Doh! darn page breaks! foiled again!

What matter would that be, and why does it warrant discussion here?

None especially, lol.

If you were addressing me.

Mario:

It's for fun, get over yourself.

Anyway.

I'm not an expert debater but I'll put my best foot forward on a format, and we'll start to tweak. Thanks obi for this cool idea btw.


-------
Participants:

Okay so first we need a sort of feel for how many participants want to work on each side. Looks like so far we have three Christians watching this thread:

1. CrazyAnglican
2. semck
3. Mujus
and a possible fourth, though I'm not remembering who he was right now. He posted a while back.

So we would want to get an equal number of committed atheists. Any volunteers? Right now I think we have:

1. obiwanobiwan
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?

I think four on each side is a good number for the teams. You can exchange emails, nominate captains, strategize to your heart's content.

------
Procedure and judging:

So I propose that the way do this, as I said, be over email, or, if we are really gung-ho, even with a few live session on a chat engine. But that's not necessary, we could do it if there is enough interest and availability though. I like the closed nature, and then publishing later for everyone to see.

CA has a good idea about judging, I think. We would want an odd number of judges, with each side getting to nominate theirs and a mutually agreed swing voter. These judges would be emailed the finished debate and they would write their opinions, and email them to me.

Then I would post it all in a thread for votes, commentary, and general free for all. It would be great.

No official winners or losers, just the opinions of some fairly nominated judges, the opinions of our community, and the structured debate for everyone to pore over. This doesn't need to be an ego contest, just make it into what you want. I for one welcome it as a mind-opening intellectual exercise.

Okay, so that's the judging process if there's no objections

---------
Structure:

So I think what we could do is have different people on each team fill different roles. This is my preliminary suggestion, but I want input from more experienced debate types to let me know if I'm leaving something out:

First, a randomized coin toss to see who goes first.

1. Side A opening statement, with a word limit of, say, 2000 words.
2. Side B opening statement as well
These would be sent in simultaneously, and then sent to the other team for review. With a period of time for conference and writing up new material, maybe 24 hours.

3. Side A rebuttal, limit 1000 words (all word amounts are pulled out of thin air, so help me out there)
4. Side B rebuttal
Once again simultaneous, then relayed to opposing teams. Note that each round is written up by a new team member, to be decided in advance.

5. Side A response, 1000 words
6. Side B response, 1000 words
Same thing.

7. Here we can have each of the four members do a bit of cross examination, all submitting something like two or three questions each. This list of questions is sent to the other side that answers them with whatever distribution of labor they like.
8. Then the members can see the responses to their questions and add another comment.
Note that there would be waiting periods in between each of these phases, how long I don't know, something like 24 or 48 hours, or less or more, up to yall.

9. Side A closing argument
10. Side B closing argument

During these debates I'll review the submissions before sending them to the other side and if there is foul play such as ad hominem or irrelevant tangents I'll send it back with that comment and wait for a new one. Once the whole thing is done I'll format the debate into a document and send it to the judges. They then write their ideas, without conferring I would hope, and send them back to me. Then I format those into the document as well.

After that I come on the forum, make a thread, and write a post that first explains what was done, the rules that were followed, etc., and then posts the debate, then the commentary. Then we open it up to be discussed. I can also post a link to the document I make.

What do you guys think of that?

Actually no need for the coin toss if this is simultaneous, so I take that back.

One other thing we will need to do is collectively formulate some kind of statement to be debated. We can do that here.

Also the moderator doesn't have to be me, but someone did mention it and I love the idea. I can assure you I am committed to impartiality, if that matters to y'all. Also willing to be the "swing" vote, but that will be up to you guys.

Well you certainly seem to have give in quite a lot of thought. I think that you'd be good as a moderator. My suggestion about judges was for the atheists to select three Christians as judges and the Christians to select three atheists as judges. My vote was for Spyman.

Nah I think it should be an odd number so that there can be a majority, like the supreme court, don't you think?

And they aren't necessary supposed to be "Christian" and "atheist" judges, just people each side thinks are fair. Right?

That could be, I meant to have seven judges (3 Christians, 3 atheists, and you) I was just clarifying my position. Also I think that you may lose something in the area of impartiality if the judges aren't evenly distributed.

