What should the flow of the debate work like...Invite someone, with the debate filled out including sides. The invite is asking you to take the side which is offered to you?

I think they should receive an invite and then they choose which side they can take.

Should invites be sent based on username? Email address (for those not registered)?

I think it should be based on username and not email, I would get confused at who it would be.

Who gets to name the debate?

The person that challenged the person or made the debate.

Who gets to name the sides?

The person who challenged the person or made the debate.

If the originator selects the sides, should they be forced into a mirror debate where they switch sides?

They can change sides if they want to or stick to their own side.

How does the debate end? Timing( i.e date), Number of arguments, both sides agree to close it, one party can start a timer clock for final close out?

I think it should end on if the person admits defeat or they give up and don't want to discuss anymore.

Should the other users be able to agrue as well?

I am thinking more of a 1 vs 1 debate where it is just you and the person and some other people who are supporting you could maybe vote for that person.

Should other users be able to ask clarifying questions?

No because they would get in the way and then the person has to answer more questions. I would like it to talk to 1 person at a time.

Should the other side be able to vote for a side (like a poll, not an agrument), or only at the argument level?

Yes, they should vote for a side and there should be a poll about who they support.

If someone accepts a challenge, do they get the right to challenge the originator to a debate that can't be refused?

They have the right to challenge the debator but they should be able to choose if they want to accept or refuse.

Should there be points wagering (winning take all points wagered )? Or a standard ammount of points transferred from the loser to the winner?

I think that if the loser lose to the challenge debate that both the winner and loser gets points but the winner gets more points and lose get the average amount of points.

Should there be speculative points wagering amongst site users?

Yes

Should challenge debates show in the regular debate home page or should there be a seperating grouping just for challeng debates?

I think it should be on the different grouping!

I have a comment to tell everyone. I am the one who came up with this!

What should the flow of the debate work like...Invite someone, with the debate filled out including sides. The invite is asking you to take the side which is offered to you?

1. You can invite a specific person

or

2. Create an open debate where anyone can accept the challenge (first person to accept).

Who gets to name the debate

The creator, I guess.

Who gets to name the sides?

I think it would just be easier to have a statement. One side agrees and one side disagrees. This would eliminate the possibilities of false dichotomies.

How does the debate end? Timing (i.e. date), Number of arguments, both sides agree to close it, one party can start a timer clock for final close out?

I think Time would be cool.

Or

Have a certain number of rounds after which the debate ends.

Should other users be able to argue as well?

NO! That completely defeats the purpose of it being a 1 on 1 debate.

Should other users be able to ask clarifying questions?

No. If one side couldn't state their point clearly, voters would tae that into account.

Should other users be able to vote for a side (like a poll, not just an argument), or only at the argument level?

You could have both. But it would only be fair if it was based on the argument. Otherwise the same side would win over and over again.

If someone accepts a challenge, do they get the right to challenge the originator to a debate that can't be refused?

Ummm...no.

Should there be points wagering (winner take all the points wagered)? Or a standard amount of points transferred from the loser to the winner?

I was actually thinking that it would be cool if these challenges were independent of the point system. In other words, we could have a section on users's profile pages that shows how many debates they have won/lost/tied.

Should there be speculative points wagering amongst site users?

Sure. That would be cool, but probably very predictable.

Who gets to be the moderator? The originator or both people?

Ideally, neither. But I don't know...

User-elected moderators, maybe?

Should challenge debates show in the regular debate groupings on the home page or should there be a separate grouping just for challenge debates?

Definitely a separate section.

-

THANKS ANDY for keeping this site awesome. This is just what I think. Feel free to ignore all my suggestions.

I have an idea, it might be tricky though. Could you do against the clock debating? So each user would have say, 10 minutes to make their opening argument. Then 5 minutes for rebuttals, etc.

Or you could just have a timer on the debate. Let's say the timer is half an hour. Each user can then go back and forth as much as they like in half an hour. If it ends with one person still rebutting, then they are allowed to finish, and then the debate ends.

It could be tricky due to all the different time zones. But if there was a prior agreement beforehand between the two debaters as to when they would debate, the problem could be overcome.

What should the flow of the debate work like...Invite someone, with the debate filled out including sides. The invite is asking you to take the side which is offered to you?

Yes. Fill out resolution, sides(I prefer Pro/Con), and terms. The challenged can accept or decline. It would be very cool if the challenged had an option to propose a change to the resolution or to any of the terms, such as rounds, time limit, etc...

Should invites be sent based on username? Email address (for those not registered)?

I would default username, and have an option to invite someone who isn't a member via email. Possibly just a link next to the username box.

Who gets to name the debate? Who gets to name the sides?

Originator, but again an option for the challenged to propose changes would be nice.

If the originator selects the sides, should they be forced into a mirror debate where they switch sides?

I would have mirror debate be a type of challenge debate. The originator could choose regular or mirrored.

How does the debate end? Timing (i.e. date), Number of arguments, both sides agree to close it, one party can start a timer clock for final close out?

Options for date, and number of arguments. For instance, 4 arguments and 4 rebuttals. Automatic closing would be better than manual in my opinion.

Should other users be able to argue as well?

Not in a challenge. An option for setting up 'team' challenges would be cool, but I don't know how viable that would be. The two contenders shouldn't have their arguments muddled with other people.

Should other users be able to ask clarifying questions?

