at a time. Unlike over at DU, where you can easily feel ganged up on when you go there as a debunker, I would like to see a format where the CTer feels he can express himself without being ganged up on...wait, did I just say that.

TAM

 

[fuelair]

Soliciting volunteers for a one-on-one debate with TruthSeeker1234.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1919180#post1919180

NO, NO NO HELP MEEEEEE!!!!!!!!! (dragged offstage to debate TS)....

 

[greyleonard]

I would like to see a format where the CTer feels he can express himself without being ganged up on...wait, did I just say that.TAM

lol
I agree.