PF Debates: Will You Participate?

Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by E_Pluribus_Venom, Jul 9, 2011.

?

Are you willing to participate in 1 on 1 debates here at PoliticalForum?

  1. Yes

    52.6%
  2. No

    25.3%
  3. Maybe... Some clarification is needed

    24.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. flounder

    flounder In Memoriam Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    653
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.......


    [​IMG]
     
  2. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,691
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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.
     
  3. FactChecker

    FactChecker New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    960
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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
     
  4. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,691
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    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).
     
  5. Shangrila

    Shangrila staff Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    29,114
    Likes Received:
    674
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Here's my idea for the day.
    Had it over in the judges thread.http://www.politicalforum.com/4158834-post36.html
     
  6. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,691
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Thanks for it, and I have some input. When this was just an idea back in 2008, the idea was for the debate to have an open poll just like what you've suggested here. I agree that it would encourage a lot more participation, but here's why it wasn't put in the initial idea explanation right off:

    Result without the obligatory/needed explanation. With a simple poll, there's nothing that says I actually read the debate. I could've just looked at two names, and voted for the one I typically agree with, like, or share a social group with. Specific judges offers the requirement that people actually have to explain their vote... possibly via a point system or lengthy explanation. I do understand what you're saying, but having an open poll would only further frustrate the already irritated idea of bias in judging.
     
    pjohns and (deleted member) like this.
  7. E_Pluribus_Venom

    E_Pluribus_Venom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    15,691
    Likes Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gotta go play with my son... I should be back later to talk this over some more.
     
  8. injest

    injest New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    0
    good lort...it's just an idea for a PART of the forum..just like any other. If you don't want to participate, just don't go there. They aren't talking about remaking the entire board!

    I don't care about international affairs, generally, so I don't go into that section...I don't stomp my feet and say I am leaving if someone starts a thread about Jamaica...
     
  9. injest

    injest New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,266
    Likes Received:
    204
    Trophy Points:
    0
    while I am not feeling all that confident enough to be either a debater OR a judge; I would LOVE to read the debates...if they are as I envision, simple arguments with facts and such to back them up...

    and if it is a topic I dont' care about then I will just go read some other section.
     
  10. mikezila

    mikezila New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    23,299
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i'm here for dialog, not two competing monologues.
     
  11. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Its nice to see the hive mind has come to a consensus on this issue. Originally I thought, who cares? You know what, I still think that. There is absolutely positively no reason that this idea has brought about so much anxiety among right wingers. I don't understand it at all. They are portraying this as if it is a left-wing conspiracy to drown out their irreplaceable voices.


    A couple of things. Why does anyone care? If you don't want to participate don't participate. People are pretending as if this will be the new standard for the entire forum, instead of one small part of the forum possibly down at the bottom with the contests section(has anyone actually opened that?).


    Next thing, I don't understand how this became a right wing vs left wing issue. In fact some right wingers initially said they supported it, until they saw left wingers do and that the hive did not. They then changed their position to align with the hive. Seriously, what is the problem with this. I don't have a problem with judging as a concept, judged debates happen all the time outside of the internet. You are judged by your ability to make and defend an argument every time you write a college paper. Do you refuse to go to college because people put a letter grade on your intellectual ability? I suppose it is a little restrictive, but the hesitance to be judged doesn't make sense to me. Is it insecurity? People don't think they can hold up?


    Last of all, all the right wingers seem to be upset that this is somehow elitist. Of course anyone can join in, but I suppose because there is a winner and a loser that is elitist? Do you want everyone to just get participation ribbons? I thought you guys loved competition? I thought you derided us liberals for always trying to avoid judging people(most liberals aren't like that, but that is a story for another thread). Now all of a sudden we should have no judgment. "No one can tell ME if my posts/arguments are good or not!!" :angered: Seriously why is this bothering people so much? It intrigues me and confuses me at the same time. Is it as simple as that liberals like it? Are you all so predictable? If so, that would be sad.


    PS. I have objections to the judging as well. Not judging in principle, which doesn't bother me, but how it will actually work in practice. I don't see which members of this forum could be unbiased. A few I can think of could be unbiased on certain issues, but almost everyone here is totally convinced of their correctness(even the people who are totally clueless) on every single issue, and would inevitably just pick based on preconceived notions. Similarly I think opening it to a poll makes that issue magnify exponentially. It would just be a popularity contest, and that would be silly. Especially since we already have a popularity contest where people are judged not based on their quality of posts but on their willingness to be ideologically unwavering. It is called the reputation system!!!
     
  12. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48
    As is stated earlier, what is there to debate? Liberalism, or Progressivism is Anti-Constitutional rhetoric. Progressives wish to progress away from the Constitution, and violate unalienable Liberty, and property rights. Their philosophy only took root in this society after FDR threatened the Supreme Court so they would stop ruling his "New Deal" unconstitutional. The Progressive political philosophy is illegitimate as it seeks to violate the law. What, we are to debate, the fact and some will argue that violations are “good?” Not in this LIFE! :puke: How can something be discussed as a true option when it is lawless and illegitimate? The only place such folly has traction and gravitas is in the delusional Liberal or Progressive mind... :chew:
     
  13. teamosil

    teamosil New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    16,022
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Who cares. The liberals are generally better debaters anyways. Just pick topics that aren't hyper partisan and the wingnut hive can sit around and sulk or whatever.
     
