DEBATE TEAMS, organized setups and signups.

[Roland_Deschain]

How would the teams work? Would the teams form for each debate, since people in a team are unlikely to share the views on the same side of a debate for every topic (and if they do, then that suggests some issues there). I suppose that the teams would be composed after the topic has been announced, but then you stated that teams might choose the next topic.


Anyway, it is not a bad idea.
I don’t think that it should take over all of debating on the forum though. The idea of teams and an audience sounds great (unless this causes people to conform their beliefs to fit a single united viewpoint), but of set time periods and places for the debate, I think people not signed up may want to get involved and have opinions on a matter too. So regular threads should still exist and continue to be made, with special teamed debate threads being separate.

As for evidence and sources.. I understand and agree with the need for this, however not everyone has internet sources to hand, or perhaps they have read books years back about it (/ etc, depending on what is being debated), as opposed to internet articles. It’s true that people could try and fish the internet to find this information again, but it isn’t always going to be possible. With regular debating I wouldn’t mind that much if an argument was still well made and sensible. I can understand the need to press this harder for the team debate threads. However, I don’t think it would be easy to enforce this on the forum as we’d then have only a few posters who are likely to be experts on a particular topic (though that depends upon what it is, I suppose). I also find that sometimes the figures and sources can be interpreted in different ways, so opinions are, to me, just as important, as are life experiences – so long as it is accepted that that is what they are.

Debates are largely slow moving anyway, but we’ll have seen it with a few threads that when sources are recited and opinions or interpretations are considered of little value, then it is static and no longer a debate. It needs both. Sometimes one person in a thread can state all the facts, but there may be room for opinion in the interpretation of these facts, or in the discussion of their relevance. So long as their presence is considered and not just ignored and countered with “But in my opinion the world is flat, and the moon is a pancake stuck on the ceiling”, then I don’t see a problem with not reciting lots of figures in every post, and repeating these same figures in every post from then on.

Again, with the team debates idea – I like it. I mainly want to know how teams would be set up.



EDIT - Ah. While I typed this my question was answered.

To answer these question. If you do not have books or internet sources for a topic, you will have a week of signups before the debate actually begins to research... and if you cannot do that then don't sign up.

As for teams, they are meant to be teams for a choosen topic. For example there will be a prior vote for weekly topics, and secondary bracket to sign up which side you will participate in. I would guess first come first serve.

This would not take over debating I don't, because afterwards I think the thread can open up to the public to continue the debate. Perhaps a rule can be envoked that the participants shouldnt post after the debate finishes, or perhaps not.

As for choosen teams, they can get together or even make a thread to discuss and form their own debate wether they are together or not. This could be opened up by those people, and given time to allow the people intrested to sign up for the sides not filled, if they should choose to do so.

 

[Will Graham]

I was thinking though, that if we are setting up teams then that means no one will ever change their mind. The competitive element will mean regardless of how well a point is made, the opposing team will do their damnest to undermine it.

Will the public then take a vote on the winners, or will it it just finish after the post limit is hit?

I also agree that such a format should not be employed on all debates

I would not advise an FF themed debate, a lot of people who debate regularly aren't really FF heads anymore. Nor would such a topic go in the Sleeping Forest iirc

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Will the public then take a vote on the winners, or will it it just finish after the post limit is hit?


I would not advise an FF themed debate, a lot of people who debate regularly aren't really FF heads anymore. Nor would such a topic go in the Sleeping Forest iirc

To answer your first question, I do not think a vote should be issued because its not just about winning, its about upholding your side. The open of the thread after the debate finishes can be a way of analyzing how well you did, as the public can discuss the debate afterwards.

As for the second question I feel no reason not to involve Games, entertainment, or any form of debate. Like I said we want to get the ball rolling, and the more potential the better. If you do not want to debate FF games then simply do not sign up for those topics. However, if we allow these kinds of debates as well then we just ass more involvment, and untilize the theme of the forum.

