Seems okay, but if there's no definitive end, when does the poll get put up? The only other option being waiting for it to spiral out of control so that there IS a definitive end.

I think all of the debates should have a poll running from the get-go, with people being able to change their vote at any time, and a mod saying something like "All final votes should be in within 3 days"

That implies that there would be in fact a clear-cut end of discussion, I mean, assuming the debate stops once all final votes have been made.
I mean, what's the point of trying to convince people if they can't vote anymore?

You can make it so that votes can be changed. Also, the mod saying that should only be once discussion seems to have pretty much ended.

Alright. I still feel it should be more formal, but I'd definitely be okay with it like this.

Well guys the debate time limit doesn't have to be set in stone. If both sides are still providing valid points and not just repeating previous statements, the debate will be allowed to go on. Also in the end it's not about convincing the other guy to to see it your way, bur rather to convince the audience. Just look at presidential debates. They are not there to convince each other, only the voterbase.

If it is not an open board without a usergroup, then this is merely a ploy to create another group for the so called "intellectuals" who think they are smart because they can string together a sentence.

I would rather see everyone have a chance at debating than just the spam assholes who will most likely limit who can enter by perceived "intelligence."

Yes Whimmy, we get that we are all elitist pricks
Since we are all elitist pricks, we're not going to stop being elitist pricks just because you reminded us of this fact yet again

I think instead of specifying a time limit from the start, we could introduce one when things start getting slow. This will remove the problem of topics being locked prematurely, and if the debate gets more lively again you can simply remove the limit.

I also think few subjects should be banned. For example, one person brought up banning people from discussing Hitler - there's little point in that. Despite, y'know, genocide, he played a very important part in history and many would argue that his less murderous ideas where excellent.

Yes you're all elitist pricks because you still believe spam should be for the "haves" while the "undesirables" and the "have nots" rot in inequality.

Exactly
you won't change that

There is no freedom.

I cannot speak my mind without being persecuted on this forum for my opinions.

/wrists

If it bothers you so much then stop posting your opinion

It is not my fault I wear my heart on my sleeve.

It is your fault for being bothered by it and persecuting me in the first place.

Generally I don't even comment on your opinions but I guess that's persecution?
You can PM me if you want but this isn't really the place to discuss this

Sheesh, no one said you had to go to the section if you don't like it

Anyway I'm still discussing this idea with the mods, so give it some time