# Debate Threads



## ChristopherPaul (Feb 24, 2007)

Many, if not all, threads involving opposing view points eventually lead to some form of chaos. Be that one lone defender is ganged upon by a mob or many end up conversing without interacting with positions already stated and thus we have reiterations and broken records, etc.

Personally, I find it helpful to follow one nested conversation throughout the thread until it concludes with the “handshake” or until it gets dispersed by the “mob” or some other manner of disruption.

This led me to the idea of implementing debate only capabilities where a topic is suggested and two people are selected to interact presenting their cases without being sidetracked with distracting questions or sidebar debates (some off topic and others based on ignorance).

This could or could not be heavily moderated. If two people wish to interact publicly on a certain topic at their “leisure” then so be it, but only those two members will have the ability to post in that designated thread. Or a more strictly moderated format could be used where there are opening statements, cross exams, etc. I personally think just limiting the thread to two people is enough to eliminate chaos, but if a need for formal debate polity is requested then that is fine too. With a forum as this, such polity is not as necessary being that overall we are in like mind. We do not have atheists and liberals ranting and blaspheming wherein strict moderation is required.

What are your thoughts? 

I think such would foster edifying discussions without the need to filter out unrelated posts or the typical cheerleading posts or sarcastic jabs that are often thrown into the threads that otherwise could prove to be very helpful to Christians on various parts of the journey in sanctification and maturity in knowing the word of God.


----------



## Herald (Feb 24, 2007)

If other PB members can't participate in the thread then just U2U the person you are debating. I don't view the PB membership as passive. We like to engage in debate. Cutting that off would cause of lack of interest in most debates. In my humble opinion.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Feb 24, 2007)

Sounds good. Two people agree on a topic to debate. Both are allowed one post as opening remarks about the topic. An admin or someone decides who goes first. The first person takes their best "punch" so-to-say, at proofing their position. The next does likewise, with both allowed two posts max. Then a two post rebuttal of the opponents position is permitted by each. Then one post each for closing remarks. There it ends. (at least in theory  ). A seperate thread can mirror the actual debate thread taking place for all the side discussions.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 24, 2007)

Interesting idea. The only issue I have is that there are many different issues of debate. I kind of like the idea but don't. It would mean creating a debate forum with no particular topic or creating a ton of new subforums underneath existing forums.

It may be easier just to use existing forums and set ground rules for a particular debate format. I kind of did that recently in my thread where I interacted with paedobaptists. Paedobaptists, because they are very spiritual, have the discipline to generally obey rules. Just kidding.

Seriously, the members of the forum are pretty well behaved and if we could set some standard rules for how we name a debate then we could just refer to a standard rule set for who is/isn't allowed to pipe in and have mods delete any who inadvertently jump in.

This would simplify administration on my end as I wouldn't have to give access to a forum simply so a couple of people could debate an issue and then take away that privilege. It would also have the advantage of having somebody, who shares your viewpoint, to be able to take over a thread if you got stuck or had to retire from the debate (kind of a "tag").

If somebody would like to suggest some standard broad set of rules then I think it's not a bad idea.


----------



## Philip A (Feb 25, 2007)

joshua said:


> I just think we oughta be all takin' names and crackin' heads. I'm on Paul Manata's team.



I think 19 out of 20 PB'ers are on Paul Manata's team. By which I mean the paedobaptism team. What, are there other issues that get debated here?


----------



## Ravens (Feb 25, 2007)

Well there's only around ten people on here that I really stop and pay attention to anyway. I'd love to see every issue get thoroughly hashed out among the Gandalfs, Elronds, and Sarumans of the board. 

Of course I don't say that in any haughty manner, because I certainly don't contribute anything. In fact, I should probably refrain from posting altogether. At least my avatar is cool, though. I guess that's my one gift to the board, a certain wolfiness (to Colbert-ize a word).


----------



## Philip A (Feb 25, 2007)

JDWiseman said:


> ...I certainly don't contribute anything. In fact, I should probably refrain from posting altogether... I guess that's my one gift to the board, a certain wolfiness...



I totally agree. Nobody should listen to me either. All I bring to the board are lame jokes. Well, occasionally I might recommend a good book. But other than that, my major contribution is lameness.

Oh, and I'd have a much cooler avatar if Monet had ever painted Heidelberg, or Dort. As it is I had to settle for Westminster - moderately cool, perhaps.

