I understand a little better what you’re trying to do and I think there is some merit to it. I agree the threads need to be labelled in some way so that participants understand what’s happening. This might help us broaden our topic base a little and get us out of our post-election funk.
How formal do you want to get with this? Full debate team mode with rules, even teams? If you take that route, you could announce a topic and get teams signed up in advance. Or just keep exploring the less formal route you already started?
Absolutely. I thought initially you were saying that they shouldn’t worry about people deliberately arguing shittily as a way to discredit a point of view. It seems that’s not what you’re saying, though, so cool beans.
/I/ think the critical difference is originality. I’ll be clear: I don’t mind trolling if it’s a new and original proposition that excites new and original arguments. Even if /your/ motivation is only to stir up argument, the argument stands or falls independent of your motivation.
What I don’t want to see is another meaningless argument about Trump, or Clinton, or George S. or Israel. Or “So’s your old man.” Or “The same to you, with knobs on it.” I’ll read new content on old subjects (if there is such a thing), but I don’t want to just see the old arguments re-hashed: I’ve got Google for that. /Inviting/ that kind of argument is an anti-social act.