Proposed format for moderated debate on the forum

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Proposed format for moderated debate

1) a) The side arguing for the proposition (Side A) shall post first.
Side A shall post an introduction that shall state the proposition they will be defending and five points that they will argue in defense of the proposition. One post in length.

1) b) The side arguing against the proposition (Side D) shall post next.
Side B shall post an introduction that shall state how they shall be arguing against the proposition and five counter-arguments they will argue against the proposition. One post in length.

2) a) Side A will present point 1. One post in length.
2) b) Side D will present counter-point 1. One post in length.

3) a) Side A will present point 2. One post in length.
3) b) Side D will present counter-point 2. One post in length.

4) a) Side A will present point 3. One post in length.
4) b) Side D will present counter-point 3. One post in length.

5) a) Side A will present point 4. One post in length.
5) b) Side D will present counter-point 4. One post in length.

6) a) Side A will present point 5. One post in length.
6) b) Side D will present counter-point 5. One post in length.

7) a) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) b) Side D will defend. One post in length.

7) c) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) d) Side D will defend. One post in length.

7) e) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) f) Side D will defend. One post in length.

8) a) Side A will present their summary. One post in length.
8) b) Side D will present their summary. One post in length.

A) Should Side A or Side D wish to point out logical fallacies made by their opponent, they will do so during when of their scheduled posts and the pointing out of the logical fallacy does count towards their total post length limit. Their opponent will then receive one post, in addition to their scheduled posts, to defend themselves against the accusation.

B) A separate thread shall be started for the peanut gallery to comment as they see fit.

C) Each side will have one week from the time their opponent posts the immediate previous point to respond. Failure to do so, or failing to notify the thread moderator of extenuating circumstances preventing responding, will result in forfeiting the debate.

D) Only Side A and Side D may post in the moderated thread.

E) Images will be posted as links to hosting sites (photobucket, vbhost, etc) and shall not make use of in-lining.

F) References to external sites may only be used as source citations; the relevant portion must be quoted in the post and counts towards the total post length.

 

[qarnos]

This sounds fair to me. Ergo, TS will not accept.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

It'd be good to have a set of standard rules for when people want to have a debate.

Truthseeker10W40 would never go for it though.

 

[Cylinder]

No "just asking questions." Either make a claim of STFU.

 

[Orphia Nay]

I can't see TruthSeeker1+2=4 following instructions, even if he would agree.

That's a good format for debate, Arkan, should we find any deniers capable of keeping to a topic.

One point, however...
"A) Should Side A or Side D wish to point out logical fallacies made by their opponent, they will do so during when of their scheduled posts and the pointing out of the logical fallacy does count towards their total post length limit. Their opponent will then receive one post, in addition to their scheduled posts, to defend themselves against the accusation."

I don't agree with that last bit, as it could be taken advantage of. That's like being rewarded and given more air time for making fallacious remarks. They should only be able to defend their fallacies in their scheduled defence posts, IMHO.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Silly question, why A & D? Why not A & B?

 

[qarnos]

It'd be good to have a set of standard rules for when people want to have a debate.

Good point.

Although other CTists will no doubt demand special changes or concessions (before not going through with it anyway), much like the JREF challenge.

Silly question, why A & D? Why not A & B?

There is a reference to a "Side B" early on, but then nothing... [cue X-Files music]

 

[LashL]

Silly question, why A & D? Why not A & B?

My guess - and it's only a guess (see, unlike CTers, skeptics know enough to preface the comments that they make without having actually conducted research to find the answer with the appropriate proviso) is that Side A = Assertion and Side D = Dissenting view, and that the reference to side B was an inadvertent typo.

I could be entirely wrong with my guess, of course, and (again, unlike CTers), I will gladly admit it if that's the case.

 

[quixotecoyote]

This sounds like a really fun format. As the op didn't specifically invite Truthseeker 1234, I'll nomitate myself for a round if we can choose a different topic. I'd love to play with this in a religious or political topic (you get a better quality of debate than CT's). The only things I'd change would be to eliminate the fallacy rule, shrink the 1-week response time to 1-2 days and to specify post length.

