I think people can be pretty objective (e.g. "I don't agree with the position, but I felt that XXXX won the debate"). We've done informal threads in the past where people are recognized as "good debaters" from others with very different beliefs, so I think ppl may surprise you.

I don't know how many "debaters" we have here (People use this board for different reasons -- some like to use it as a sounding board, some like to argue/debate, some just like to vent, etc.). But the idea works with just a few participating, so I think it's good one.

I think I have a way it could be done...

There are 10 "levels" of posters on this forum (Guru, Sr. Correspondent, etc.). We should have each level with their own debate thread, and have a "mini" debate with each other. And then the best one, or top two debaters (winner(s)) of their level take part in the "major" debate. And if it's once a week, then someone can't be in two major debates in a row, to make it fair for others of the same level to have a chance to make it into the major debate. Although, the past week's winners could still take a (minor) part in the "level debate" if they wanted... they just can't win.

How does that sound, for choosing entrants?

Also, not to have the mini and major debates on the same day, so that the "winners" can have time to prepare for the major debate.

__________________
Believing that McAfee is going to protect you from hackers and viruses is exactly like believing that republicans can actually protect you from terrorists.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

Darn, the wet t-shirt thread has more interest

I think that choosing who participates is less important, since it can always just start off with any 2-4 willing victims... I love Senax's idea for teams working together.

The new reputation system could play a part in the voting, or perhaps that's a really bad idea giving someone way more weight...? I wonder if the judging should include SOME very objective elements such as "number of different points made", "number of supporting examples given"...?

There are also live chat possibilities. I'm not suggesting we scrap the other idea. Personally I would like to see both. But this would probably be more appealing to some. If the debate took place a live chatroom (doesn't necessarily need to be a public one either), and then a transcript was posted. So users could comment afterwards here, but at the time, just the debaters would be able to talk. In the live chat there could be various methods and rules, like they could be writing their next statement in a different window (notepad) and then paste it in all at once, or they could have 2 minutes to talk, then it's the other person's turn.

I think it'd be funny to have a "who's the worst debater" contest

I like the idea of mini-debate games too. Maybe I'll start some threads and if they don't catch on, oh well.

Any one of you is welcome to start organizing a debate or contest of some sort on here, by the way. We can have various types going on with different rules. Eventually we'd figure out what system was best?

Or just post that you are willing to participate in anything, or what sorts you're interested in.

I'll be a debate judge.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Everything about the War on Terror(ism) is aggravating.

To the Admin: I was wondering, if it was possible, to "designate" a few people as an "Official PoliticalForum Debate Judge", like how it designates people as "Site Moderator"? Have it as an official title or badge.

That is, those that are "worthy" of the title (i.e. good at being a debate judge). Just a thought.

__________________
Believing that McAfee is going to protect you from hackers and viruses is exactly like believing that republicans can actually protect you from terrorists.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

I'm not gonna lie, titles are nice. I wouldn't mind that at all.

__________________
My enduring personal, original quote: Many mistake what should rightly be called "passivism" for pacifism. Pacifism and passivism are COMPLETELY different.
-----------------
"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." --President George W. Bush.
-----------------
-----------------
Everything about the War on Terror(ism) is aggravating.

Same here, except I don't want to be a debate judge. I'm terrible at judging.

__________________
Believing that McAfee is going to protect you from hackers and viruses is exactly like believing that republicans can actually protect you from terrorists.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

The debates can be a new "feature" (like the quizzes) and cost credits to participate in. And the more credits you spend, the bigger advantage you have in the debate. So, if you're not a good debater but have a lot of credits, then spending more credits on the debate can give you that edge you need to come out on top.

Just a thought. There might need to be a little more to this to make it work though.

__________________
Believing that McAfee is going to protect you from hackers and viruses is exactly like believing that republicans can actually protect you from terrorists.

When the rich wage war, it's the poor who die.

Yeah, I plan to figure out how to add more custom titles. Someone can be the village idiot... claim it quickly... LOL.