CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
CD Members: Should we Hold a Debate Tournament?
CD Members: Should we Hold a Debate Tournament?
In the spirit of 'March Madness', rather than a contest of physical prowess, should we host a 'Battle of Wits'?
That is, we can separate into Teams of 2-3 members and Debate on pre-determined topics hosted by third-party moderators. The topics themselves can be voted upon from a pool put forth by members, ranging from Affirmative Action, War in the Middle East, Free Will, Euthanasia, Economics, ect. ect. ect. Or, we can simply use the debate topics put forward previously by IntelligenceSquared or Oxford Union with a link to the initial debate as a reference/starting frame.
Teams will be asked to choose a side, if a 'draw' occurs, sides will be chosen by the Moderator(s)/Debate Host. Debate rules will be enforced by the Moderator(s), who has the ability to warn & then disqualify an individual debater or team if necessary. As for determining a victor, it would be easy to determine we will need to create barriers to cheating. Then, a separate Thread will be hosted in connection/linking to the original where all voting will occur. Voting will be made available to all members that were not on either team of that particular debate.
Teams can either be chosen independently or one can enter themselves in a pool where they will be assigned team member(s)
A difficulty may arise in that unless we can all stick to a fairly disciplined timetable continuity of argument may be lost.
Yes.
I think one way to remedy this is to hold 'rounds' with time intervals, such as within 12-48 hours (to be determined). Then, for instance, we could hold 3-5 round matches with one each team providing 'opening remarks' from each member (within the initial time frame), then team (A) will go first while team (B) 'sits-out' the 'top' of the first round. (A) will be allotted 2 arguments per round within a certain word limit (to be specified/agree upon)--where they will have to collaborate with team members via PM to see who writes the arguments as well as the content. After which, (B) will be given the opportunity to respond as well as make their own points. Time constraints will be controlled/enforced by the Moderator(s). If a team does not input 2 arguments (or even 1) during their allotted time, then this would certainly seem to reflect negatively on their score in the 'voting-booth' post-debate. The Final round will consist of 'closing remarks' as well as possible appeals/persuasion techniques to the third-party voters. That is, while debating, remember one is not simply engaging in conversation with the opposing side, but to the 'audience' i.e. third-party voters.
Additionally, it seems fitting that the Final match of the tournament (may possibly) have additional rounds and/or multiple Topics of discussion
Now, it may very well turn out that, in a particular debate, a team will have to adopt a position contrary to their own beliefs--provided (A) their side was chosen already & the moderators assign them the opposing position (B) they chose to go with the 'other side' of the topic
The ethical tenability of 'lying' can certainly be a topic for debate
I suggested debating the difference between debating and lying, not the "ethical tenability of lying". Debating and lying are not the same thing, and my assertion is that you are not aware of this. It is indeed evidenced by your misrepresentation of my words.
As Dermot said, it sounds good in theory. I think there is a lot of work to do in order to organize it properly. It would be taxing enough to make it function with everyone on board, let alone making it function through the interference of a few well known members. I’m afraid I don’t believe the plane will fly.
That being said, I don’t mind attempting a participation as I appreciate the goal.
Saboteurs aside, there’s going to be an issue with timing of response, given time zones and schedule differences.
Saboteurs aside, there’s going to be an issue with timing of response, given time zones and schedule differences.
Do you think (roughly speaking) 48 hour rounds per team would work?
I think there is a lot of work to do in order to organize it properly. It would be taxing enough to make it function with everyone on board, let alone making it function through the interference of a few well known members.
I agree. Any members who think they have noteworthy ideas on this front are encouraged to 'brainstorm' & present their thoughts. Let the best idea(s) concerning the formatting, ect. of the Tournament win out
As for inappropriate debate topics, that would be 'refereed' out (nearly) as quickly as they 'popped up'. Actually, the inherent teamwork involved and the civil competition should bring members on CD closer together (in principle, at least)
I think it'd be challenging to be given a topic and have to debate for the side you are usually against. Makes someone see a different perspective, but I really don't know how it would work out, or if people would try really hard to debate it.
Ideally, after we determine the questions that will be used, we can 'screen' members based on a few basic background questions in order to get a sense for where their sympathies will lie on debate topics. Then, teams will generally consist of people who have some overlap, and debate other teams with opposing views--however, it may not always work out that way
Lol, I'm more for the simple methods....draw straws. You get a side you are usually opposed to? Tough, time to think outside the box. Do you have a list of volunteers? I may be able to suggest some if they aren't listed.