If anyone can come up with a decent topic and feels like a structured debate just for the heck of it, PM me

eta: (or just post). Also, if anyone's put off by my newbie status, I normally hang out at forum.darwinawards.com and you check out my posts over there. As an aside, I'm spending more time here than there now

 

[LashL]

As to the proposed format, it sounds fair and reasonable. However, the week long window for a response to a single post seems a bit lengthy in light of the additional provision for allowing an appeal to the moderators for extenuating circumstances. While I certainly understand why that length of time might be required given the realities of our real lives, I wonder whether there shouldn't also be some provision in place that would restrict, for instance, one of the parties to the debate from starting multiple threads about the same subject matter as the open and unanswered post while said post remains open and unanswered.

I say this because I can envision BS1234 entirely ignoring the post to which he is supposed to respond for days on end while simultaneously starting all kinds of threads about the very same issue, in hopes that JREF folks provide him with all of the sources and arguments that he hasn't a clue about....

I'm not suggesting that the debators should be precluded from posting on other threads while awaiting a response, but just saying that given BS1234's behaviour, some kind of additional proviso such as that stated above, might be worth considering.

 

[Hutch]

I would also suggest that the Title of the thread and perhaps the First Sentence of the opening post define the topic of the debate.

Truthseeker at least did us the courtesy of settling on a specific topic and wanting to debate it, rather than the discussions we have had that will end up ranging all over the CT-world.

To use the old High School debate thing, start it off RESOLVED: "That WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed due to a combination of airplane crashes and fire" or something like that, where the limits of the debate are spelled out and anyone straying is going to be called on it.

 

[Oliver]

Proposed format for moderated debate

1) a) The side arguing for the proposition (Side A) shall post first.
Side A shall post an introduction that shall state the proposition they will be defending and five points that they will argue in defense of the proposition. One post in length.

1) b) The side arguing against the proposition (Side D) shall post next.
Side B shall post an introduction that shall state how they shall be arguing against the proposition and five counter-arguments they will argue against the proposition. One post in length.

2) a) Side A will present point 1. One post in length.
2) b) Side D will present counter-point 1. One post in length.

3) a) Side A will present point 2. One post in length.
3) b) Side D will present counter-point 2. One post in length.

4) a) Side A will present point 3. One post in length.
4) b) Side D will present counter-point 3. One post in length.

5) a) Side A will present point 4. One post in length.
5) b) Side D will present counter-point 4. One post in length.

6) a) Side A will present point 5. One post in length.
6) b) Side D will present counter-point 5. One post in length.

7) a) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) b) Side D will defend. One post in length.

7) c) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) d) Side D will defend. One post in length.

7) e) Side A will present defense against counter-points 1-5. One post in length.
7) f) Side D will defend. One post in length.

8) a) Side A will present their summary. One post in length.
8) b) Side D will present their summary. One post in length.

A) Should Side A or Side D wish to point out logical fallacies made by their opponent, they will do so during when of their scheduled posts and the pointing out of the logical fallacy does count towards their total post length limit. Their opponent will then receive one post, in addition to their scheduled posts, to defend themselves against the accusation.

B) A separate thread shall be started for the peanut gallery to comment as they see fit.

C) Each side will have one week from the time their opponent posts the immediate previous point to respond. Failure to do so, or failing to notify the thread moderator of extenuating circumstances preventing responding, will result in forfeiting the debate.

D) Only Side A and Side D may post in the moderated thread.

E) Images will be posted as links to hosting sites (photobucket, vbhost, etc) and shall not make use of in-lining.

F) References to external sites may only be used as source citations; the relevant portion must be quoted in the post and counts towards the total post length.

And what about the senseless discussions in here?

Why talking about senseless things that don´t change anything?

EXAMPLE:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1942879&postcount=19

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

My guess - and it's only a guess (see, unlike CTers, skeptics know enough to preface the comments that they make without having actually conducted research to find the answer with the appropriate proviso) is that Side A = Assertion and Side D = Dissenting view, and that the reference to side B was an inadvertent typo.

I could be entirely wrong with my guess, of course, and (again, unlike CTers), I will gladly admit it if that's the case.

Pretty close, I was thinking Affirmative and Defense, but whatever. And yes, the B was a typo.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I can't see TruthSeeker1+2=4 following instructions, even if he would agree.

That's a good format for debate, Arkan, should we find any deniers capable of keeping to a topic.

One point, however...
"A) Should Side A or Side D wish to point out logical fallacies made by their opponent, they will do so during when of their scheduled posts and the pointing out of the logical fallacy does count towards their total post length limit. Their opponent will then receive one post, in addition to their scheduled posts, to defend themselves against the accusation."

I don't agree with that last bit, as it could be taken advantage of. That's like being rewarded and given more air time for making fallacious remarks. They should only be able to defend their fallacies in their scheduled defence posts, IMHO.

