Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Kam and I have been discussing the format of the debate and I can only speak for myself, but I personally feel that it is very restrictive and will not help encourage actual debate. I don't like the questionaire-style in the least.

I suggest we have a more open style to it. The opening statements idea is fine, but after that each team should be given several chances to challenge the chosen points of the opposing ideology, basically attacks. They may ask questions if they want. It basically needs to be more open.

Also, I request immediate postponement of the Liberals vs. Libertarians debate. In the United States it is our Independence day and pretty much our entire team won't be able to post that day. Could we possibly start it on the 5th instead?

Thank you.

I must agree with smashthestate on both points:

1) the debates must be more open
2) it's not fair to begin them on a religious holiday

I'm completely up for modifying certain aspects(mainly the one's smash made note of) of the debate format. One other thing, may I add, is that we should lengthen the duration of each debate to about a 3-4 day period.

The rebellion begins.....

Edit: We should also have some sort of a gambling pool for the PoFo Debates so that the spectators get more involved in the debate. How does that sound to everybody?

Can we make the debate longer as well, maybe 4 days? And to save time we could do a couple debates as one. I support the idea.

I am currently in New Jersey on somebody elses laptop that will more than likely not be available to me after this afternoon. I completely agree that it is wrong to start the debates on a national holiday (when the fuck did it become a religious one, or was that just flamebaiting?). I will be back on the afternoon of the 5th, so that would most defenitely work better for me and I think that it would work better for most of the team as well.


Other than that I really don't know what to say about the formats of the debates. I can work with whatever, Q&A seems a little menial, but I would be willing to deal with it, I don't know, I think that the first couple are defenitely going to be a feeling out process where we make some tweaks to the system as we go along.

there are no nationalists....do something about it...I cant type.

I say start 'em on the 4th. No point over stalling due to some silly holiday.

Dear All,

Here's the situation.

1] We are slightly confused as to why you should bring such problems up so late.
2] We don't want to keep rescheduling the debate at the last minute.
3] We don't think the present concerns justify rescheduling the debate.
4] We recognise that keeping the current dates would not be the best solution, however.
5] Given the use of an 'opening statement' by both teams, which should already have been written, I see the first day of debate as mainly the presentation of this statement, which may go ahead regardless of national festivities.
6] I have recommended to S-B-G that he:
i - does not change the opening date from July 4th.
ii - extends the opening debate for another day or two, until July 7th or July 8th.
iii - considers extending each debate thereafter to give it another day.

I believe Mr Bill also wishes to start the debate on time, and Yeddi hasn't woken up yet (lazy Aussies!)

I hope these provisions should still allow for a robust debate.

What about the whole "15 questions" period of the debate? It seems as if it's an unpopular and restricting means of debate and would be more usefully replaced by something more convenient. Besides, this isn't all last minute, I have told Gonzo my discontents as soon as he posted the format. I believe that we should just wait and see how the first round turns out, and then change whatever seems to be inconvenient.

OKey, well i won't be able to post for a couple hours because I am planning to see Fareinheit 911, Which I might not because it is rated R and my dad said "Maybe" to taking me.

Kam wrote:What about the whole "15 questions" period of the debate? It seems as if it's an unpopular and restricting means of debate and would be more usefully replaced by something more convenient. Besides, this isn't all last minute, I have told Gonzo my discontents as soon as he posted the format. I believe that we should just wait and see how the first round turns out, and then change whatever seems to be inconvenient.

You can ask a good amount of questions and have the other team refute their opening essay/statement. And the debate will continue (An extra day will be added for the first debate but, this should have been adressed earlier and was not so it will be happening.

Needed guidelines but its not strict as can be. They are guidelines for reference. I want some organization in the debate and if it doesn't work well after first debate we can always change it around. I am also extending the debates a day each but I am not changing any dates for a debate on the schedule anymore.

My only concern is the 10-15 questions, which invite participants to veer away from ideology and fall back into the same old tired accusations, demands for sources, etc., that are designed to polarize along ideological lines. It also tempts the judges to simply grade the "test paper" and tally up the score, as a schoolteacher would, instead of judging the quality of the (hopefully) intellectual arguments presented.

A debate on ideology should be fairly straight-forward, with both sides already having a general knowledge of both sides of the argument, and the winner to be determined by the quality of their argument.

Demands for sources, etc., I would welcome.

I think everyone gets to vote on the result (except the participants), but I don't see it as tallying up the results of questions.

It would probably be worthwhile, although I don't know how the debates go, for you to signpost specific arguments and counter-arguments in the body of your arguments, and to set these out clearly in 10-15 questions.

As I see it, Pofo debates often descend into drivel on normal threads when people pick up on meaningless off-sides or bad analogies, rather than the crux of their opponent's argument. While I didn't invent the 10-15 questions rule, I can see its use in helping teams to nail down precise points of objection in a systemic way -- as a forceful and direct way of challenging the opposition: a bit like parliamentary question time, if your country has that.

Incidentally, I am planning to judge personally on who I think made the better argument, rather than which ideology sounds 'more convincing' to me at the end of each debate.

Why don't we have more than one debate going on at once?

Its much easier to judge and moderator one debate at a time. Two debates at a time becomes very hard to concentrate your time on so only one debate at a time.

I don't understand why we can't reschedule the debate? What is the problem with rescheduling by one day?

There is simply no possible way I can post anything on the 4th. We will simply have to post our opening statement late on the 5th regardless of the unreasonable denial of a one-day postponement.

Concerns about the PoFo debates

The dabates are being privately organised by PoFo users, not by the admin. Please address any concerns in the debate forum or via PM to the organisers, not in the "basement" forum.

*thread moved*

smashthestate wrote:I don't understand why we can't reschedule the debate? What is the problem with rescheduling by one day?

There is simply no possible way I can post anything on the 4th. We will simply have to post our opening statement late on the 5th regardless of the unreasonable denial of a one-day postponement.

fair enough. I don't see that being a problem, especially since the time period has now been extended.

Argh, don't you people ever stop creveching!

Make with the openning statement and be on with it.