Debate Threads

[ChristopherPaul]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

Joshua, Philip A, and Josh,

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

 

[Herald]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[KMK]

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]

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]

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]

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]

PURITAN BOARD DEATH MATCH!!!!!



TWO MEN ENTER................ ONLY ONE LEAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[KMK]

PURITAN BOARD DEATH MATCH!!!!!



TWO MEN ENTER................ ONLY ONE LEAVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!











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".....

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

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, .