Debaters should write clearly without unnecessary jargon or weird formatting.

There should be no recourse to quoting other philosophers or making your points by referring to the specific concepts of philosophers.

Both debaters should defend and explain their own positions as well as trying to refute the others.

Moderator should suggest debaters to quit stalling and to answer questions fully.

Last two debates have been terrible,because 180 didn't follow simple etiquette.

Meh. There should be no prejudice as to writing style. Poor writing will simply be unconvincing, and quickly recognised by the audience.

And there is a presumption of an audience. Writers ought write in the understanding that this is a public performance, and part of their duty is to entertain.

@Banno

Well there weren't much entertainment. More like 180 was too gun shy to engage.

The writing style is poor and unconvincing.

Look at the comments on the debate.

Well there weren't much entertainment... — Protagoras

Demonstrably wrong, since the discussion thread is several hundred posts long.

@Banno

Yes,that was the entertainment,not the debate!

Demonstrably wrong? Have you lost your marbles?

:up:

the desire for power is greater than the desire for truth

therefore debating often descends into fighting

and there is nothing wrong with that. wake up and smell reality you silly idealists

For some people yes.
Still a poor debate.
@MikeListeral

For full disclosure, the issue regarding procedure arose in the PMs between 180, me, and Banno, especially as it related to who got last close. The other procedural issues I brought up in the debate itself. My concern regarding procedure was made known in my not so subtle way in PMs.

In the debate, I did argue that 180"s style wasn't acceptable, but since no specific rules were prearranged, those objections could only be evaluated by the observers and not the mediator. All was to be considered fair game except to the extent a spectator might disagree. It's a chaotic approach to be sure, sort of like letting the players do whatever they want to get the ball in the goal and the spectators can decide if they think fouls, handballs, and moving the goal off the field ought to count. An exaggeration of course, but just to make the point.

Moving forward, and I say this from sitting in debater chair (not an observer nor a moderator), it's frustrating when you really are present in the moment, trying to develop your thoughts, get meaningful feedback, respond, become more educated, and provide something of value in exchange for having been granted the spotlight to feel you're not being given a meaningful chance to do that.

I'm not chastising anyone here. Banno did reliably as asked and 180 honored what rules there were, but I expected something different, reasonably or not. I do believe our closings were on point, so I do think eventually we got there.

I'm wondering if there is just a standard set of debate rules that can be adopted for future use, with the moderator having the duty to know them and enforce them. Just saying "play fair" has been proved to have its limitations.

@Banno

I'm not in favour of mandating a standard set of rules, but instead, keeping track of issues that might arise and providing precedent rather than legislation. Guidelines for future debates.

I would encourage more debating hereabouts.

I don't think that the contents of PM's ought be divulged without consent. I was seeking to keep the discussion here impersonal, but that seems to have gone by the way.

I don't think that the contents of PM's ought be divulged without consent. I was seeking to keep the discussion here impersonal, but that seems to have gone by the way. — Banno

Well, I believe in transparency, especially as it relates to public matters. The comments weren't of a personal nature. So we disagree there. It is common that private moderator conversations are quoted publicaly by other moderators when disputes arise. Sunshine rules are a good thing, not a violation of confidence.

I'm not in favour of mandating a standard set of rules, but instead, keeping track of issues that might arise and providing precedent rather than legislation. Guidelines for future debates. — Banno

This is a legalistic suggestion, demanding a procedure of its own. Typically precedence doesn't begin ground up from just pure judicial rulings (except in very ancient common law examples), but from statute or rule and then prior judicial interpretation matters.

That is, step 1, we pass rules, step 2, we interpret those rules, step 3, we use past interpretations for future cases. To skip step 1 makes original decisions interpretations from the judge"s view of personal fairness and it binds all future decisions. Under such a system,, the first judges become legislators as opposed to a more democratic method of original rule passage.

You method also defeats your confidentiality concerns because precedent must be fully public under such a system.

Well, I changed my mind almost as soon as I read that. It would be naive to think that any communication here would not eventually become public.