See, nothing but lameness.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2007)

Joshua, Philip A, and Josh,

Self-deprecation aside, I consider your thoughts to be normally well put and worthy of respect.


----------



## Herald (Feb 25, 2007)

> If somebody would like to suggest some standard broad set of rules then I think it's not a bad idea.



Okay...first rule: credo's are assumed to be in the right before the debate even begins.

Do I hear an  ?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Okay...first rule: credo's are assumed to be in the right before the debate even begins.
> 
> Do I hear an  ?



I don't have a problem with that. You guys need all the help you can get.


----------



## Herald (Feb 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I don't have a problem with that. You guys need all the help you can get.



It would be nice if we had an "Easy" button for debates (like on the Office Depot) commercials.


----------



## Scott Shahan (Feb 25, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> It would be nice if we had an "Easy" button for debates (like on the Office Depot) commercials.


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2007)

JKLeoPCA said:


> Sounds good. Two people agree on a topic to debate. Both are allowed one post as opening remarks about the topic. An admin or someone decides who goes first. The first person takes their best "punch" so-to-say, at proofing their position. The next does likewise, with both allowed two posts max. Then a two post rebuttal of the opponents position is permitted by each. Then one post each for closing remarks. There it ends. (at least in theory  ). A seperate thread can mirror the actual debate thread taking place for all the side discussions.



We can't do that because that would elliminate the need for some of my favorite smilies!


----------



## Philip A (Feb 25, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Okay...first rule: credo's are assumed to be in the right before the debate even begins.



So what would be different? The whole basis of any and all credo arguments is that they start off assuming they are right....

Just _Joshin'_


----------



## Herald (Feb 25, 2007)

Philip A said:


> So what would be different? The whole basis of any and all credo arguments is that they start off assuming they are right....
> 
> Just _Joshin'_



I know!  Was just looking to inject some humor. "All theology and no play makes Jack a very dull Puritan Board member."


----------



## Ivan (Feb 25, 2007)

Philip A said:


> So what would be different? The whole basis of any and all credo arguments is that they start off assuming they are right....
> 
> Just _Joshin'_



Well....ah...that's because we are....


----------



## Ivan (Feb 25, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> PURITAN BOARD DEATH MATCH!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> TWO MEN ENTER................ ONLY ONE LEAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## KMK (Feb 25, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> PURITAN BOARD DEATH MATCH!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 

Many of the credos would just argue, "Well, my female pastor said..."


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2007)

trevorjohnson said:


> Actually I favor the idea of entire churches debating, because if this was so baptists would always win because more than half of the Paedo "church members" would just say "goo goo ga ga".....



Your kids would be in daycare I suppose?  

Don't underestimate my 4 yearld son, James, wearing you down:

"Daddy, is Darth Vader a robot?"
"No James he's a man. The suit helps him breathe."
"Daddy, is it a robot suit."
"I suppose you could say that."
{Flaps his arms in excitement} "Yeah, Darth Vader has a robot suit!"

Also, he's been known to indirectly rebuke adults who are not obeying the commands of God with respect to the discipline of their children. One day, he was with my wife in a store and a child was rebelling against his parents. James walked up to him and yelled: "Obey your Mommy!"


----------



## Ivan (Feb 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Also, he's been known to indirectly rebuke adults who are not obeying the commands of God with respect to the discipline of their children. One day, he was with my wife in a store and a child was rebelling against his parents. James walked up to him and yelled: "Obey your Mommy!"



Praise God! And what was the other child's and Mother's response?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2007)

Ivan said:


> Praise God! And what was the other child's and Mother's response?


I wasn't there unfortunately. Sonya just told me about it.


----------



## Ivan (Feb 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I wasn't there unfortunately. Sonya just told me about it.



I see.

[Just a note, OT: isn't it marvelous that two people can communicate in this matter who are basically on are on opposite sides of the earth. Amazing!


----------



## JohnV (Feb 25, 2007)

Years ago I was a member of a Roundtable group. After a while I wanted to draw up rules for discussion, but none of the other members liked that idea. But for the idea of a roundtable to work you need certain rules, there's no getting around it. 

