Links, yes. It's all part of substantiating a claim. It also gives the opponent your source so they can impeach it if they choose.

Pictures, no. They tend to be more about emotional appeal rather than logical appeal. It opens the door to fallacies and propaganda.

Like I said. It's fine either way. I'd say that a random system that gives one player the first post in the first round and the last post in the last round is flawed though. We could do the entire debate and you could automatically give one participant the first and the other the last post. That should address both concerns.

Thucy,

I'll post more later, but...

OK, your points about simultaneity make sense with that program. I'd like to work a little more on the format of the CX, though. I think that deserves some thought.

I agree with CA on links and pictures. I think that a _guideline_, though not a requirement, should be that links are used only to back up or flesh out claims that are made, not as exterior arguments. In other words, the whole argument should be comprehensible to somebody who does NOT read the link, and the link just provided for somebody who doubts a claim or wants to see more detail at some stage.

Or maybe that SHOULD be an enforced rule?

I would also suggest lower word counts for rebuttals, etc.

Finally, I still think I prefer the original 7 judges, and think they should just have to judge all 4 debates. Otherwise it's somewhat too chaotic; plus, that adds something that the teams do together at the outset, which I think is good. Just my thoughts.

I guess 7 opinions on four debates makes 28 opinions though, that's a lot to read. Also it's a bigger commitment to get 7 people to be on board for, and forces collaboration that otherwise would not exist between the 4 people on each side. Also some people may not be interested in judging all four topics, know what I mean?

Anyway yeah the word count thing just take it wherever you think is reasonable, i don't have a very good feel for what's a good number.

I agree with the rule on links - if you can't understand the text without the link, then it's not admissible. The links can only serve as appendixes if you will. And fair enough about the pictures. Think of linking as no different than referencing a book, for instance.

"and forces collaboration that otherwise would not exist between the 4 people on each side."

But this is exactly the point. I think the teams should be encouraged to have a team aspect even though they'll be posting as individuals. This would get that kick-started. I would certainly hope to run my thoughts by my teammates, for example.

As for the opinions -- fair enough. But then just say that each judge doesn't have to write a full opinion on each topic. They each have to write 2 full opinions, and can write a couple sentences on the other two (along with a vote).

Or as a compromise, we could do your system, but with five on each. I just think 3 is too few voters. There should be more chances than one for somebody to vote off-sides.

Incidentally, another rule to clear up is whether judges can consider things they know but that are not mentioned in the debate. Most specifically, what happens if a debater misstates a fact and is not called on it by his opponent? I would say that if the judge does consider it, he must certainly say so explicitly.

Five each is cool, yeah. Probably going to be easier to round up the judges for that anyway.

I would say that the judges should largely consider what is presented, in the sense of a court. A main reason I preferred topics that are more philosophical and less political (such as the impact of religion) is that it doesn't involve a lot of fact citing, which can be annoying and deceptive as well as hard to verify.

My idea, however, was just that the judges should attempt to answer the question "who was more convincing" in the abstract as best they can for themselves and apply their own internal reasoning which they can tell us about in opinions. Those selecting the judges could ask them about how they would judge.

I for instance would judge primarily on the basis of internal logical consistency and clarity. The tying up of loose ends, and that sort of thing. I would fact check citations that I found to be surprising. I guess. But I would mostly just judge on which side I thought was better argued.

Gah, this is getting too complicated for me.

Piss-ups and breweries come to mind ....

OK, so, what's the total sum of our format, Thucy, can you lay it out once again, in one post, as we've revised and added and deleted...

Can we see now what it looks like overall, at this moment?

Wait, before we finalize it, though, can we talk a little more about CX? Sorry. I can't post more till tomorrow. And by all means go ahead and summarize the status quo. But I do hope we can discuss that a little more. I think it can be a very important aspect.

Okay so I think it looks like this.

Four debates, with a different topic each time.