I suppose your garden is in neat rows, trimmed and stately.

Mine is a jungle, planted with everything that comes to hand. Some survive, some don't. I prune and weed in an ad hoc fashion.

Mine's an unapologetic cluster fuck.

The sequence of posts should also be considered. Standard format in my part of the world would be three posts to each participant; First Affirmative, First Negative, Second Affirmative, Second Negative, Third Affirmative, and finally Third Negative. This gives equal weight to both participants. It is a simpel mater to make this five or more posts rather than three. — Banno

:up: I would like to see this format standardized.

Moving forward, and I say this from sitting in debater chair (not an observer nor a moderator), it's frustrating when you really are present in the moment, trying to develop your thoughts, get meaningful feedback, respond, become more educated, and provide something of value in exchange for having been granted the spotlight to feel you're not being given a meaningful chance to do that. — Hanover

Agreed. What do you think of Banno's suggestions quoted here?

I'm not chastising anyone here. Banno did reliably as asked and 180 honored what rules there were ...

Likewise. Thanks.

Debaters should write clearly without unnecessary jargon or weird formatting. — Protagoras

Fair. Consider it done (since, no doubt, you're referring to me. "A broken clock" (troll) etc ...)

, ,

Debate moderators are not forum moderators.

Would you add to the burdens of the forum moderators?

Or do you see some sort of "separation of the powers" going on, in which the forum moderators commit to enforcing judgements of debater moderators while removing themselves form judgement.

And perhaps we should call debate moderators "arbiters" so as to save on typing.

Yes :100:

You can't say "yes" to an exclusive "Or"

Would you add to the burdens of the forum moderators?

Or the forum moderators commit to enforcing judgements of debater moderators while removing themselves form judgement?

Oops, the latter. Arbiters.

@Banno

Debate moderators should not be the regular moderators,but should be someone both debaters accept.

But the main crux is the debaters themselves should have some sort of goodwill and charity just as a point of pride.

But the main crux is the debaters themselves should have some sort of goodwill and charity just as a point of pride. — Protagoras

And how will you enforce that?

Would you add to the burdens of the forum moderators?

Or the forum moderators commit to enforcing judgements of debater moderators while removing themselves form judgement? — Banno

I can ask the mod team.

Thanks.

I think debates could improve if a limit to the amount posts is established. 2 each should be enough.

2 each should be enough. — Benkei

Three each; roughly, introduction, consolidation and rebuttal.

Well, we could put something like that to a vote. I'm not married to a number, 2 is what I'm used to as a lawyer and if life and death situation can be decided in 4 rounds...

Another idea could be to have debaters submit their opening positions blindly and then have them start a debate. But this has benefits and disadvantages. Main benefit will probably be that differences in definitions and usage of terms will be laid bare early on.

There's all sorts of options.

Again, I didn't start this thread in order to specify a must-follow set of rules. The idea was just to track things that come up and which might be best dealt with in the initial agreement.

Another idea could be to have debaters submit their opening positions blindly and then have them start a debate. — Benkei

I quite like that.

I hate debates. It is the folly of the age to reduce every important or pleasant activity to a mere competition. Even fishing! I await with despair the first series of The Great British Fuck Off *. Meanwhile, my moustache is bigger than yours. :roll:

Edit.* Or the BDSM version Strictly Come.

Or the BDSM version Strictly Come. — unenlightened

Good title. Didn't wanna see it but with a title that good..

I think debates could improve if a limit to the amount posts is established. 2 each should be enough. — Benkei

Having watched two debates in which the first affirmative did little or nothing to affirm anything, leaving the first negative to request the actual affirmation, I suspect the more stringent the number of posts, the fewer debates will go anywhere. Can the arbiter not just use their judgement? Or could posts that fail to affirm/negate not be struck off somehow?

Also, a lot of time is wasted arguing over definitions which, ideally, would be known to both sides prior to their agreeing to defend or attack them. Could the debaters agree on the key definitions before the arbiter introduces the debate? Even better, could the arbiter provide those agreed-upon definitions in the OP for the sake of the baying crowds?