B

But yeah:

Get like 5 or more of us, 5 minutes per topic, a couple minutes for rebuttal, it;d go in a certain order (ie, I talk, then Putin, then Draug, then Smiely, then Conservative Man, and then back to me, for example, if we were the ones involved) and then the moderator gives points, 5 for the best response and 1 for the worst, maybe?

At the end of X amount of topics, highest total wins?

Interesting idea... Except instead of 5 minutes, I think people should be limited to a certain amount of words. That would be more of a challenge - and allow people to keep up with your... ahem... large... posts a lot easier. And I think that the thread would have to have rules attached to it - eg. no one can post if they don't have the floor. Moderating of the thread could be done in a separate thread, ie those wishing to speak against a subject would post, and then the "chairperson" would select who had the floor.

I don't like the idea of assigning points and a "winner". Whoever is the moderator will just pick whoever they agree with then, which will be no fun.

And we would have to establish no linking to outside sources, or I'd just post links to LessWrong for every argument I made.

I like this idea. I agree with : ) that we should do words, not minutes. It will allow us to better judge based on quality of the argument. Not who can argue quicker.

@ : )

Then you've picked a bad moderator. A good one would be able to to distance themselves from their personal beliefs.

I rather think I'd like heckling to be allowed. So people who don't have the floor can post. Mostly because Canadian Parliamentary style debate is pretty fun. Though it might be a little harder to work in a text based format like that. Maybe each opposition speaker is allowed one POI, and heckling is kept to the style of heckling allowed normally in formal debate.

Perhaps, abge. But I don't really trust anyone on this site to be a "good moderator". Including myself. I'm sorry, but there's just no argument for the existence of God that you can make that I will find logical.

I'd definitely be interesting, as long as the topic isn't religion. I'm getting afraid that continued debate about that will give me ulcers. Debate topic ideas:
Abortion
Socialism vs. Captitalism
Anarchy (except I'm no longer an anarchist, though I'd still be willing to take the anarchist's position)

I wouldn't really be interested in any of those debate topics. Sorry. Doesn't mean you can't have them, by all means, I just don't particularly care for any of them. After all, politics is the mindkiller.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/gw/politics_is_the_mindkiller/

"I think people should be limited to a certain amount of words."

...and have to put it into a haiku.

OK, if we do words rather than minutes, how many words?

How many words is enough to give a concise-yet-coherent response?

And what would you have in mind rather than points, Smiley?

And LOL at the heckling suggestion...that might be funny...or annoying...or both...

;)

Any possibility of debating something interesting and fun? I'm so sick of the same 4 debates over and over again.

What about a new topic like:

Wine
Actors
Sexual Positions
Diplomacy Countries
Athletic Steroid Use

I volunteer to moderate. I promise I can withhold my personal opinion and judge on merit alone.

And the topics can't be all political, I think...

A mesh of ethics and politics and philosophy and social issues and so on is what I had in mind, sort of an ammalagated representation of what we usually talk about...

I will say I like the idea of Abortion being a topic, though, as we haven't done that one for a while...

You should also try to define sides of the debate, not just 5 random people. Get a certain number of "sides" that people can sign up for.

And yeah...LOL:

I agree with abgemacht, at least one of the topics HAS to be a fun one. :D

I wouldn't mind you as moderator, Thucy...

Honestly, why bother with Abortion. Who hasn't heard every pro/anti argument there is. Let's be realistic: nobodies going to change their mind.

However, something like Diplomacy Countries would be relevant and might actually change people's perspective.

Steroids I also think is a good one, because we rarely talk about it and we may actually convert people.

I volunteer these 5 topics:

Abortion
Public health laws and their merits
The definition of love and/or its proper place in one's life
The morality of living in a high-consumption society
The meaning of life

I just dont think enough of us care about steroids to invest in the topic.

But, seriously, abortion? Nothing new is going to come of that. It will be purely an exercise in mechanics.

I do really like this one, though:

The morality of living in a high-consumption society

I don't agree, I have personally been swayed by an abortion debate on this forum.

I'd also enjoy a debate on US foreign policy but that's just my area of interest I guess. Or African development. But if I modding I shouldn't get to decide what we debate, I'd be willing to mod anything.

I would be all over this for Diplomacy countries.

And then there's you know, boxers vs. briefs,

old school vs. new school

east coast vs west coast lol. those are all fun. we could definitely do a debate on musical taste though if you guys are down

I like the idea of ethics... I think we should have at least one ethical dilemma (And a good one - most ethical "dilemmas" are painstakingly obvious)

Boxers. Briefs are too... ahem... tight.

lolwutisoldvsnew

East and west coasts can suck it, Gulf Coast represent

Windows vs. Mac

Oh, how about Death Penalty?

lol yeah i feel you eden. i was talking about biggie tupac though

I would also like to say that if I am chosen to moderate I will operate like it's a court - I will only consider the arguments presented even if I know there is something else out there.

There is hard evidence for instance that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent, but if the anti-death penalty side does not present this evidence it won't be considered. Do you think that's fair?

Musical tastes would be good, except that is pure opinion. No logic can be used to debate it. But it would still be interesting.

Quasi-logic can be used lol.

How about: If stealing were legal, should you steal?

Is there anyone who would actually say yes? That's laughable.

If it were legal? I'm sure lots of people would say yes... lol.

5 debaters for one topic is too many and too hard to do rebuttals for. I'd propose 1 on 1 or 2 on 2. Each debater could do a 500 word speech within a specified time limit, so people aren't sitting around for hours. This can be followed by a 200 word rebuttal. After which we could have cross examination period where each debater asks the other three questions.

The moderator should be compelled to provide a 200 word rubric or explanation for why they selected A or B debater the 'victor'. It doesn't even have to a clear-cut "A clearly won". It could simply point out where each side was strongest or weakest.

Also there should be clear ground rules. No insults, and the use of caps for a word counts as 5 words toward your word total.

@smiley: I asked that question on yahoo answers, and about 40% of people said they would steal if it was legal. So I think some people would say yes (though I, myself, say no).

I think it would also be fun to just have people sign up for a debate topic and have either the moderator or a random party assign the side you have to defend. I would be much more interested in seeing how people defend a side they do not necessarily agree with instead of one they have already given a lot of thought.

Yeah I'm partial to that as well jmo but it's whatever their are merits to both ways.

Okay, this idea might possible have a chance at being objective, but if it isn't it would still be fun: A debate on what the best song ever made is.

Mahler's 6th Symphony case closed. Come on everyone already know that CM

I'd like to partake.

I think we should have a rolling mod who selects the subject and we should each take our turn in being the mod. I think that participants shouldn't choose which side of the arguement they are on - they should be allocated a side and 500 word limit? - way too much make it 500 characters - be precise, get to the point and let others in your team make other points.