Just an idea I've been tossing around for a while. We'd have a formal debate on a subject that could either be voted on or just decided by whoever leads it. Specific users (mods or otherwise) would be assigned as the moderator of the debate, sides would be assigned randomly, participants would be grouped into teams, posts would be more formal than the usual discussion, etc. I was never part of a debate team in school, so someone with that experience could step up to organize it (maybe Meta, though I think the organizer should be removed from actual participation).

Maybe it's a terrible idea. I just thought we could use something to change up the normal tired discussions.

I'd like to see a formal debate take place in a podcast, actually. That would be interesting to listen to.

I like that. It would definitely help mitigate the constant Googling to counter a new argument, giving a more honest picture of a debater's knowledge.

Quote from: EasterTurkey on April 04, 2015, 04:15:31 PM

Quote from: Cheat on April 04, 2015, 03:51:12 PM

I'd like to see a formal debate take place in a podcast, actually. That would be interesting to listen to.

I like that. It would definitely help mitigate the constant Googling to counter a new argument, giving a more honest picture of a debater's knowledge.

People can google beforehand since they know what the topic will be.

Well sure, I'd hope participants would prepare ahead of time. But on a forum you can just quickly research counter-arguments during the whole discussion, which wouldn't be so good for a debate.

I've had to do this before as part of my Welsh Bacc. thing, and it's quite interesting if you get a good topic going.

Me and a mate were able to sway opinions about the use of military intervention in foreign conflicts when both of us ourselves disagreed with it, but got put on the side to support it.

How I remember the debate going was along these lines...

-One team had about 5 minutes to argue their point (e.g. "We believe military intervention is bad because...")
-While they argue their point, the opposing team can (politely) interrupt to either question a point (e.g. regarding the validity of a data source) or refute a point because they have opposing data that says otherwise. This stops the 5 minute timer until the interruption is either answered or there is no counter-argument to defend the point.
-After the 5 minutes are up, the audience is allowed to ask a few questions about things discussed.
-After questioning time, the roles are reversed and the other team argues their point for 5 minutes ("We support military intervention because...")
-After repeating the steps for the other team, the audience vote on what they think has a stronger standing (In favor of.../Against.../Abstention).

I'm sure there's other ways of doing this, but obviously we'd have a problem as there is isn't really an interactive "audience". You could find out the results of the debate through a judge (though that has the problem of bias within one individual), or... god forbid...use the Youtube comments to find out the "winner".

It would definitely help mitigate the constant Googling to counter a new argument, giving a more honest picture of a debater's knowledge.

This is a bad thing? I would think you'd want your competitor to have credible information for a more compelling debate.

Quote from: Maverick on April 05, 2015, 03:05:05 PM

Quote from: EasterTurkey on April 04, 2015, 04:15:31 PM

It would definitely help mitigate the constant Googling to counter a new argument, giving a more honest picture of a debater's knowledge.

This is a bad thing? I would think you'd want your competitor to have credible information for a more compelling debate.

They're supposed to do research beforehand. Being able to look up information during the debate eliminates the need for much preparation.

That would make sense. Sounds like a good idea.

Obama would like too! He says we should debate everything! Even if the arguments for or against are severely one sided.