A couple of problems with standard debate threads are at the end of this post. So to skip on past that, what are moderated debates?
Well a moderated thread is one in which there is a specific list of debaters, arranged beforehand. There will also be a volunteer moderator. Posts will be first submitted to the moderator who will then either post them in place of the debater or they will return them with a list of changes that need to be made according to the following requirements.
Assertions must be cited
A return to a previous topic may only occur if new data has been found
The general SDMBer must be able to understand your topic (clarity of writing)
An even mix of offense and defense. Your posts should neither ignore your opponent, nor should they be nothing more than questioning and nitpicking every thing they have said.
New posts will not be added to the debate until they fulfill these requirements.
So, firstly I’m looking for topics that people would be interested in seeing discussed and/or volunteering to debate such a topic (please state your position on the debate.) Personally, I’ve lamented the infeasibility of debating whether responding to global warming would be worthwhile, so I offer that as one topic. Another would be reviewing different universal health care systems from around the world.
Problems meant to be solved by the moderated debates:
Signal to noise. For every well-reasoned post, there’s likely to be eight or ten others that aren’t really contributing much of interest and are generally lacking in hard data.
Repetition. Many threads end up circling over the same nitpicks at length. Sometimes one poster keeps bringing things back to the same point. Othertimes, people join the topic late without reading through what has already been said.
TLDR. Because of the previous two issues, many threads end up being much longer than need be.
Threads devolving to the lowest common denominator. Educating the least bright and most insistent poster becomes the point of the thread rather than continuing on to more advanced areas.
Nah, I don’t think there should be problems with keeping to format, so real SDMB moderator involvement shouldn’t be necessary, just everyone voluntarily keeping to format.
I brought up this idea in ATMB a few years back, and I don’t recall any mod/admin protests against it. Of course, winds change, so it might not be a bad idea to check again.
You should have a companion thread for running commentary, kibutzing, side conversations, etc. The debaters should be discouraged from even reading the commentary thread (and certainly from posting in it).
I’ll volunteer to help out either as a contributor or as a moderator. My only caveat is that the topic be something I find interesting, such as a Constitutional issue or other topic with some objective points. I’d probably opt out of any debates about near death experience, ghosts, aliens, what is Art?, or is there a God? Just let me know.
Proposed: A forum for more structured debates should be implemented.
The Pro side will go first, with a statement, followed by the con side. Each side will be then allowed to provide rebuttal arguments addressing the points made by the other position. After that there will be a round of direct questioning by each side of the other and the final statements, with the Con side having the discretion to go first or second.
We even gave it a try in the primary season with the Mock Elections but interest petered out unfortunately. I think this is a great idea. Just get a better moderator than me to run it.
I look forward to reading and maybe participating.
I’ve thought about those problems you are trying to address and this idea seems good.
In addition, I’ve thought it would make sense to periodically recap the state of the debate as follows:
Points that are either facts or that are agreed upon
Points that are either disputed facts, opinions, or conclusions that are not agreed on
It seems like debates meander around and goods points made earlier in the thread can be lost later on. With a recap, it might be easier to realize where the debaters are in agreement and where they are not.
People who have said they would like to debate, please state what topics you would be interested in or what side of things you are on on a few topics that you often contribute to.
I’ll do anything relating to stem cells, human cloning and abortion (I’m generally in favor of reducing restrictions on all three across the board). I could be convinced to pick up evolution as well (it should be taught to the exclusion of all other theories and is wholly consistent with available data in its modern form), but I know for sure that there’s other more knowledgeable posters on that subject. Anything else biological as well.
This seems like something better suited to a LiveJournal or DeadJournal account, where the debate moderator would have true control over the threads. IME, you can’t stop someone from posting in a thread they’re supposed to stay away from.
I like the idea of a team debate format, where members of each team collaborate to structure their arguments, find citations, provide access to academic journals, etc. In fact, I might start looking into a way to do this on LJ or DJ.
Will the moderator have the authority to prevent or purge posts not voluntarily conforming to the rules?
If not, I volunteer to argue that it won’t work. Nothing more juicy for an Ignorant than chiming in because everyone else is following the rules and remaining silent.
If so, I think it would be a good idea. I wonder if moderating such a format would not become a full-time 24/7/365 job, though.