 

[Will Graham]

Yes but the games have their own forum for this exact kind of topic, my pal

If people are just going to focus on upholding their side, then what is the point of having a debate? Surely it is to convince others of your point, or realising that others have a better understanding of it than you. It will not work if people are going to have to stay locked into one side

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Yes but the games have their own forum for this exact kind of topic, my pal

If people are just going to focus on upholding their side, then what is the point of having a debate? Surely it is to convince others of your point, or realising that others have a better understanding of it than you. It will not work if people are going to have to stay locked into one side

Well lots not get into a debate before we get the ball rolling. It means something different to each person. I also think that if you swayed a persons opinion they can give notice after the time on the debate draws closed. We don't necisarrily need acknowledgment of victory

As for the games I am sure exceptions can be made. sure we have general discussion for comparison of games, but I feel no reason we could not allow a "debate" agaisnt games to be allowed in the sleeping forest, I mean it is a debate area.

 

[Dionysos]

Perhaps, as debates develop, there is an option to change your team / status (or whatever we can call it). Perhaps people may want to hop over the fence or hop on to the fence and admire both sides. I think there is a danger if we force people to remain as Red vs Blue for the entire debate if the debate does happen to move. Perhaps the option to change teams / be moved to a new team separate from the rest could be used to help indicate how the debate is going.

 

[ribbit]

Perhaps, as debates develop, there is an option to change your team / status (or whatever we can call it). Perhaps people may want to hop over the fence or hop on to the fence and admire both sides. I think there is a danger if we force people to remain as Red vs Blue for the entire debate if the debate does happen to move. Perhaps the option to change teams / be moved to a new team separate from the rest could be used to help indicate how the debate is going.

This.

And sometimes people all share the same opinion, but there are parts of it that they don't agree with. So they could be somewhat neutral or agree with points from both sides. I know I'm that way with some things.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

Perhaps, as debates develop, there is an option to change your team / status (or whatever we can call it). Perhaps people may want to hop over the fence or hop on to the fence and admire both sides. I think there is a danger if we force people to remain as Red vs Blue for the entire debate if the debate does happen to move. Perhaps the option to change teams / be moved to a new team separate from the rest could be used to help indicate how the debate is going.

Yeah that is indeed creative thinking. How about we create four brackets per debate.

for example. 5 vs 5 even sided to begin with. along with two empty rows to allow for change jumping. Then the debate can end up with 7v3 5v5 6v4 ect.

Are you ok with what I said about bringing in all kinds of topic Argor?

KEEP IN MIND. Some debates can allow for perhaps even three sides.

I will give an example
Jesus existed and was the son of god.
Jesus existed but was not the son of god.
Jesus existed and is the son of god.

Its just an example.

 

[Dionysos]

I agree that the debate topics should be broad and varied, but I think that if we were to bring FF debates into the Sleeping Forest then things might start to look a bit unordered and inconsistent with the forum layout. That said, perhaps similar threads can be set up in the FF section, if the team debate threads were to be held in their appropriate areas. Or maybe if there is a clear indication in the thread title that it is a team debate debate, then it may be ok. I'm not sure what other people would think about seeing an FF debate in the Sleeping Forest. Some people may feel that it is clogging up what has always been an FF-free section.

 

[ribbit]

I'd say that you have a numbered poll 1 being completely disagree, and the highest number being fully agree (or the other way around). A religious debate on another forum that I was a part of had numbers 1-7 and a description for each number. 1 being fully religious and believed in God, 7 being fully atheist or agnostic (can't remember exactly) and believed in no God. Something like that.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I'd say that you have a numbered poll 1 being completely disagree, and the highest number being fully agree (or the other way around). A religious debate on another forum that I was a part of had numbers 1-7 and a description for each number. 1 being fully religious and believed in God, 7 being fully atheist or agnostic (can't remember exactly) and believed in no God. Something like that.

