I was doing some ruminating on some of the debates we have here. The forum description states this is the place for “long-running discussions of the great questions of our time.” I was thinking of the number of debates which have stalled out, or outright died becuase one of the major participants was called away, or their time to research/post restricted, by RL obligations. Often this leaves challenges to assertions unanswered even though the answers may well have been extremely insightful and informative for the group as a whole. I recall a couple of times when I myself was in the middle of a debate and RL restrictions limited my time to the point where I was effectively out of the discussion. There were other participants who continued it for a bit, but not with the same angle as I was approaching it. I’ve seen this in other debates as well and I had a bit of a brainstorm.
What if we encouraged tag-team debates? (example inspired by a recent thread) Say Poster A is engaging in a debate on the effectiveness of certain social programs. They make an assertion on the historical effects of these programs but without citations, thinking it to be common knowledge or self-evident. Poster B challenges the assertion and asks for citations and logical justifications for the assertion. Poster A has restrictions on their time which prevent digging through the type of historical data(reams of census reports, reports on the program’s status in each era, etc) but the assertion itself could prove pivotal to the debate. The assertion hasn’t been proven or disproven, but will likely fall by the wayside, not because of lack of merit, but because of lack of advocacy. Other participants are advocating their own interpretation of the issue, but Poster A’s insights remain ineffectively explored.
My proposal: A semi-formal request structure which would allow the transition of advocacy for a particular proposition from one poster to another. The new advocate would be, in my suggestion(the name is open for discussion) an “Angel”. In the example above Poster A could have said “I don’t have the time to dig through the data for citations on the effectiveness of Social program X, but I believe research would show it alleviated condition Y to some degree. Any Angels out there willing to do the research for me?” Someone with some free time on their hands could fill the role of “Angel” and provide the citations and some relevant commentary. Anyone who called for an “Angel” should consider themselves honor bound to return the favor at the next opportunity. One need not be an “Angel” for the same poster who was an “Angel” for them. If Poster A calls for an “Angel” and Poster B performs the role of “Angel” in that debate then Poster A can discharge their debt of honor by being an “Angel” for Poster C, D, E, etc.
In all actuality this isn’t an uncommon occurance right now. Tons of this type of torch-passing occurs every day. A poster will make an assertion, another poster will question it, and a third poster will provide evidence or logical support for the assertion. If an OP includes some snippet of a news source or other medium and someone says “Cite?” and a poster other than the OP locates the article and creates a link, this is exactly the type of thing I’m talking about except without the request structure. An “Angel” would typically be more involved than a simple cite request. Something requiring a fair bit of work to support would be a candidate for an “Angel” request. Still it could keep debates from petering out based upon limitations of the participant’s time as opposed to the merits of the actual arguements.
Obvious case for concern would be making a outright stupid OP and then immediately begging for an “Angel” to support rediculous assertions. Of course no one is obligated to be an “Angel” and “Angel” requests for outrageous assertions need not be honored, but good-faith debate should be able to survive the restrictions on any single participant. Far too often, in this forum at least, it seems not to.
Enjoy,
Steven