Thread: PF Debates: Will You Participate?

Cowards. This is an open, public forum. If you can't handle the heat, then (*)(*)(*)(*) of the kitchen!

Originally Posted by paco

Cowards. This is an open, public forum. If you can't handle the heat, then (*)(*)(*)(*) of the kitchen!

They want to wear Aprons and Mittens....HAHAHAHAAHAH

Too much to handle......

Originally Posted by Swamp_Music

Actually that is not even true. For any thread their might be fifteen people who actually post, and hundreds if not thousands of people who actually view; the silent majority. I say post as much factual information as possible to prove your point. Let them, the silent majority who actually control this country process the information. No one will ever change the mind of a poster from the “other side.” The battleground is to engage the onlookers....follow?

That's usually true...I agree, but here the Liberal judges will just ding you.....

This is a great opportunity for those who wish to “sharpen their pencils” / challenge themselves for a more formal, measured and serious format of debate. I don’t understand the complaints. I think it’s a great move for the forum.

The cries of "elitism" are ridiculous. I’d put the emphasis on INTEREST. How interested in a subject are we? How much would we like to debate our interest / persuasion of a subject? This is a great idea / incentive for ANYONE passionate / keen to DEBATE their position / view of a subject.

And truly, I thought those at the top of the Top Reputations would be delighted by this move. A chance to showcase what put them there at the top of the stack.

I voted in the negative. But allow me, please, to elucidate.

Apparently, those who have volunteered to do the judging include Think for myself; teamosil; Janpor; liberalminority; Agent Zero; Kimaris; and Catch. Which strikes me as a pool that is heavily skewed to the left.

Ideally, one would like to suppose that those of a leftist mindset could leave their biases aside, and judge fairly and objectively. Yes, ideally.

In the real world, however, that prospect seems, well, a bit quixotic.

The triumphalist attitude frequently displayed by several of these posters, whenever they believe they have scored some rhetorical points, tends to belie any pretense of objectivity.

Just my opinion...

Originally Posted by liberalminority

it look like a conservative moderator should endorse this with venom to gain popularity on the other side for the poll

This thing speaks for itself..~~~~~ There is hardly any interest, and no conservatives to debate,,,it's over. Hey,,you guys can give yourself a trophy anyway.

For the worst idea of the year.......

Originally Posted by Frogger

So far it is running two to one against participation. A vote as lopsided as that should effectively kill the idea unless the person first proposing it is arrogant enough to go against the will of the majority of posters.

It appears you misunderstood the poll question. The question was will you participate, not an inquiry into whether or not it should happen. This is to get a feel for how frequent we'd be initiating the debates. If anything, we now have a list of people who won't participate... effectively silencing the "but why can't I post in the debate thread if I'm not a participant" complaint. So thank you.

Thank you to everyone for voicing your valid concerns regarding the voting process. I must reiterate that what's been suggested so far isn't what we've decided on, and if a particular portion of the process is unpopular (as judging apparently is) then we'll scrap it for something better... and we have no problem doing so. Once more, for those interested... we're open to suggestions regarding a potential judging process.

As far as scrapping the debates all together, it's not likely. The claims of mass renovations to the operation of the forum aren't legitimate complaints, as a number of options are still open to forum members (not outside the normal scope of day to day business). This is an idea that wouldn't see the light of the feedback section without first meeting the approval of the mod panel, rendering claims of this being a lone move quite inaccurate.

Originally Posted by pjohns

I voted in the negative. But allow me, please, to elucidate.

Apparently, those who have volunteered to do the judging include Think for myself; teamosil; Janpor; liberalminority; Agent Zero; Kimaris; and Catch. Which strikes me as a pool that is heavily skewed to the left.

Ideally, one would like to suppose that those of a leftist mindset could leave their biases aside, and judge fairly and objectively. Yes, ideally.

In the real world, however, that prospect seems, well, a bit quixotic.

The triumphalist attitude frequently displayed by several of these posters, whenever they believe they have scored some rhetorical points, tends to belie any pretense of objectivity.

Just my opinion...

EPV stated (in another thread, and buried amongst other debate), that if you object to a selected judge, they will be recused from participation. In addition, as I pointed out a couple pages back, there are potential judges which are liberal, conservative, libertarian, and non-partisan. And yes, it appears that the judging pool at the moment is, as you said, skewed to the left. So, wouldn't it be best to help balance it out by having more conservative, libertarian, and non-partisans in the judging pool?

I, like you, question whether partisans on either side will focus on judging the debate, rather than the topic, the stance, or the poster. However, I would at least like to see it attempted (hopefully with objective judges). It reminds me, actually, of Ismene and Antigone.

Antigone: I know my duty where true duty lies
Ismene: If you can do it; but you're bound to fail
Antigone: When I have tried and failed, I shall have failed.