Well the goal is to be collective and adapted, so for now let us begin with style and not messy. When people call for changes then it can be subject to change

Argor. Is it possible, if we were to place a debate team debate in the final fantasy area, after it begins can it be made to only involve the people involved, or would mods just have to erase other peoples posts.

I was thinking of making a voting poll for two debates to get the ball rolling. One regarding the comparison of two FF games and the other involing a law. I would post a vote of three choices for each and let it sit for a week.

 

[ribbit]

Well the goal is to be collective and adapted, so for now let us begin with style and not messy. When people call for changes then it can be subject to change

Argor. Is it possible, if we were to place a debate team debate in the final fantasy area, after it begins can it be made to only involve the people involved, or would mods just have to erase other peoples posts.

I was thinking of making a voting poll for two debates to get the ball rolling. One regarding the comparison of two FF games and the other involing a law. I would post a vote of three choices for each and let it sit for a week.

In order to do that, you'd have to make a sub forum that only people on the debate teams could post in. That's through the ACP and may take more time to do. I'd say that would be a no unless the admins were willing to do it (adding however many members to this special debate team usergroup one by one by one). Unless there's another way I'm unaware of. But I say let everyone post their opinions and not necessarily worry completely about teams and just let anyone who wants to participate do so. Either way the debate is kept going by people who have different views. Teams make it too locked down, in my opinion.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

In order to do that, you'd have to make a sub forum that only people on the debate teams could post in. That's through the ACP and may take more time to do. I'd say that would be a no unless the admins were willing to do it (adding however many members to this special debate team usergroup one by one by one). Unless there's another way I'm unaware of. But I say let everyone post their opinions and not necessarily worry completely about teams and just let anyone who wants to participate do so. Either way the debate is kept going by people who have different views. Teams make it too locked down, in my opinion.

This defeats the whole purpose of it hehe. The post will be opened afterwards. Its like letting the prepared people step forward, and then having everyone else scrutinize if following. It can even be an educational thing.

 

[Ethics]

I realize some of you want to keep the feeling that these debates have purpose aside from winning, and still offer the ability to "expand on oneself" per se. So here is my suggestion, which may not work at all.

Instead of signing up for which team you want, you sign up ONLY to participate. This stops anything like the "popularity" bit that Roland mentioned. People don't want to flip sides because they have there own views, yes, but to be truly analytical one must be able to see from all sides. Even those you disagree with. Variety is the spice of life, etc.

After a particular amount of people were to resign from the debate for any reason, a post count be reached or a time limit expired the winning team will be decided. After losing a certain amount of debaters from your team, you will automatically lose that weeks debate. A poll can be set in place at the end of each debate to collect the final tally of opinions from both debaters and bystanders.

Your team won. So what? The losing team can place votes on whom they felt was the stronger contender on the opposite team. This individual (Debater of the Week, if you will) can receive a prize in the form of vBpoints, Rep or something along those lines. This compels debaters to hold their side regardless of team.

This is all a suggestion, as I said.

 

[Will Graham]

I think my pal pouches here has hot on what approaches the perfect solution, it seems the most objective and efficient approach. I will throw all of my handsome support behind this if we go with this modus operandi

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I have issued a VOTE for FF games and for other topics.

http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/showthread.php?t=49446
http://www.finalfantasyforums.net/showthread.php?p=948395#post948395

In the next week we will use this thread to improve and critique the idea.


Now I would like to address what pockets said in some manner. I know people should be allowed side flipping, but how often do you see people switch sides in professional debates? I would just assume be satisfied with getting my points across to the people I am debating with along with taking in their own, and influencing those who read it.

Also when you say "just sign up to participate", what do you mean. if too many people have the same side then there will be no debate on account of not filling it, thats why I issued a vote among options, and will take in the first filled. I feel that people should have a little time to prepare before being thrown into the debate.

If you are intrested in doing this, please spread the word, I think it could turn into something pretty awesome, and we need the assistance of everyone to make it happen.