I would keep everything except the two participants out of the debate. Perhaps an observer area could be implemented, but that could always be used to circumnavigate the number of allowed arguments.

Should other users be able to vote for a side (like a poll, not just an argument), or only at the argument level?

I think the argument level is excellent, and should encourage better arguments than just voting for sides.

If someone accepts a challenge, do they get the right to challenge the originator to a debate that can't be refused?

No. Don't force people into situations.

Should there be points wagering (winner take all the points wagered)? Or a standard amount of points transferred from the loser to the winner?

Have the points wagered be a term of the debate, then award the points according to the percentage of total votes each participant gets. I guess there would need to be a maximum voting period, maybe a month, for that system.

Should there be speculative points wagering amongst site users?

Meh, not crazy about that idea.

Who gets to be the moderator? The originator or both people?

Once the debate is accepted by both parties, I don't think either should have moderator privileges.

Should challenge debates show in the regular debate groupings on the home page or should there be a separate grouping just for challenge debates?

Separate.

Do you have other questions/ideas?

Not really, but its exciting to see this coming. Group debates could be fun, but I could understand they might be quite a bit more difficult to implement. King-of-the-hill debates could be fun as well. Tournaments would also be fun, where you are given a set of resolutions, and each person has to debate both sides against different people. I'm tired and probably rambling by now so I'll stop.

The problem with the Pro VS Con format is that it's hard to follow the chronological order. Also, you have to take into consideration the JC factor. If I were to name the other person's side, he won't like it ;)

I suggest a perspective debate because it makes it easier to follow the chronological order and there's no naming of the sides.

There will be 2 top level arguments, one for each individual. In other words, each individual starts out with their initial argument at the top level. Everything after that are replys (no new arguments at the top level).

There are no down votes.

Spectators can only up-vote.

Winner takes all points awarded.

Winner is determined by the number of up-votes accumulated by the debate end date.

Now this next part may be a pain.

The perspective debate is one column. It would be nice if there were 2 columns. One for the debaters and one for everyone else. One for the fighters, one for those yelling, "Fight, fight, fight!!!" ;)

The problem with the second column is that the chronology will be lost between the fighters and the rubber neckers ;)

The second column will need to have multiple top levels because there will be multiple spectators. I don't know how problematic it would be to have only one top level argument per spectator with its related replys and clarifications. A spectator need not create a top level argument. He can just post replys to other top level arguments.

Anyway, whatever you do, just think about how an ass hole like me can abuse it ;)

That's all I got. Hope it helps.

If you're going to do wagering, you will need a way of transferring points. In other words, the loser has to have some mechanism to transfer the points willingly. I would love to be able to use my points to buy people off. ;)

If points can be transferred, and if a person can accumulate lots of points by winning debates, then points will have value and people would be motivated to participate because reaching 17,673 points may not seem as daunting.

Also, the site will become more confrontational due to competition. But..., isn't that the whole point of a debate site ;)

Edit: Never mind, I like joecavalry's suggestions better. :)

Andy: Have you an ETA on the Challenge Debate function?

What should the flow of the debate work like...Invite someone, with the debate filled out including sides. The invite is asking you to take the side which is offered to you?

Well someone would probably only invite someone to a 1 on 1 if they had different views on the subject, so im not sure how much the asking to take the other side is needed.

Should invites be sent based on username? Email address (for those not registered)?

You should go to the profile and where all the message, add enemy and ally stuff is, there should be a button saying, "challenge to debate."

Who gets to name the debate?

Whoever makes the challenge

Who gets to name the sides?

Either the person who made it, or each gets to name his own side.

If the originator selects the sides, should they be forced into a mirror debate where they switch sides?

Hey yeah thats a good idea

How does the debate end? Timing (i.e. date), Number of arguments, both sides agree to close it, one party can start a timer clock for final close out?

Any of those, the challenger should be able to choose. Also it could end by a set amount of points. And for the set amount of arguments choice, the challenger should make the first argument, and the challenged person should be able to make the last, and also if they are on separate sides, the dispute, support or clarify buttons should count as an argument. (This is pretty obvious, but im not sure if you are going to do it or not.) Oh yeah and also there should be the option for one side to surrender, and they automatically lose.

Should other users be able to argue as well?

I dont think so, that kinda defeats the purpose of 1v1. Or maybe there can be a set amount of people you can add, and then you can invite your allies to argue on your side.

Should other users be able to ask clarifying questions?

Umm that would be good, but then it would maybe take away the chance for the opposition to use the matter that they are clarifying to their advantage, because its their own fault for being unclear.

Should other users be able to vote for a side (like a poll, not just an argument), or only at the argument level?

Yes, but it shouldnt affect the outcome of the debate.

If someone accepts a challenge, do they get the right to challenge the originator to a debate that can't be refused?

Maybe

Should there be points wagering (winner take all the points wagered)? Or a standard amount of points transferred from the loser to the winner?

OH YES!!! OH YES!!!!

Should there be speculative points wagering amongst site users?

That would be cool too. But then it would kinda kill the whole point of debating. Like what if someone never posted any arguments, but they got a whole buncha points by just betting.

Who gets to be the moderator? The originator or both people?

The creator should be the moderator of the title, and each person should be able to change the name of his own side. But there should be no ban button, because if the creator is losing, he could just decide to ban the other person.

Should challenge debates show in the regular debate groupings on the home page or should there be a separate grouping just for challenge debates?

Separate grouping