Also I think an opening, rebuttal, and closing would be enough. Id be happy to bow out or act as a silent researcher to make the numbers work with three.

I will be willing to stand in on the Christian side, if there is a need. It looks like you've got enough, but I can be a reserve.

In the spirit of the electoral, democratic season we're soon to be embroiled in...

I'd propose, for the judges, that they be elected by the WebDip Community via nomination and popular vote (we can start another thread if need be for that) and then have Thucy "confirm" their appointments, to be sure we have as close as possible to a "bench" that's both evenly distributed and in line with the views of those at WebDip...

And as I still put a bit of value on +1s for the statements/rebuttals/closing statements, if we're deadlocked 3-3, 3-3, or 3-3-1 (if we go with an odd-numbered group and someone can't pick a side) and so on, that the +1s act as a sort of tiebreaker...

So we'll have Electoral Vote via the Judges, as it were...

And a Popular Vote via the +1s...anyway, that's my idea.

Also, we should start thinking about what topic we want to tackle specifically...

There's a LOT under the "religion/atheism" banner, after all, so we should probably narrow it down to a single, select proposition, with one side arguing for and one against (I'm a fan of the Intelligence Squared/Oxford-style debates I watch on YouTube--because I never have anything resembling a life, and now that it's summer I have less of a life still--and that's where I'm trying to derive the format here from...such as, again, one proposition being "The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World," with an Archbishop and Anne Widdecome arguing For it and Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens arguing Against it...

So, something such as "Religion is a Force for Good" or "The Bible is a Source of Morality" or "The World Would Be Better Off Today Without Religion" or something, whatever we choose, framed in a way that one side argues for and one against.)

I would think people who are unsure of where they stand in life should be the "swing vote" as people with preconceived notions will always vote to their core beliefs...

Obi.. I don't think voting on the judges is a good idea. Everyone knows there are fewer Christians than non-theists on this website.

And the +1s would still be available - I could just post two posts after the long debate posts that says "+1 this to vote for Christian win" and same for atheists.

There doesn't have to be an official doctrine on which determines the actual "winner," I say let people draw their own conclusions from the results of the various evaluations.

Anyway the reason I posit that I would make a good swing voter is that my stance is one of neutrality, I don't believe in either side being true for sure, so I feel it would be easier for me to just evaluate the arguments based on how convincing they are outside of considerations related to the atheist/Christian religious war that rages online.

CA: I added the responses and Q/As because when I have judged debates in the past, they only have opening statement, rebuttal, and closing, and I feel that's not enough to have a proper, interesting debate. That's my idea about it anyway.

Thoughts?

Hang on, originally I was in the God Squad, those pious sanctimonious swines have dropped me, just 'cos I miss church for one day ...... dirty rotten hypocrites !!

Nigee are you actually Christian? I didn't know of that until obi listed you in the title.

If you're not I think we have a four-member Christian team:

1) CrazyAnglican
2) semck
3) Mujus
4) ckroberts

Now we just need three more atheists to go with obi. Takers?

I'll do it, although this all seems overcomplicated.

I hope we can add a rightwing atheist. Sort of like a left-handed pitcher.

It's funny 'cause I actually pitched with my left hand once.

I gave up 5 runs in an inning.

To fourth-graders.

But I could probably do better than that as an LHP here!

Is Invictus atheist?

No I don't think he is, never mind. Frankly I've never met any straight-up atheist right-wingers, only non-religious apathetic types who don't think much about it one way or the other.

And it's fairly simple I think, it would just involve emailing me and your teammates and writing up some questions and one of the four debate entries.

Soo...

Christian:

1) CrazyAnglican
2) Mujus
3) semck
4) ckroberts

Atheist:

1) obiwanobiwan
2) Putin
3)
4)

Let's make it a smaller group. As I stated before, I will follow it and even kibitz, but not participate as a debater.

Volunteering for atheist.

Oh. Damn. Okay well then we need one more Christian and one more atheist.
Maybe Mujus could judge.

I'll be the Christian, my father who is an Anglican Bishop would be proud of me

Is your heart in it? Seriously Nigee, not to question your sincerity it's just that I never recall you making any kind of statement that would hint that you're Christian.

I too was raised Christian but it wouldn't be right for me to argue on their side since I no longer practice.