War Room Debate League- Who's Gonna Debate The Wall?!

I think we will need to just say hell with worrying about bias and let er rip. I mean, lets try to get a decent bipartisan judge base going but we could squabble about it until kingdom come.
I honestly wouldn't mind having people judge me who typically don't like what I say. It would be a challenge and people may be more fair than others think.

Then a lot of the stuff we argue comes down to opinion anyway.
 
It really doesn't matter. As far as judging goes. Plenty of people say I lose every day. I don't care. That's how we should all be and just have fun with it.

You win some, you lose some, and life goes on.

You're so "gee golly" Rip. Never change
 
Let's get this shit going already. I want blood.


Prelims start tonight.
 
I think our best bet to mitigate bias is to find people that understand a debate isn't about right or wrong. What we need to do is look at who is simply the better arguer, which has nothing to do with the position they are arguing. Part of the fun of this will be see people that think they are great "debaters' fall apart under an organized structure and the summary shaming and mockery we can direct at them. So long as the judges are cool, the thing can be various shades of mess imo. We'll naturally get a mix of good and bad debates, I think, and there's value in both.
I have to disagree, because the strength of an argument is often more important than the skill of the debater. That gets mighty subjective, but as an example: Guy #1 argues beautifully that we are just primate slaves of chemicals and bacteria (which I think is largely true) and argues skillfully for a brutal anarchist system. Guy #2 argues for institutions, and his argument isn't flawless and he's not as well-spoken, but he's just correct in describing how societies actually work in practice. That debate isn't necessarily won by either dude. The better debater has the weaker position there. I expect that sort of thing to come up. The debaters could also agree to different judging criteria, if they just want to see who is the best debater.

But after saying all of that, it seems like it's best to be slightly biased in favor of the better debater, for the sake of objectivity.
 
What should the role of the debate moderator be? Some thoughts:

- Introducing the topic, the debaters, and the rules/format for that debate
- Keeping the debate on topic if it slips, and referring to judges for infractions if needed
- Enforcing time limits if agreed upon
- Taking questions from the peanut gallery or asking followup questions or getting clarification on a point

It would also be nice to avoid massive source wars.
 
I have to disagree, because the strength of an argument is often more important than the skill of the debater. That gets mighty subjective, but as an example: Guy #1 argues beautifully that we are just primate slaves of chemicals and bacteria (which I think is largely true) and argues skillfully for a brutal anarchist system. Guy #2 argues for institutions, and his argument isn't flawless and he's not as well-spoken, but he's just correct in describing how societies actually work in practice. That debate isn't necessarily won by either dude. The better debater has the weaker position there. I expect that sort of thing to come up. The debaters could also agree to different judging criteria, if they just want to see who is the best debater.

But after saying all of that, it seems like it's best to be slightly biased in favor of the better debater, for the sake of objectivity.
I see what you mean, but i'm thinking more along the lines of whatever criteria we come up with. We won't be able to put bias aside in judging, but I think we could get a decent idea of who is being a better arguer regardless of what they argue. And even so, that's just something for the judges to consider. I imagine a lot of times the winner will be very clear hopefully due to meltdowns and nonsense to entertain us.
 
What should the role of the debate moderator be? Some thoughts:

- Introducing the topic, the debaters, and the rules/format for that debate
- Keeping the debate on topic if it slips, and referring to judges for infractions if needed
- Enforcing time limits if agreed upon
- Taking questions from the peanut gallery or asking followup questions or getting clarification on a point

It would also be nice to avoid massive source wars.
Yeah, this was where my thoughts went to right away. I think it will be important to get source issues out of the way at the very least so the debate doesnt get cluttered with weird crackpot youtube blog videos where someone narrates from their diary to looped images of owl statues.
 
If we do devil's advocate style, @Cubo de Sangre should do every single position no one is willing to take.

Fuck yeah, I'm down.

<note to self: self, read the thread before responding next time>


900x900px-LL-2ff6cb23_ezgif-952278819.gif
 
People being much too strict on debate guidelines and judges.

We're not debating for our lives here, just cred on an mma sites political sub-forum
 
Let's go ahead and address bias stuff right now since that's going to be the thing people spend page after page bickering about.

First of all, Limbo Pete is a guy I've been posting with for years, and though we share roughly the same political ideology of the moderate left, we've had enough disagreements and arguments, sometimes even spilled over to social media. He's a talented historian and a really smart guy. Limbo is absolutely capable of objectively evaluating arguments and conceding against his bias. I can vouch for him on that more confidently than I can vouch for anyone here about anything. I don't give a lot of endorsements like that.

Second point here and changing topic from your post, there is no way the partisan gridlock can get any worse than it already is. This is a complete freeroll on the state of the War Room. The worst outcome is that it's the same as it is right now. There is no downside.

Third, when people have a goal of making good arguments and put their effort into it, that just multiplies objectivity and honesty and creates opportunity to find common ground. By definition, to define an argument narrowly enough to create a proposition, you must also find common ground. That isn't happening here at all lately.

Fourth, a debate league like this has a natural feedback system. It will correct itself over time within the contextual confines of judging well-reasoned arguments. Those are strong walls, and a judge giving a biased opinion is going to stick out.

Fifth, we're grown-ups and we can act like grown-ups about it. I think we can just be gentlemen.
Maybe he is, maybe I just catch him and his BS comments when he is just goofing around. but everytime he responds to something it is from a liberal bias.