I think a time limit or post count is good, now let us discuss which is better?

 

[Donald Trump]

I'll give it a go, but I certainly won't discuss which finaru fantariji game is the best, or better than any other finaru fantariji game. I also think that if the threads are over regulated by the moderators, who are so great, then they will become very boring and dry.
And I think there should be a word limit of sorts, no one will want to read through one of Harlequin's stupidly long posts in which he multiquotes at least 100 times.

 

[Ness]

Now that I'm not shooting at Lickers while typing...I can devote some actual energy to weighing in on this. I've done some professional debating before and if you're looking to re-create a more...structured environment, there are a few pitfalls to watch out for.

1) Team Imbalance

The problem with hot-button issues like abortion is that most people on this forum hold a certain viewpoint and will want to argue that point. That's natural, but not everyone can be pro-choice...at least for the purpose of the debate. Seeing how the voting is panning out in the topic thread simply illustrates my point.

Instead of signing up for which team you want, you sign up ONLY to participate. This stops anything like the "popularity" bit that Roland mentioned. People don't want to flip sides because they have there own views, yes, but to be truly analytical one must be able to see from all sides. Even those you disagree with. Variety is the spice of life, etc.

I think if we go the aforementioned route that we can avoid this. People can simply sign up for the Abortion Debate and their sides will be assigned to them (randomly, by judges, whatever).

2) Judgement

Will the winners truly be determined by who did the best job of debating? I find that most people will simply side with the team that they agree with in casual voting, leaving no impetus for a side to actually PERFORM well. I think we need a voting system to address this flaw, because in that case I won't be caught dead on certain teams. I think a panel of judges would best serve in this capacity...or a rubric should be devised. I'm thinking the former is ideal because the latter is a good measure of work.

3) Structure

A big part of what makes debate work is having a structure for argument. The amount of time (in this venue, post/word count) each side has should be carefully balanced, and the order in which they post is important as well. Just having random postings here and there will make judging difficult, I imagine. This will just require a bit of work in coming up with an appropriate format.

I guess that's it for now.

 

[Roland_Deschain]

I'll give it a go, but I certainly won't discuss which finaru fantariji game is the best, or better than any other finaru fantariji game. I also think that if the threads are over regulated by the moderators, who are so great, then they will become very boring and dry.
And I think there should be a word limit of sorts, no one will want to read through one of Harlequin's stupidly long posts in which he multiquotes at least 100 times.

Just to be clear buddy Hal, you are aware what you just said about the other user is something that would be cringed upon in one of the debates... allthough I think you know this... hmmm, haha

We want to try and make this as respectful as possible. No low blows and no personal shots. I was serious when I say we should treat each other as strangers during the debate, we shouldnt use past records as strike agaisnt a persons debate.

Hal can you check the voting threads ans see if there is anything you will sign up for?

I don't think the random thing will work any better then signing up. If you have a debate, 3v3....then its fair, its 3 vs 3. Lets try and keep emphasis off of competition. I think it wil be much harder putting people in on random sides. I mean do you expect people to debate full heart on an issue they do not agree with? Also what about time and preperation?

As for voting I have an idea... each debate can have two poles. One poll can determine the spectators opinion, and the other one can determine which side they thought did a better job of presenting their argument. That way the ratio will be a good sign. How does that sound?

 

[Shaissa]

Well I have to say this is very interesting set up you have here.

Are you going have Judge and a Jury also?

and how many "teams" are you planning on having?

And as far as the FF Questions are concern, most of those are going be very opinionated so providing true sources as to why one hero is the best or why one game is better than the other would be very tough.

Oh and an idea for Future debates, if we do get actual teams going, you can have an idea like... I'll use the FF one

FFVII is Better than FFX

You have two teams, and you or an admin or whoever runs this thing assigns which side each team will take instead of them choosing which side they wanna take. Yes this might mean that people would have to support something they don't agree with, but It could make it a lot more fun and challenging.