Re-creating debates.
Which is better
to create a new debate that has already been debated on in the past?
or
to “bump” the past debate that was already in effect to an “active” status.
By “better” I mean which one is more effective in establishing a sound rationale for both debaters and spectators.
When, if ever, is it an appropriate time to create/bump a debate topic that has been or is being debated upon?
I realize that this is not as black and white as I suggested, hence the "perspectives" format.
|
This is what I believe. If a debate has already been made, maybe ten times before, nothing new will be said, or rather the chances of anything new being said is immeasurably low. Thus if you have anything to say, that probably also won't add to the conversation much, you should go the old debate. However, if it's a fairly new idea, like maybe "3d printing: good or bad" that is a case where not everything to be said has been said, so in creating a new debate something could be learned nearing the outcome of the debate. 1
point
1
point
if the debates are a few years older and full of older users(who didn't come back) with huge arguments posted, i think it would be difficult to find out where your other arguments in the debate are. it would be easier then, to have a new debate of the same or similar type with new arguments with new (and operational) users. that way the debate could go on seriously and you wouldn't have to end up looking for your disputed arguments. and you would be able to debate with the users more easily. |
