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

[Falsedawn]

Lmao, like anyone would let someone as racist and biased as you judge.

Case in point you poon. Lmao.

 

[Mainez]

I genuinely like the idea of this thread but the majority of debate topics gotta be quick and light with only a sprinkling of heavy topics or this league will fall apart.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I'd like to be a judge. I'd also suggest there be a strict format for each debate (perhaps agreed to by both participants beforehand) so that the threads don't become shitshows. Only the participants and moderator should be encouraged to post in the thread until each has written their conclusion, then it should open up. I like the idea of polling to determine who wins.

I'd be willing to debate the existence of god or the nature of morality or whatever scientific topic.

Suggestion for the process:

0) Fawtly makes home debate thread where topics are suggested and posters can sign up.
1) Fawlty selects debaters, moderator, panel of however many judges.
2) Fawlty publishes topic and introduces debate structure.
3) The same criteria should be publicly available in the home thread and applied to every debate.
4) Opening poll (public).
5) Participants exchange opening remarks, argument, rebuttal, rebuttal, conclusion - or something to that effect.
6) Moderator moderates where necessary.
7) Thread is opened up after conclusions have been posted.
8) Closing poll.
9) Judges render decision (not necessarily in agreement with poll results).
10) Winner is declared and the incessant bitching commences.

Edited with my own suggestions. I'd be willing to assist Fawlty where needed, provided I receive pics of the aforementioned sister.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'd like to be a judge. I'd also suggest there be a strict format for each debate (perhaps agreed to by both participants beforehand) so that the threads don't become shitshows. Only the participants and moderator should be encouraged to post in the thread until each has written their conclusion, then it should open up. I like the idea of polling to determine who wins.

I'd be willing to debate the existence of god or the nature of morality or whatever scientific topic.

The problem with a vote is that it just becomes a popularity contest. I think that gets fixed if voters have to defend their votes without relying on identifiable logical fallacies for them to count.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

The problem with a vote is that it just becomes a popularity contest. I think that gets fixed if voters have to defend their votes without relying on identifiable logical fallacies for them to count, that would work.

I just edited in a few of my own suggestions, one of those being to include an independent panel of judges along with opening and closing polls. The judges would need to have a reputation for being impartial and (especially) literate and be able to defend their decisions if called upon to do so.

That way we can also get a sense of how far the War Room as a whole varies from an ideally objective assessment, by comparing the poll results to the judges' scorecards.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

A team of fact-checkers modeled after @Ruprecht would likely be a good idea as well, unless we expect the public to take care of that little duty.

 

[Slippery Kantus]

The only interaction I've had with @KONE is him making up shit about me or falsely accusing me of lying about something or other. He's a very obvious troll, and I've never seen him discuss a single issue. All I gather is that he has a really creepy obsession with Frank Mir and is mad that I don't regard him as highly as he does.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, that's the kind of well-thought-out post that I expect from you guys (right-wing hiveminders).

 

[Shidlord]

consider me

 

[Slippery Kantus]

Yes, that's the kind of well-thought-out post that I expect from you guys (right-wing hiveminders).

Well we can't all be as intelligent and honest as you, Jack.

 

[Slippery Kantus]

Case in point you poon. Lmao.

Facts are facts bub, your reputation here speaks for itself.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Well we can't all be as intelligent and honest as you, Jack.

You can try, but you don't. You prefer trolling. It's fine if that's your thing, but it really has no place in this thread, and generally, I don't care to play along.

 

[Fawlty]

Is there a summary of on what things we agree so far or do I have to read all 9 pages?

Been waiting for a few more people to sign up. I'll update the thread today and see if we can't get the first debate going soon. Mwahahahaha

 

[Slippery Kantus]

You can try, but you don't. You prefer trolling. It's fine if that's your thing, but it really has no place in this thread, and generally, I don't care to play along.

That might mean something to me if you were an honest, respected poster on this site.

But you aren't, so carry on.

 

[Falsedawn]

Facts are facts bub, your reputation here speaks for itself.

You're right, it's quite impeccable amongst people here who have triple digit IQs. The fact that I stunt on morans for fun is just icing on the cake.

 

[Jack V Savage]

That might mean something to me if you were an honest, respected poster on this site.

But you aren't, so carry on.

But of course "dishonest" just means "isn't a right-wing hack." There are no actual examples of me ever saying anything dishonest. And I'm very respected among real posters here. The fact that I enrage trolls like you only adds to that.

 

[luckyshot]

Let's see who wants a piece of the Bad Guy

 

[Anung Un Rama]

I think anyone should be able to vote but they should have explain their vote making reference to the criteria and there should be meta judges that throw out dumb explanations.

I like the idea of judges better. The Mods plus a sampling of non-biased judges who have to agree to judge that particular debate.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I like the idea of judges better. The Mods plus a sampling of non-biased judges who have to agree to judge that particular debate.

Judges are good, but I see the battle over who would be a judge derailing the whole thing.

I don't really think there are non-biased people. Anyone can be biased or non-biased on any particular issue. So the question is just whether whatever the topic is is something that people are, in fact, judging in an unbiased way.

I think a panel of judges picked from different "factions" (to be defined however will satisfy people) that then determines what votes are valid can work, too. That's running with my idea that anyone can vote but it has to be defended.

Anyway, winning or losing might not even matter if the exercise gets people thinking more seriously and deeply about their points, and making good posts.

 

[Fawlty]

Judging will be tweaked as needed and hopefully a lot of people will jump in and do it. I'm not that worried about bias, as I explained earlier in the thread.