Well, that sword cuts both ways. My thinking is this. If person1 accuses person2 of a fallacy, then that is the way that person1 is choosing to argue their point. Now, we could force person2 to use their rebuttal response to address that. But, oftentimes defending against the logical fallacy accusation can take more space than the accusation itself and then we run the risk of getting out of the point-counterpoint format. If person2 goes beyond defending themselves against the LF accusation, it will be apparent and pointed out in the peanut gallery I'm sure.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

As to the proposed format, it sounds fair and reasonable. However, the week long window for a response to a single post seems a bit lengthy in light of the additional provision for allowing an appeal to the moderators for extenuating circumstances. While I certainly understand why that length of time might be required given the realities of our real lives, I wonder whether there shouldn't also be some provision in place that would restrict, for instance, one of the parties to the debate from starting multiple threads about the same subject matter as the open and unanswered post while said post remains open and unanswered.

I say this because I can envision BS1234 entirely ignoring the post to which he is supposed to respond for days on end while simultaneously starting all kinds of threads about the very same issue, in hopes that JREF folks provide him with all of the sources and arguments that he hasn't a clue about....

I'm not suggesting that the debators should be precluded from posting on other threads while awaiting a response, but just saying that given BS1234's behaviour, some kind of additional proviso such as that stated above, might be worth considering.

Seems reasonable. I really like the 7 day window, as it encourages thought out responses that have been edited/revised before posting. It would be good to encourage the debate participants to refrain from posting in other threads on the same topic of the debate thread.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I would also suggest that the Title of the thread and perhaps the First Sentence of the opening post define the topic of the debate.

Truthseeker at least did us the courtesy of settling on a specific topic and wanting to debate it, rather than the discussions we have had that will end up ranging all over the CT-world.

To use the old High School debate thing, start it off RESOLVED: "That WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed due to a combination of airplane crashes and fire" or something like that, where the limits of the debate are spelled out and anyone straying is going to be called on it.

Yes, and the participants should use their introductory post to also clearly define any terms that they may use that could be disputed. Ex. in an evolution vs. ID debate I would define evolution as the Darwinian theory of evolution and make it clear that it does not include abiogenisus in the scope of the debate.

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

I agree with the commentor who pointed out that logical fallacies could be injected to generate more air time. I find the exclusion of pictures to be a biased tactic. It's excluding relevant evidence. Yes, we can link to a picture, but that's sort of like reading somebody's deposition rather than having the witness actually appear. It's not as effective.

Still, if there is actually a courageous person out there who will advocate the positive case, I will take the other side. The resulting document can still republished with pictures and videos on other sites. As long as we have an agreement that the resulting document is public domain, I'm in.

Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by a combination of impact damage and fire.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

I agree with the commentor who pointed out that logical fallacies could be injected to generate more air time. I find the exclusion of pictures to be a biased tactic. It's excluding relevant evidence. Yes, we can link to a picture, but that's sort of like reading somebody's deposition rather than having the witness actually appear. It's not as effective.

Nothing is being excluded. It can be linked. Everyone can go see it. You can reference it. But it is not in the body of the post. It applies equally to both sides. How is this biased?

Still, if there is actually a courageous person out there who will advocate the positive case, I will take the other side. The resulting document can still republished with pictures and videos on other sites. As long as we have an agreement that the resulting document is public domain, I'm in.

Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by a combination of impact damage and fire.

Normally it is the side that is advocating a change from the status quo that makes the proposition. In your example it should be Resolved: WTC 1,2, and 7 were brought down by X where X is not "impact and fire damage".

 

[chipmunk stew]

I agree with the commentor who pointed out that logical fallacies could be injected to generate more air time. I find the exclusion of pictures to be a biased tactic. It's excluding relevant evidence. Yes, we can link to a picture, but that's sort of like reading somebody's deposition rather than having the witness actually appear. It's not as effective.

You can post images. Save a local copy, then host it using VB Image Host (link is up top on blue bar), or use Quick Upload (link is below Smilies in post editor)

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Normally it is the side that is advocating a change from the status quo that makes the proposition.

Yes. The status quo is that impact damage and fires do not cause steel framed skyscapers to completely collapse into shredded steel and dust, considering this has never happened in over 100 years of engineered steel. Proponents of the official 9/11 theory are proposing a change from the status quo, such that it would now be possible for steel framed skyscrapers to do exactly that.