This Board had that at first, an understanding of specified and unspecified groundrules. The more members and the more postings we had the more that slipped. That's because at first we all knew one another after a while. We all read all the posts, and kept up with everything that was going on. Now that's impossible anymore. There are discussions going on now that impact other discussions which I know nothing about, involving people whose character I don't know. So I don't know what they mean every time. That's one problem: you don't know your fellow posters well enough, and the discussions reflect that unfamiliarity.

But secondly, while some aspects of the Reformed strictures have been better defined, others have been let go. At least that's my observation. 

Anyways, to make a long post short, I think that the problems with debates is not rules about debates, but rules about composure. We used to apologize to each other a lot more than we do now. And we used to respect certain things, even if those things ended up against us. We don't know where left field is anymore, so when something comes out of left field, it throws us more than it used to. That, it seems to me, is the real problem.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 25, 2007)

Here's a thought if you ever go through with this. Limit one statement to 500 words (arbitrary number, pick one), rebuttals are say 250, and so on. reason being, it is hard. It requries you to think. It almost disallows "copy-paste." It actually makes your response a lot sharper.

I had to write an apolgoetic letter to the editor this week and was limited to 250 words. Real challenge.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2007)

JohnV said:


> Anyways, to make a long post short, I think that the problems with debates is not rules about debates, but rules about composure. We used to apologize to each other a lot more than we do now. And we used to respect certain things, even if those things ended up against us. We don't know where left field is anymore, so when something comes out of left field, it throws us more than it used to. That, it seems to me, is the real problem.



Likely some truth to that. I don't have some of the history that you have as I've only been here for less than a year and a half. Keeping it small definitely helps. I do also think we need to be certain that we're willing to seek forgiveness from a brother when we've offended them.

I don't completely agree, however, that the main problem is composure in this instance. I understand the frustration of the OP. What was remarkable about a recent conversation that I had with Credo-Baptists was that it didn't degenerate on the decorum level but also that it didn't degenerate into a ton of streams that are difficult to follow.

In a debate (or conversation) it is hard enough sometimes dealing one on one with an issue as people will go off into several tangents. It sometimes takes skill in ignoring the tangents as they can occupy a lot of time and distract from the issue. That's why debates usually have specific issues of debate rather than just opening up a conversation.

Big threads sometimes take on lives of their own with 4-5 people discussing an issue and sidebar debates that are difficult to keep up with. It's not always easy to know, as a mod, when to split off a thread. I remember that uber-thread over a year ago where Matt was under fire for his article on Arminianism. It was bedlam.

Thus, even in fairly civil conversations here, we have a lot of mini-conversations and course shifts that can make the discussion difficult to follow. I think the minimum standard for even a declared debate would always be to remain civil. Adding the statement at the beginning: This is a debate and these are the participants, will just serve to focus the discussion when desired by the participants.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 25, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> I don't completely agree, however, that the main problem is composure in this instance. I understand the frustration of the OP. What was remarkable about a recent conversation that I had with Credo-Baptists was that it didn't degenerate on the decorum level but also that it didn't degenerate into a ton of streams that are difficult to follow.


Yes, I noticed it. It was very good. 



> In a debate (or conversation) it is hard enough sometimes dealing one on one with an issue as people will go off into several tangents. It sometimes takes skill in ignoring the tangents as they can occupy a lot of time and distract from the issue. That's why debates usually have specific issues of debate rather than just opening up a conversation.


But the onus is still on the major parties to keep things on track, while still allowing for those other posters who believe that they are contributing something that is important to them.



> Big threads sometimes take on lives of their own with 4-5 people discussing an issue and sidebar debates that are difficult to keep up with. It's not always easy to know, as a mod, when to split off a thread. I remember that uber-thread over a year ago where Matt was under fire for his article on Arminianism. It was bedlam.
> 
> Thus, even in fairly civil conversations here, we have a lot of mini-conversations and course shifts that can make the discussion difficult to follow. I think the minimum standard for even a declared debate would always be to remain civil. Adding the statement at the beginning: This is a debate and these are the participants, will just serve to focus the discussion when desired by the participants.


If you do this, Rich, then I think you need a separate forum just for that. Sometimes there are single or odd posts that come into a conversation that make a definite improvement to the course of the discussion. And people should be free to contribute at any time. So I think you would need to create a special debate forum, and when it becomes clear that two or three or four people are going to go at it, then you can transfer it to that forum, where only those people can contribute. You can call it the Roundtable Forum, if you want. But it has to be separate from the regular discussion board, I think. 