I actually had a suggestion for judging that might help on this score. If we make the judging more unofficial. People (judges) are selected to give evaluations at the end of the discussion. They don't just vote and say, "Person X" wins. They give a critique of the argument, thus enabling everybody to see where each judgement is coming from, and give weight to it accordingly.

So, they could say, "Person A presented an interesting argument, by attempting to show that X followed from Y. I don't agree, but it was a unique approach to the problem. Person B, despite making sense, used a fairly routine argument, and didn't seem to be addressing the arguments of person A. Despite making a legitimate case against X, they didn't seem to discuss Y at all. Overall, I would say that person A won the debate."

Now, if somebody else were to read this and say, "Well, except person B did address Y in post #15. Their reasoning makes no sense." they can look at the judge's perspective on how the debate went, and factor their own observations into determining how it went.

In the end, my basic idea comes down to, let's not be the Ismene to the Mods' Antigone. :P

Originally Posted by FactChecker

EPV stated (in another thread, and buried amongst other debate), that if you object to a selected judge, they will be recused from participation. In addition, as I pointed out a couple pages back, there are potential judges which are liberal, conservative, libertarian, and non-partisan. And yes, it appears that the judging pool at the moment is, as you said, skewed to the left. So, wouldn't it be best to help balance it out by having more conservative, libertarian, and non-partisans in the judging pool?

I, like you, question whether partisans on either side will focus on judging the debate, rather than the topic, the stance, or the poster. However, I would at least like to see it attempted (hopefully with objective judges). It reminds me, actually, of Ismene and Antigone.

Antigone: I know my duty where true duty lies
Ismene: If you can do it; but you're bound to fail
Antigone: When I have tried and failed, I shall have failed.

I actually had a suggestion for judging that might help on this score. If we make the judging more unofficial. People (judges) are selected to give evaluations at the end of the discussion. They don't just vote and say, "Person X" wins. They give a critique of the argument, thus enabling everybody to see where each judgement is coming from, and give weight to it accordingly.

So, they could say, "Person A presented an interesting argument, by attempting to show that X followed from Y. I don't agree, but it was a unique approach to the problem. Person B, despite making sense, used a fairly routine argument, and didn't seem to be addressing the arguments of person A. Despite making a legitimate case against X, they didn't seem to discuss Y at all. Overall, I would say that person A won the debate."

Now, if somebody else were to read this and say, "Well, except person B did address Y in post #15. Their reasoning makes no sense." they can look at the judge's perspective on how the debate went, and factor their own observations into determining how it went.

In the end, my basic idea comes down to, let's not be the Ismene to the Mods' Antigone. :P

Thanks, and I had a brief opportunity to scratch the surface on this in the input thread:

As far as an actual "winner/loser" format, we'll be asking that judges observe not only the points & supporting content participants bring to the debate... but also the ability to serve as a strong representative to their given position, remain consistent throughout, and possibly express a degree of persuasion. Debate is a game of chess, and judges can award a participant if they notice strategy, wit, and a solid framework that seems to flow (as if he/she knows the opponent's responses before they're even posted) one example being the ability to corner an opponent into a singular point before they've made it (rendering a strong planned defense useless if already debunked) or strategic questioning that creates flip-flops (throwing him/her off the aforementioned consistency).

I know these topics are subjective, and it's why we're hoping that people still have the ability to dismiss their personal beliefs for a moments time in order to focus on what I've mentioned above.

I've seen point systems used before, and we wouldn't be closed to such a method.

We're not naive to the suggestion that people may express bias in the judgement process, but it's our hope that people can push beyond it in order to judge fairly (especially considering the fact that it's voluntary). People aren't even cool with moderators voting, and that's okay too...but we'd still like to at least give this idea a couple of chances and then decide to go on with it or scrap it (based on its result).

Originally Posted by E_Pluribus_Venom

Thanks, and I had a brief opportunity to scratch the surface on this in the input thread:

As far as an actual "winner/loser" format, we'll be asking that judges observe not only the points & supporting content participants bring to the debate... but also the ability to serve as a strong representative to their given position, remain consistent throughout, and possibly express a degree of persuasion. Debate is a game of chess, and judges can award a participant if they notice strategy, wit, and a solid framework that seems to flow (as if he/she knows the opponent's responses before they're even posted) one example being the ability to corner an opponent into a singular point before they've made it (rendering a strong planned defense useless if already debunked) or strategic questioning that creates flip-flops (throwing him/her off the aforementioned consistency).

I know these topics are subjective, and it's why we're hoping that people still have the ability to dismiss their personal beliefs for a moments time in order to focus on what I've mentioned above.

I've seen point systems used before, and we wouldn't be closed to such a method.

We're not naive to the suggestion that people may express bias in the judgement process, but it's our hope that people can push beyond it in order to judge fairly (especially considering the fact that it's voluntary). People aren't even cool with moderators voting, and that's okay too...but we'd still like to at least give this idea a couple of chances and then decide to go on with it or scrap it (based on its result).

Here's my idea for the day.
Had it over in the judges thread.Potential Judging pool