I know some people just goof around on here (including me, 95% of the time), but some people have never said or taken the conservative side on anything. Hell I'm conservative but am pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro AA, less military, and understand the need for the cops to do better community outreach to inner cities. I also understand the black communitiy still recovering from centuries of exploitation and them still trying to get their shit together, while at the same time needing to take a long hard look at their "culture" and what they promote (not all blacks of course).

I think another good idea, probably already said, would be for people to have to take the opposite side of what they believe and debate it.
 
Let's not try to aim for perfection from the outset. There will be an adjustment period.
 
Of course, the thread immediately fills with mouth-breathers pre-complaining about bias, trying to get people like IDL as judges (lol), and throwing out slights about being informed.

There seems to be little chance of this not being a disaster where morons like 11_others, Cable, etc. just go into denial about being outclassed and their moron brigade joins in.

Regardless, considering the immaturity of the rightists on this board, any judge would almost certainly have to be a moderate right-leaning person so as to foreclose (or at least minimize) the inevitable they were biased! claims. I nominate:

@panamaican (previously won best conservative award)
@Lead (previously administered GOP primary threads and carded me for telling moron eugenics guy to off himself)
And some other third guy

That way, since 2/3 judges are right-leaning, morons can't claim bias because the judges don't recognize science denial and referring to experts as cuckolds as legitimate arguments.
AWWWW SHIT, BUTTHURT ALERT

I'm so popular that I have a brigade behind me? You must still be puttin cream on your ass hole from a comment I made about you for you to remember me specifically.

Does it burn bitch boy!!!!!!!!!
 
Maybe he is, maybe I just catch him and his BS comments when he is just goofing around. but everytime he responds to something it is from a liberal bias.

I know some people just goof around on here (including me, 95% of the time), but some people have never said or taken the conservative side on anything. Hell I'm conservative but am pro gay marriage, pro abortion, pro AA, less military, and understand the need for the cops to do better community outreach to inner cities. I also understand the black communitiy still recovering from centuries of exploitation and them still trying to get their shit together, while at the same time needing to take a long hard look at their "culture" and what they promote (not all blacks of course).

I think another good idea, probably already said, would be for people to have to take the opposite side of what they believe and debate it.

Being able to objectively evaluate an argument doesn't mean you can't hold strong opinions on that very topic. After all, we're talking about moderating. Your opinion on a matter should be irrelevant to your ability to determine who argued their side better, and more importantly, who is not being honest and/or charitable.

The biggest obstacle to honest dialogue on this forum, imo, is just that-- plain dishonesty. Nobody wants to budge on their positions, and when concessions, even small ones, should take place, there is often dishonesty instead. A reasonable moderator should be able to call out such dishonesty, and that alone will solve a lot of the issues. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it here.
 
Being able to objectively evaluate an argument doesn't mean you can't hold strong opinions on that very topic. After all, we're talking about moderating. Your opinion on a matter should be irrelevant to your ability to determine who argued their side better, and more importantly, who is not being honest and/or charitable.

The biggest obstacle to honest dialogue on this forum, imo, is just that-- plain dishonesty. Nobody wants to budge on their positions, and when concessions, even small ones, should take place, there is often dishonesty instead. A reasonable moderator should be able to call out such dishonesty, and that alone will solve a lot of the issues. I could be wrong, but that's how I see it here.
Yea ill still take someone who has a multitude of views over always following the line for whatever side they are. I mean if you always agree with your side, I have to wonder about you. I just don't think someone who is hardcore either way would be able to legit evaluate. Yes you are right that THEORETICALLY it shouldn't mean that but come on, you've seen most everyone in the WR, they are few and far between.
 
Suggestion for the process:

0) People PM Fawlty if they are up to debate any topic
1) Fawlty publishes topic
2) People volunteer via PM to Fawlty for the specific topic. They can, if they want, volunteer to debate against their leaning.
3) Fawlty picks debate participants
4) Judge is publicly assigned and publishes his criteria in advance
5) Fawlty sends questions to participants
6) Participants send answers to Fawlty
7) Fawlty publishes initial answers without publishing poster names and tells posters whether they are first to reply
8) Posters answer via PM to Fawlty
9) Debate is declared finished at a certain point by Fawlty
10) Judge publishes verdict
11) Fawlty reveals winner and who is who.

I think the twist with the option (but not duty) to debate against one's leaning would be that you cannot tell as a judge whether the posters 'really' have that opinion or not, which makes it less likely you favor your buddies (and you don't know who they are).

Sounds good?
 
Last edited:
Sounds fun. I'm in. I'll debate anything vs. anyone. Or judge anything said by anyone. Or vote on anything debated by anyone else.

I'll anything for anyone...any time.
 
The problem with formal debates with enforced rules is that the left simply won't play. They've been playing dirty all their life, they're not about to learn now.
 
With regard to the @Limbo Pete and @Fawlty, I think the idea is different. Limbo seems to want to make it about proving one's mettle as a debater. I think it should be about getting the position right. I'd also say that there should just be a source post for any questioned fact. Like Fawlty can collect all sources that people use in one post.

Sounds fun. I'm in. I'll debate anything vs. anyone. Or judge anything said by anyone. Or vote on anything debated by anyone else.

I'll anything for anyone...any time.

"I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."
 
I think I'm a good candidate for passing judgement. I like all you clowns.
 
Back
Top