Well, that's how I feel about it for now. You could implement Jacob's suggestion there. I think that's a good idea.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 25, 2007)

I would do a separate debate forum. Most are not up for formal debate and you really cannot control a thread to the extent needed to follow formal rules. I would say, have just one such forum. Each thread will be a formal debate between two or more parties. Probably not more than four. It should be something as Jacob proposes, and rules made that each knows whose up to bat. I suspect most are not up for that, which will mean it will not occur often and thus not the headache it might be. And, I would not sit around as moderators dreaming these up; if two members decide to have a debate let them set the "to be resolved" and the ground rules; then the moderators simply moderate. My


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 25, 2007)

Following up; if I wasn't clear, only those debating should be able to post. Maybe at the end of the formal debate, open it for questions, and indicate how and to whose attention those should be sent, and let them post them in some organized fashion. I hesitate to suggest reopening the thread to all because that may negate the benefit of such a setup. Again, .


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 25, 2007)

JohnV and Chris,

I agree with both of you.

I was going to add to my comments that I agree with JohnV's sentiments. I don't like the idea of doing this too often. I don't want to stifle the addition of comments that might be useful. Let's be honest too, the two that agree to debate the issue might not be parties that any of us care to read. I don't want to be wasting space and bandwidth to indulge every debate that some people want to take up.

I'm starting to wonder if we're spending more time on this then it really deserves. There just hasn't been a clamouring in the past for this. It is rare, in forum discussions, for folks to even ask that the discussion be kept very specific but, when they do, others oblige and the admins/mods help them.

As I suggested initially, I don't think we need a specific forum but, for the rare occassion when it's desired/warranted that the participants simply declare "I want to talk just to Baptists" or "I want answers only from Clarkians". I have a feeling that if we set that up then, in the course of a normal threaded discussion, someone might ask a mod: "Hey, can you split this to a new thread so that I can go at it for a while on this debate issue..."


----------



## Bondman (Feb 25, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Following up; if I wasn't clear, only those debating should be able to post. Maybe at the end of the formal debate, open it for questions, and indicate how and to whose attention those should be sent, and let them post them in some organized fashion. I hesitate to suggest reopening the thread to all because that may negate the benefit of such a setup. Again, .


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 2, 2007)

*EP Debate?*

After all the above, it has struck me this morning, given how often the subject comes up on PB, that Exclusive Psalmody may be a good candidate for one of these "rare" debates; and perhaps appropriately the first one. When the subject comes up in future we can steer folks to the debate for the basics. Thoughts? We'd need well grounded proponents for both sides who understand and adhere to the RPW.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 2, 2007)

KMK said:


> We can't do that because that would elliminate the need for some of my favorite smilies!



This is my favorite smiley. MMMMM..... Java!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 24, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> After all the above, it has struck me this morning, given how often the subject comes up on PB, that Exclusive Psalmody may be a good candidate for one of these "rare" debates; and perhaps appropriately the first one. When the subject comes up in future we can steer folks to the debate for the basics. Thoughts? We'd need well grounded proponents for both sides who understand and adhere to the RPW.


BIG *bump*. Let's put this on the front burner again to consider.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 24, 2007)

I think that moderators will especially have a hard time with it. It can happen that ruling someone in or out of the debate would be arbitrary. And even if a ruling is not arbitrary, it could still come back to bite a moderator. It might be putting yourselves into spots you really wouldn't like to put yourselves. If two people disagree, you don't want to come between them in any kind of partisan way if you're refereeing. As far as that goes, we already have as much refereeing as is required for such discussions. Closing the debate to others may just be a bit too much refereeing for the good of the moderators.

Maybe I'm off the wall here, but I think it is something that should be taken into consideration.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

Well - not to debate the point , but I sorta like the idea of a good source available to point folks...I, quite honestly, would have liked to see one on FV and Dispensationalism vs. Covenant theology - just to familiarize myself with the issues and have a ready resource.

I also believe that the debates here would serve as a good resource for the Internet world in general, as long as we extend Christian love in our debates...


