Mock Debate?
 

Would anyone be interested in entering a 'mock debate' of sorts? Essentially, I'm thinking we would take an issue (any issue. Its unimportant which one) and have two parties debate it from the viewpoint opposite of their own.

More than anything, this would be an excercise in your debating skillz.

Thoughts? We might have two seperate threads as a part of this... one for the two 'actors', and another for a disscussion of the charade by the general forum public.

If you don’t bill it like that They will come.



But on a more serious note, this is sort of spam. And our mods have a special hatred of that vile substance.

This entire forum is debate you don’t need to start one all by yourself.

It could work. It would have to be a more formal affair than usual. Like a school debate with a larger audience. Have three people on each side. And a "referee" (I've fogotten the real name) that ensures that no flame wars begin to get too violent or repetitive (its not a real debate without genuinly witty insults hurled at each-other). The people on each side should have different colour fonts so they can be easily differentiated. Each speaker makes a speech in this order. The teams are called A and B for this example
1. Opinion poll
2. Team A first speech
3. Team B first speech
4. Team A second speech
5. Team B second speech
6. Questions from audience
7. Team A final speech
8. Team B final speech
9. Opinion poll

The questions have to be directed at a certain speaker and they cannot be answered with a yes or no. Speakers can also ask questions to people on the other side.
The entire debate is based on a certain premise. Our last school debate was over "this house believes that the introduction of compulsory ID cards is a breech of civil liberties and a waste of money". One side is "for" the motion, the other side is "against" it. The poll at the beginning and end counts the number of audience members that are for and against it while also counting people who abstain from the vote because they are not sure. If the poll has a different result at the end than the begginning you can then decide the winner of this debate.

I like this format you've layed out. I'd also like to see if this idea garners more support... If so, I'll probably try to get it organized and get (if needed?) mod support/permission.

What would be some appropriate topics? Maybe we could pick out a few broad topics that have been disscussed in this section...

good controversial topics would be

shiavo case
abortion
amendment rights/censorship
iraq
pirating (CDs, emulation, games, P2P and such)
death penalty

pretty much anything controversial

Good idea Nique. I'd be glad to be on one of the debate teams for this debate thread type thing. Personally I believe the abortion and death penalty topic would be the best because almost everyone has an opinion on those ideas.

As a referance: I'm Pro-Abortion because I don't think the child is alive until around 6months. And I'm Pro-Death because some crimes don't deserve a secomd chance, and they shouldn't stay in jail soaking up tax dollars that could go to education

But unfortunately, with really controversial topics, there will undoubtably be people with strong opinions and big mouths without the desire to actually discuss. There's a reason stuff like religion isn't a valid subject of discussion, and I'm pretty sure it's something along those lines. While this proposal for formal debating will help, I doubt it'll keep someone who has something to say from speaking their mind without actually being an "official" participant.

What I actually meant is too choose the side of the conversation that you DISAGREE with, and argue FOR that.

example: JOS states that he is pro-abortion. In the mock debate, he would argue on the "pro-life" side of the issue, while a person holding the "pro-life" viewpoint (or an essentially neutral viewpoint) would argue in the pro-abortion ring.

The only reason I would be leary of an issue like that under those "rules", is that it is SUCH a touchy issue, people might be uncomfortable arguing the opposite viewpoint, and understandably so. But if there are willing parties for any given issue, then there we go.

However, without the "opposite viewpoint" rule, we've still got the basic layout for the disscussion that spazzhands provided, or at least one like it. I think flames and the like will be avoided in the main thread at least, provided that an Oserver/commentator" thread accompanies the main debate thread...

Did any of that make sense? It's late.

You just have to be real careful about what you choose.
Also do not forget the middle, the people who decide that both sides have good points but don't choose what is right.

That's a really good idea. But I'm still worried that some jackass (and mark my words, they'll show up) will pop in with a "You baby-killing heathens will BURN IN HELL! That is all." or something to that effect. And if the topic is burgers vs. bagels, forget about it. Someone will be flamed, maimed, and/or killed.