  14. teamosil

    teamosil New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    16,022
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Or, here is another idea. Require that people take the opposite side from what they actually are. Make the liberal defend the conservative position and vice versa.
     
  15. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83


    Teamosil is a fantastic poster. I lose all respect for anyone who would ever consider him a troll. There are DEFINITELY trolls on the left, and they are not lacking in numbers, but Teamo is not one of them. People who think he is, are either ill-informed, trolls themselves, or complete morons!!
     
  16. flounder

    flounder In Memoriam Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    27,364
    Likes Received:
    653
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I would not hold my breath if I were you.....There are going to be a lot of people put through an awful lot of ''adjusting'' only to find the same results they are finding today, probably worse.
     
  17. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83


    It is legal. It has been declared legal by the only body in this country capable of making such declarations. Your own partisan delusions do not change that fact!!
     
  18. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83

    It is good to see our fellow right wingers debate with an open mind!!

    Note the sarcasm.

    :fart:
     
  19. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83


    Really? You think so? So there is no way in hell smart people like TFM and Teamo would ever rule against a liberal, but the average right winger at this forum, you are not so sure? If you believe they are any more likely to be impartial than the average right winger, you are delusional.


    PS. All of you have convinced me to change my mind. I volunteer to be involved in the first debate under this new system. I will be one of the debaters, but I have a stipulation. I will only debate conservatives, and I will only accept conservative judges(but still with the right to decline the more unthinking people on the right). If they are willing, ChestyPuller, SirThaddeus, and a few others would work well. I only mention them because they both already volunteered. If your problem is really you are scared that the mean liberals are going to judge against you, none of you should decline my challenge.
     
  20. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83


    Good to see you are humble as well!! :) But seriously I do think you are a good poster, but whether you would "win" a debate is down entirely to who you are debating against, what the topic is, and who the audience is that is judging who wins. I really don't see the problem with this idea. I don't think judging will ever be unbiased, but other than that there is nothing objectionable about this idea.
     
  21. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48

    "It has been declared legal" only after FDR threatened the Supreme Court so they WOULD STOP RULING SUCH ACTIVITY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. You are arguing that if you threaten justices enough illegal activity suddenly becomes Constitutional not based on the Constitution, but only based on Leftist threats! :puke: If someone puts a gun to your head and orders you to sign away your house the "sale" would not be legal as it was made under duress. That is the same for illegal president allowing the unconstitutional Democrat Social Welfare and Wealth Distribution State. That is EXACTLY my point. Progressives will never admit their illegal and coercive actions are in any way illegitimate. Really, what is to discuss or debate? Either we are to be a nation of laws, or we are not. If we are to be a lawful and just society we must come to the realization that Progressives are Traitors and Tyrants as they reject the law, Constitution, and individual unalienable rights.
     
  22. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83


    So your argument is that justices are scared of FDR's ghost, and therefore purposefully decide that laws that are constitutional, even when they know they are actually unconstitutional? :spin: My word, now I understand why you lot are so hesitant to debate in a judged setting. Such gibberish would quite clearly be laughed at.
     
  23. Swamp_Music

    Swamp_Music Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    3,477
    Likes Received:
    57
    Trophy Points:
    48

    Get a true gage of reality. The current Democrat Wealth Distribution and Social Welfare Sate was built on illegal precedents set during the "New Deal." In the beginning of the "New Deal" the Supreme Court ruled aspects of the scheme unconstitutional seemingly at every turn as the federal government simply has no such POWER under the Constitution. That FACT angered Democrat FDR so he threatened the Supreme Court in 1937. Google the "Switch in Time that Saved Nine," nine Supreme Court Justices! :puke: After the threats the Surname Court reversed many of their OWN decisions and allowed FDR-Democrat violations of the Constitution. That created many illegal "legal" precedents. On those dubious precedents the current Democrat Social Welfare and Wealth Distribution Schemes are built. That FACT is not even arguable. There is nothing to "debate" since the Progressive position is one of lawlessness and Treason. Go ahead, argue how a president THREATENING the Surname Court is any legitimate part of American politics. If you can't make that argument, I guess you get to sit down and watch the show! :popcorn:
     
  24. frodly

    frodly Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    17,989
    Likes Received:
    427
    Trophy Points:
    83


    The law is quite clear. What you want the law to be is another issue entirely. I know about the court packing issue, and I know that the "switch" you refer to happened before Roosevelt ever brought the bill forward. It is simply another in a long series of right wing lies used in order to justify their attempts to sell their failed ideology!! Do you have any other right wing lies, conspiracy theories about ghosts, etc to sell me? Or can I get back to more serious debates?
     
  25. Til the Last Drop

    Til the Last Drop Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Messages:
    9,069
    Likes Received:
    384
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Most of the time it is a major turn off when two people take over a thread and I have to scan several pages to find different opinions. I remember one time I actually posted the counts in a thread about race and 90% were two people going back with nothing more than, "I know you are, but what am I?".

    It would have to be a subject I'm already interested in, and both participating would have to be experts in the field for it to be interesting. Multiposter threads are just plain better. I doubt I would ever even look in the section. With that said, as long as the rest of the site is untainted, I have no objections. I've never believed in ruing others fun, just because I didn't enjoy what they're doing. Go at it.
     

Share This Page