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 24, 2007)

I don't have all the answers, just the idea and some snippets of an outline. But I don't think this would have the pitfalls suggested. The moderators already have to be as impartial as they can and seem to handle that aspect as well as can be expected. We already have free for all open debates, and closing it to two well chosen articulate individuals would be a breath of fresh air. I think the hard work would be setting it up and finding the qualified individuals, if not among the members, drafting someone to come in. in my opinion the debaters need to be church officers, preferably TEs, and as noted already, need to have agreed on the specifics and parameters of the debate. For the moderator, a TE would also be nice; someone sage enough to keep the discussion on track. We're talking grown ups here who don't get miffed at the drop of a word. Again, this is floated as something to do on occasion; I just think that as many times as EP has come up and been mishandled and not gotten anywhere, that this would be an ideal choice for a topic. 


JohnV said:


> I think that moderators will especially have a hard time with it. It can happen that ruling someone in or out of the debate would be arbitrary. And even if a ruling is not arbitrary, it could still come back to bite a moderator. It might be putting yourselves into spots you really wouldn't like to put yourselves. If two people disagree, you don't want to come between them in any kind of partisan way if you're refereeing. As far as that goes, we already have as much refereeing as is required for such discussions. Closing the debate to others may just be a bit too much refereeing for the good of the moderators.
> 
> Maybe I'm off the wall here, but I think it is something that should be taken into consideration.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Mar 24, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't have all the answers, just the idea and some snippets of an outline. But I don't think this would have the pitfalls suggested. The moderators already have to be as impartial as they can and seem to handle that aspect as well as can be expected. We already have free for all open debates, and closing it to two well chosen articulate individuals would be a breath of fresh air. I think the hard work would be setting it up and finding the qualified individuals, if not among the members, drafting someone to come in. in my opinion the debaters need to be church officers, preferably TEs, and as noted already, need to have agreed on the specifics and parameters of the debate. For the moderator, a TE would also be nice; someone sage enough to keep the discussion on track. We're talking grown ups here who don't get miffed at the drop of a word. Again, this is floated as something to do on occasion; I just think that as many times as EP has come up and been mishandled and not gotten anywhere, that this would be an ideal choice for a topic.



I also like the idea of having a "Peanut Gallery" thread that runs parallel - lets folk have open discussion of the issues as they are published.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 24, 2007)

I should add, that this is not unlike the exchanges I've edited for CPJ. Folks usually behave when their reps are going to be on the line, and if this is touted as a resource that might be often visited on the Net, it may not be too hard to draft debaters. Its too easy to get flip and get off the reservation in informal "chat" threads. This would be more formal; and yes, I it would be some work to set up. That is why they would not be some frequent occurence.



NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't have all the answers, just the idea and some snippets of an outline. But I don't think this would have the pitfalls suggested. The moderators already have to be as impartial as they can and seem to handle that aspect as well as can be expected. We already have free for all open debates, and closing it to two well chosen articulate individuals would be a breath of fresh air. I think the hard work would be setting it up and finding the qualified individuals, if not among the members, drafting someone to come in. in my opinion the debaters need to be church officers, preferably TEs, and as noted already, need to have agreed on the specifics and parameters of the debate. For the moderator, a TE would also be nice; someone sage enough to keep the discussion on track. We're talking grown ups here who don't get miffed at the drop of a word. Again, this is floated as something to do on occasion; I just think that as many times as EP has come up and been mishandled and not gotten anywhere, that this would be an ideal choice for a topic.


----------



## Augusta (Mar 24, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> I don't have all the answers, just the idea and some snippets of an outline. But I don't think this would have the pitfalls suggested. The moderators already have to be as impartial as they can and seem to handle that aspect as well as can be expected. We already have free for all open debates, and closing it to two well chosen articulate individuals would be a breath of fresh air. I think the hard work would be setting it up and finding the qualified individuals, if not among the members, drafting someone to come in. in my opinion the debaters need to be church officers, preferably TEs, and as noted already, need to have agreed on the specifics and parameters of the debate. For the moderator, a TE would also be nice; someone sage enough to keep the discussion on track. We're talking grown ups here who don't get miffed at the drop of a word. Again, this is floated as something to do on occasion; I just think that as many times as EP has come up and been mishandled and not gotten anywhere, that this would be an ideal choice for a topic.



