I know a lot of people here that know how to have a fair debate, the main problem is the people that are normally accepted into the usergroups don't fit under that category.

I agree with G0l3m on this one... There's a lot of people that know how...
But the risk is starting flame wars left and right... So it should be heavily moderated, maybe have all global mods, some admin (Hakker), and maybe the regular mods who know how to moderate a section...

Just a suggestion, that's all

Yes your right about the fact that it will need to be heavily moderated, on the other hand your wrong about everyone moderating it at once. If that were to happen then the rest of the site would fall apart, I would suggest a selected member to be promoted as a special case. This persons only reason in power would be to moderate the new LD but at the same time other moderators could help that person keep it in line.

If alot of people knew how to debate then there wouldn't be a risk of flame wars left and right.

There is -always- a risk of conflict. No two people can get along forever, especially while discussing potentially explosive-although intellectually stimulating-- subjects. That being said, I believe you are all severely underestimating the staff that actually do their jobs- moderating a section for serious business would be -easy-, as any good debate will progress slowly but steadily. It doesn't take a genius to see when things are going sour and take appropriate action, either.

I'm all for this, so long as the members can keep an air of maturity about them or otherwise accept the consequences without throwing a fit.

Well hey, this is actually an interesting idea. I'd be willing to oversee it for a bit with some help. I usually am a pretty reasonable guy. Like Hakker suggested, people can send topics they want to discuss through me and my helpers. The topic is then posted by a mod and opened for debate. Then we could set a time limit to each debate, and perhaps add a poll near the end of the discussion for people to vote on views to add closure.

Whoah, now that's a structure I think would be interesting to see. I could see it being tough to manage though, even with help.

If we did do this, what do you all think of scheduled debates? Basically like DT said, they'd have time limits and the section would basically consist of topics that come and go by the week.

That would be wonderful, actually.
Maybe two debates going on at one time though, only one and it feels a little bit limited for those who wish to participate.

I don't like the idea of only two, because there are many things where people don't have an opinion or aren't interested in the topic enough to gain enough knowledge in order to gain an opinion.

I also am wary when it comes to time limits. Instead of saying "thread will close in X days, gogogogo", I think it would be more appropriate just to end it once conversation slows significantly or just plain stops.

No, a time limit is good. It gives us all the same amount of time to argue our point before the votes go in.

FINALLY!!! this topic gets interesting...

Combining the ideas of Deep Thought, Cleod, and Tid... It could work!

Maybe the Admin moderate this-- no, that puts too much on Cleod...

Well, maybe...

crap... I'm talking to myself again...

It's a good idea!

If there's voting on this, I vote yes

If we are to set a respectable standard for this as-of-yet nonexistent section, it would likely only work against us if limitations were enforced. Part of a debate is the party who is incorrect on the matter realizing that, indeed, they are incorrect- were a time limit given, the party may refuse to submit to that fact even after the bell rings, leaving the debate ultimately unresolved despite the succeeding poll. I realize that this would bring consequences upon the user, but why allow something to be negatively impacted if there is an able way to prevent it?


Tid, I hope you realize that "No, this thing is good" makes you appear close-minded and arrogant.

Debate No. 1: Whether or not a debate should have a time limit.

Consider the following scenarios

1. There's been a highly engaging, non raging discussion on XXXXX for 3 weeks, you're reaching a climax (the fourth one of this debate) before -BAM-, case closed. What? You were just getting to the good bit.

2. The debate you're in the middle of sucks. You want another one to come up, but you still have to wait another two weeks. You wish a better topic was chosen.

3. You really are getting annoyed by the logic of this person. They're just using circular logic. You don't understand how they even got clearance. Another topic is needed to put the flames out. Either that, or new evidence/ideas, but no one seems to have any, the conversation seems to be going no where. You think it's time for a new topic. Eight days left.

EDIT: I also think there should be some sort of rule about not mentioning Hitler or blowing things out of proportion.

Well, it's my opinion. I may have phrased it badly, but yeah. If I'd just left it at that without saying why I think so, that would've been a lot worse.
Anyway, some people are incredibly stubborn. I believe that leaving it open indefinitely, or until it gets out of hand, would not help the conflict get resolved any more than just closing it after a set time. Some people just aren't going to concede no matter what. In addition, this format is more like that of an actual debating competition, and competition tends to either bring out the worst or the best in people. Generally the latter.

Ok, unwholesome debate (ie. flame wars) would also signal the end of the topic.