I've watched numerous debates on television, the presidential debates all the way down to local government and school board debates on public access, and no matter the quality of the debaters, I've always felt that our fellow Hatrackers could tear them to shreds, or at least sound smarter being wrong ( ). I would love to organize a series of debates, only two Hatrackers (per single debate) participate in the actual debate, though spin-offs would be welcome, and a few ground rules as to responses set up, similar to network debate rules (though we get more than an hour here ).
Would anyone else be interested in a series of great debates here at Hatrack? My personal feeling is to steer clear of the more discussed issues that have been done to death (gay marriage, abortion, etc...) but still make each debate about something we as Hatrackers care about. That could be either more abstract issues (a systems of government debate for instance) or a more concrete debate (when should be pull out of the war in Iraq, though that may violate my first rule up a paragraph).
Hobbes Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Hobbes, I think it's a great idea! You think about doing it by forum or by using some chatroom to keep the "live" perspective?
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
Suggested rules:
1. Hobbes, as the originator of the thread, will select the topic.
2. Each "side" will have 1 day to choose their "contender." This will be done by every candidate declaring their intention to be a debator, and writing a short, 300-word maximum essay on their position. The debators will be chosen by vote.
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Will a Moderator be needed? If so I I'm your man.
Posted by Judas (Member # 7355) on :
I think it should be held in the Hatrack 'Chat' up at the top of the screen. We just arrange debates and dates in here, - duel in there- and post the whole debates in here in a fancy-ish professional format.
Judas
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Lincoln-Douglas Debate! We could use resolutions like: "Individual claims of privacy ought to be valued above competing claims of social welfare," or "In the United States jury nullification is just." Best of all you don't have a choice in which side you take. Unfortunately, this would have been much more helpful if I was still in high school.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I want to hold it here as a thread so that everyone can see it, and so that it can be reffered back to. No one but myself and the two conidates would be allowed to post in the thread, though spin-off threads would be encouraged. I would select the topics. I rather like Brain's rule about choosing people, the best I could come up with was have everyone interested in particpating e-mail me a letter of specific length about what they felt they could do, this is better.
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Once the canidate and topic are selected, the rules would be something like this:
I ask a question to one of the participants (who will be decided in a both fair, and random way) who then has a specific length of time to reply. After that, their opponent will have a certain amount of time in which to forumlate a response and ask a question. Back and forth along with new questions from me and word length restricitions for each itteration of response.
Well that's what I would make the rules now, but of course it's open to debate.
Hobbes Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I'm not sure there should be a comma in the title .
</uncertain grammar communist>
[ February 03, 2005, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Two adjectives directly preceding a noun need a comma, right? I suppose it could be interpreted as "Hatrack Debate" being a noun, but the way I wrote it was a debate that is both great and on Hatrack.
Hobbes Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
In this context I wouldn't use a comma, because great is modifying "Hatrack debate." They're not both individually identifying debate.
Oh, and I have a topic for the first debate:
(are you ready?)
What's worse - bad Chinese food or no Chinese food at all?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
We had a great debate in college on "Resolved: Particle Man Hates Triangle Man."
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
without a fight?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
They have a fight, triangle wins.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
that's what I thought.
That reminds me of my favorite prank during parliamentary procedure competitions: "Question of privilege - Mister Chairman, may I lay on the table?"
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd let you, but I'd have to let others, too. Hobbes might get jealous.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Hmm. I suspect that the people you're thinking of when you think Hatrackers could wipe the floor with the politicians you see is the people who are passionate about particular issues. And, while those people are willing to debate when issues they feel passionately about come up, I suspect a lot of them don't do it for sport, but to correct what they feel to be mistaken notions. And so, for instance, when I enter into a discussion on education or something else I feel passionately about, I don't like to think that I'm doing it just for someone's entertainment. I like to think that I have a shot at convincing people. (Note that I am NOT saying that I post in debate threads in order to convince people of my point of view. THAT is different discussion.) So, personally, I don't know that I'd want to enter into a debate on something I feel strongly about under these circumstances.
Debates happen serendipitously enough around here. I don't know that there's any real need to create our own grown-up forensics league.
But I'd be happy to debate the point, Lincoln-Douglas style . . .
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Fair enough Icky. One of the things I would stipulate is that even if it never happens, each person should feel welcome to step down from their position if their opponent convinces them that they were wrong. As in, people are allowed to change their minds.
Hobbes Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
What is L-D style anyhow?
I'd never heard of it before - I'm guessing it's an American thing (not that the name gives that away or anything).
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I get to be the lay audience member.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I would love to organize a series of debates, only two Hatrackers (per single debate) participate in the actual debate
I agree with Icarus, inasmuch I don't understand the value of doing it so formally when anyone who wants to can post a thread to debate anything here whenever they want to.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
I think Fugu and Tom should debate. That would rock.
Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
I think Tom and Tom should debate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I've put formalized L-D debate behind me, I'm afraid. Too many years as a forensics competitor -- and later a coach -- has ruined me for the ring. Burnout.
Besides, I've never felt that the strictures of the L-D format are actually the best way to approach honest debate of an issue. They make for an interesting game, but make it very hard to actually get to the truth of anything.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). I would love to organize a series of debates, only two Hatrackers (per single debate) participate in the actual debate, though spin-offs would be welcome, and a few ground rules as to responses set up, similar to network debate rules (though we get more than an hour here ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
).![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)