We can certainly potentially do the 'draw straws' method instead. Perhaps, we should present both ideas to the Community when the time comes and have a vote?
Do you have a list of volunteers? I may be able to suggest some if they aren't listed.
Volunteers for which function, referees? Also, any & all ideas are fully welcome. Please do not hesitate to 'brainstorm' & share your thoughts. All such ideas from I, you, others, ect. can & will be presented to the community for a vote, which will determine the best formatting/structure to the Event
3. Those who wish to participate draw straws to see which side they are arguing for and against.
4. Do your best to argue your side with whatever you see fit, passion, facts, logic....and do so in a method suited for debating and not playground antics.
A winner is chosen by either a referee or/and the people who didn't have a bone in the debate.
This is just an option for one method of course, I leave the brain power to everyone else ;D
But I would love to see everyone taken out of their comfort zone and argue against what they usually argue for and vice versa once in a while. I would love to do that myself.
Oh and....you don't get to pick your team, you are put up with who you are put up with and you have to play nice. evil laugh
Once we have enough members, we shall present your ideas alongside alternatives & hold a community vote to determine how to proceed. If you get anymore ideas, please feel free to add on to your current list
As for a teammate, a suggested teammate may be the member Fascism. Fascism has not been active here in a bit, though he has been active over on Debateisland.com . Then, if you want, you could go to Debateisland.com, message Fascism about the situation, and see if he would like to pair up for the Tournament.
If you are interested in seeing his views, he has a debate you can enter into the 'search' feature titled "Fascism is Good: Read my Argument"
As for topics, all members will be able to submit perhaps a few topics into the 'pool' which will be voted on. Also, a collection of IntelligenceSquared and/or Oxford Union debates will be in the 'pool', as well
Isn't amazing that a Progressive does not want to talk about Trump nor gun control which is a 24/7 cycle on the news you consume ! And of course you would not want to talk about abortion because more children have been killed in the womb than by any gun violence. In your world death by doctor is far better than death by gun. Is that because you Progressives prefer legal murder ?
First, it would be great to have you on board if you would like to participate
will nomenclature be allowed in these "debates"? .
Yes. Now, if one were considered about a particular members 'informal' debate habits, remember these will be Moderated by third-party members who are also part of the tournament (though not in that particular debate/round) or outside trusted CD members who are interested in contributing to the debate effort without joining a team i.e. be a referee.
Then, if a members uses overt Ad Hominem, such as "You are truly a f'cking idiot. That position is so retarted I'm at a loss for words--I'm simply in awe of your mountainous stupidity", then they will receive a warning, first. Then, if it persists 'x' times, the member (or possibly even the Team depending on how pervasive) will be disqualified. Also, point deduction can apply as well in line with a similar concept in sports, such as basketball 'free throws'.
Actually, one could be allotted 'x' fouls before fouling out of a particular match, as well as a running total for the tournament as a whole (which would be larger allotted foul count, call it 'y')
I think it is our responsibility (as members of CD) to foster change in the positive direction, or else we are stuck with fractured, informal 'bar-room Philosophy' (which largely dominates) as of present.
To be clear fractured , informal "bar -room Philosophy" largely dominates those on the Left and that is fact. Take a look at "Leftist Media" and tell me that is not true.
Not claiming anything other than the fact that Progressive Cultural Rot has taken what little mind the Left has. Now for trying to debate with them they avoid fact because it destroys their world. Remember reality is a place they need a " Safe Space" from.
As for the Tournament not interested but thanks for the offer and no disrespect meant.
For one to even try to believe that Progressives can civilly debate is beyond comprehension. Progressives have fed from the Trough of Propaganda for so long now they lack the ability to make 2 plus 2 equal 4. Fracturing society and causing cultural rot is in their playbook written by Saul Alinsky.
Why would it only be 'Progressives' engaging in debate? The idea is to get those of all perspectives to challenge themselves and each other in civil competition
As for 'civil', the Tournament will be Refereed. Then, if a member 'starts up', they will quickly be 'shut down'--so to speak.
Now, if your concern is that their positions lack depth & clarity of thought, this would seem to give you quite an upper edge in the debates relative to such people which (in principle) should be reflected in the 'voting booth'