Format of debate:

Opening
Reply
Rebuttal
CX (Q&A)
Closing

These are done simultaneously, via the moderator. There are about 48 hours in between each phase and there will be word limits.

The results will be formatted by the moderator and sent to the judges, of which there are five, two each selected via consensus of each four member team, the fifth selected via consensus of all eight debaters.

These judges write opinions with word limits and include an opinion on who was more convincing.

All of this is formatted and posted on a thread in the forum, with two posts following that allow people to vote using +1s.

Then the rest of the thread is for commentary. There will be four threads for each debate.

Voila. Any questions? Did I miss anything?

Oh and there will be a link to a document if you prefer to read it that way. Also quoting is allowed but it counts in the word limit. Pictures are not allowed. Websites are allowed but the link must be incidental and not instrumental.

yo who's in on this on each side

There needs to be some kind of discussion of CX. CX is useless unless there can be multiple rounds of it (follow-up questions, etc.) So I say we have, I don't know, 3-4 rounds at 24 hours each, no more than 3 questions a round. Just an idea. Thoughts?

This isn't overcomplicated yet?

It's going to get complicated no matter what. This is all just to try to make sure most of the complications are discussed before the debate begins.

I say you should nix CX as it is a style suited primarily to conversation.
Or provide a more natural format, which allows for flow.

Ie. 48 hour period of questioning for one side. They send a question to both moderator and their opponent. Opponent sends a reply to both Moderator and the questioner. Repeat until the end of the 48 hour period, and provide a maximum and minimum number of questions for the period. So if the minimum hasn't been hit during the time limit the questioner gets more time.

It would provide a more natural flow.

But seriously. Nix CX.

Putin I don't understand what's so overcomplicated, I'm happy to clear up whatever you have questions about though.

I dunno, I just like the idea of being able to pose questions to your opponent. I don't personally think we need more than one round of questions, each side gets to send some.

Also PE we can't really know who's in until we have some topics fleshed out. I think CA and obi wanted to debate one, other than that there's still three slots, and no judges have been named either.

Also. I don't have the time at the moment but I would love to debate predestination with someone.

Specifically, a debate as to the nature of predestination. So it would almost have to be against a theist.

Depends on whether you're specifically referencing predestination as the Christian concept that was popular in Calvinist churches back in the day (which I'm pretty sure you're not going to find anyone advocating anymore) or the general concept that humans don't have freewill (which could be defended or rejected by either a theist or non-theist just fine).

Yeah I don't see much more than a masked God existence debate in what you're describing.

Wanna know how to frustrate a bunch of idiots?

Damian, that's just Romans 8:28: "And we know that God causes everything to work together [fn13] for the good of those who love God and are called according to his purpose for them. 29 For God knew his people in advance, and he chose them to become like his Son, so that his Son would be the firstborn [fn14] among many brothers and sisters. 30 And having chosen them, he called them to come to him. And having called them, he gave them right standing with himself. And having given them right standing, he gave them his glory."
In other words, God knew in advance who would exercise their free will to choose Him, and predestined those to each become more and more like Jesus in terms of morality, a process that's only just begun here on Earth.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/printerFriendly.cfm?b=Rom&c=8&t=NLTP&x=10&y=11

@PE,

"Depends on whether you're specifically referencing predestination as the Christian concept that was popular in Calvinist churches back in the day (which I'm pretty sure you're not going to find anyone advocating anymore)"

Actually, PE, Calvinism is alive and well in the modern church.

OK, so, are we getting this going?

Do we have the lineups ready, Thucy, can we now pair off and move onto discussing individual topics?

Hey wait a minute. If I'm pairing up against Obi, does that make me Vader? Not sure I like that, lol.

Do we have four atheists yet? I'd like to settle that before any further pairing off.

Also, as mentioned previously, I at least cannot start debating till 6/19.

(6/20 actually).

Anglican, lol! I can hear you breathing...!