I really like this idea. You could keep it focused on very big topics that seem to come up often on the board like EP, Baptism, Sabbatarianism, Headcovering, etc. Different camps could put forward their best and brightest on the subject keeping it as Chris said to TEs. JD's peanut gallery idea would naturally follow. You know someone would start one. That would be the harder one to moderate.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 24, 2007)

Chris,

I'll implement later today. I'm going to create a single forum called the debate forum. Only Mods and those given temporary access will be allowed to come in (we'll password control it but change the password for each debate). I need you to come up with the overall forum rules (don't have to be extensive). Each debate can have its own terms. Those wishing to debate a subject can PM each other and set up the specific terms and proposition of each debate.


----------



## JohnV (Mar 24, 2007)

My question is: would there be room for questions from the audience?


----------



## Herald (Mar 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Chris,
> 
> I'll implement later today. I'm going to create a single forum called the debate forum. Only Mods and those given temporary access will be allowed to come in (we'll password control it but change the password for each debate). I need you to come up with the overall forum rules (don't have to be extensive). Each debate can have its own terms. Those wishing to debate a subject can PM each other and set up the specific terms and proposition of each debate.



Rich - when does conversation become debate? Often times threads take on a life of their own. Debate may not have been intended, it just happens.

??


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Mar 24, 2007)

There is precedent for a two party debate thread: Paul and Fred in The Second Commandment - Paul and Fred discussing.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 24, 2007)

How could we not. While not leaving a format in stone for every such debate; there would be several points where this could be done. In formal debates; I think the debaters questions themselves primarily; so I think at the end or at the end of specific junctures, audience questions could be feed to the debaters and some how fielded. Needs some thought, but it can be done certainly.


JohnV said:


> My question is: would there be room for questions from the audience?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Chris,
> 
> I'll implement later today. I'm going to create a single forum called the debate forum. Only Mods and those given temporary access will be allowed to come in (we'll password control it but change the password for each debate). I need you to come up with the overall forum rules (don't have to be extensive). Each debate can have its own terms. Those wishing to debate a subject can PM each other and set up the specific terms and proposition of each debate.


That is fast; but I see I have some work to do. Folks may PM me for any ideas; I'll float a plan later on this thread which we can kick around. I'm not promising I will do this as fast as Rich is setting up the "space" for it. I just printed out a 50 page article on the first 50 questions of the Larger Catechism I need to proof, and then I still need to edit all the other submissions to CPJ 3; and beat some folks up who are late.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 24, 2007)

SemperFideles said:


> Chris,
> 
> I'll implement later today. I'm going to create a single forum called the debate forum. Only Mods and those given temporary access will be allowed to come in (we'll password control it but change the password for each debate). I need you to come up with the overall forum rules (don't have to be extensive). Each debate can have its own terms. Those wishing to debate a subject can PM each other and set up the specific terms and proposition of each debate.


Mmh. I don't like the idea of just any two yahoos getting this right. We need to stipulate all is subject to moderator and board owner approval on this I think. Or is that in my corner with the "rules"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Mar 25, 2007)

I understand if you're busy. If somebody else wants to propose the basic ground rules then that's fine. I think we ought to have a minimal set of rules that ensures proper decorum and there are probably standard debate ground rules. I just don't want to be so rigid as to specify every rule for every debate that might occur. Some debates might be limited to 500 word opening statements followed by cross-examination, etc. Some might not allow for cross-examination. Each debate would have a set of propositions that would be debated, etc. I'm not an expert on this stuff but I've listened to enough to know that rules may vary a bit. If someone has the "typical" set of rules then I can post those in the sticky and then the first post of each debate would be a layout of what each side agreed to followed by the opening statement of the first debater.

I do want to allow maximal flexibility to "Yahoos" (aka Christians  ). At this point, I'm going to stipulate that a debater has to be a "Regular Member" (>25posts) in order to be a participant so we know the person is not a problem child ahead of time.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 25, 2007)

My thought on preferring TEs (or “experts” in the field if you will) is it certainly lends a greater degree of respectability to the debate, as hopefully upon completion a go to resource.


----------



## turmeric (Mar 25, 2007)

NaphtaliPress said:


> My thought on preferring TEs (or “experts” in the field if you will) is it certainly lends a greater degree of respectability to the debate, as hopefully upon completion a go to resource.



Is Manata a TE? We certainly want to let him be a debater, he seems to have expertise.


----------

