• Metaphysician Undercover
    2.9k
    I've posted this under "debate proposals" because I'm proposing a debate format. What I mean by real-time debating is a debate with very short time restrictions to ensure quick, concise, response. I've noticed that some members seem to enjoy the rapid back and forth of chatter, but due to the difficulties of holding intelligent conversations under these conditions, the discussions usually degenerate into trivial nonsense or banter quite rapidly. The conversation is no longer interesting. I, for one, would be very interested to see if some of these members could maintain an extended, intelligent debate, under these conditions.

    The idea would be to have a topic, and an overall time period of perhaps an hour or two. If some participants enjoyed it, and became proficient, they might want to try four hours. Participants would have a limited time period for response, perhaps five or ten minutes, to keep the replies short and sweet. No editing. Some sort of round robin with three or more participants might work as well, giving the individuals a little more time between posts.

    Afterwards we could hold discussion, and judgement. Participants would not be judged on "winning the point", as we know this is impossible. They would be judged on their ability to stay true to the topic, adequately interpret the opponent's points, provide coherent and intelligible replies, while staying true to the time constraints. And, on how well an overall knowledge of the subject is expressed. I think that some members here, engaged in such a debate could produce some entertaining reading material.

    Start with easy topics. Any thoughts, or volunteers?
  • csalisbury
    1k
    I really like the concept. I'm not sure how well it would work on the forum tho. I suppose it'd have to be an agreement between two members to post within x minutes of the other person posting. It could be cool.
  • csalisbury
    1k
    I'd do one on universals & nominalism. I'm a total amateur on the subject, but I've been thinking about it a lot lately.
  • The Great Whatever
    2.2k
    Why not do it in audio?
  • Chany
    333
    This is just my experience: people gifted or capable at one form of communication are not automatically capable in another medium of communication. People who write well and sound interesting in written text can easily be the worst orators with the worst voice and delivery. People who speak well are not necessarily good at writing. I feel that in-person debates with allotted time structures would take the focus away from the arguments themselves and transform them into points about style and delivery, though this might favor people who talk better than they write. Also, prep for auditory debate takes time. Unless you have a lot of innate talent, you have to do some prep work in order to not sound like a buffoon, which I'm not sure most people have time to do.

    There are also some kinks that would need to be worked out, like how the first person to speak would have to spend part of their allotted time to just introduce the topic and offer some loose background info. Also, how exactly would the participants do this? Google Hangout?
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    2.9k
    Why not do it in audio?The Great Whatever

    I think audio is too difficult. It adds the dimension of comprehending the sounds, and remembering what was said. Playback would be required, to maintain quality responses, and then what would be the point? The written word provides a better forum.

    I feel that in-person debates with allotted time structures would take the focus away from the arguments themselves and transform them into points about style and delivery, though this might favor people who talk better than they write.Chany

    That's the whole idea, to focus on style and technique. A good discussion requires that each member focus not only on what they themselves want to say, but also on what the others are saying. This format would give participants the chance to practise rapid comprehension of written material, and rapid response, as well as give the audience a chance to criticize those who go off on a tangent, fail to display a clear understanding of what the opponent said, or write clearly It is to compare and balance interpretive skills with writing skills.

    There are also some kinks that would need to be worked out, like how the first person to speak would have to spend part of their allotted time to just introduce the topic and offer some loose background info. Also, how exactly would the participants do this? Google Hangout?Chany

    There's no need for Google Hangout, do it here. Just limit the thread to the participants only, who agree before hand to the timing factors. A mod could introduce the topic and flip a coin or something to see who goes first. After the debate the audience, as well as the participants, can pick it apart.
  • Terrapin Station
    3.7k


    What I like doing more than posting on a message board is chatting. I used to frequent IRC, especially the philosophy channel on Undernet. Unfortunately, IRC has more or less died off, or at least it seems to not attract any new people. I don't know why chat isn't more popular, but I prefer to communicate online as if I were having a conversation with someone in person/in real time.
  • Banno
    1.4k
    I'm in. Debates offer the structure needed for depth of analysis.
  • Agustino
    8.7k
    I'm in. Debates offer the structure needed for depth of analysis.Banno
    Me against you on politics mate, any time 8-)
  • jamalrob
    1.5k
    I'd certainly like to see debates. I'm not sure about the real-time thing, but if the participants were to agree on those rules, then sure.
  • Rich
    2.2k
    You can play Trump. You'd be perfect. An infantile, bullying, uneducated, narcissistic, cry-baby, looking for attention. You can even have your idiotic rat pack help you out because bullies can't handle things on their own. I'll play the press, giving it all to you. What do you say?
  • mcdoodle
    890
    I'd like debates. It's been a pleasure of going back to school, to watch bright people focus on their own and each other's ideas, and occasionally to contribute.

    Pace Rich and Agustino's remarks, I think politics would generate more heat than light.

    Let's develop philosophical topics that we keep coming back to here.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.