Head-2-Head Debate Templates (Working Thread)

This thread is for design and discussion of the Debate Templates for the Politics Head-2-Head (H2H) forum.

All Fighters are welcome to submit ideas and comments.

In general, I want H2H to promote concise, fast-moving debates, although any format (within reason) is welcome.

I'm also planning to host some roundtable discussions, and we can discuss format ideas for those here as well.

Once we have some templates worked out, I'll create and maintain a separate thread to list them.

Overall, my vision for the H2H forum is one of informality and innovation, and we should expect to learn as we go � and learn from our mistakes.

Hakuna matata, my friends.

I'll start things off with a proposal for general H2H debate rules and a proposal for the �Point/Counterpoint� format.

But of course, anything and everything is subject to debate.




[edit on 12/14/2006 by Majic]

General H2H Debate Rules (Proposal)

Edit: I moved General Rules discussion to this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That way we can just focus on templates here.

[edit on 12/14/2006 by Majic]

Point/Counterpoint Debate Template

Point/Counterpoint is intended to keep things short and sweet.

1. Participants agree on a topic and who goes first.

2. Participants will take turns, and each will contribute three posts total:

a. Opening statement.

b. Rebuttal.

c. Closing statement.

3. Posts may not contain links and may not be over 2000 characters long.

4. No more than 24 hours may elapse between each post.

5. Once the last participant posts a closing statement, the debate is over.

As with all templates, these terms can be modified by mutual agreement before a debate begins.





[edit on 12/14/2006 by Majic]

I for one think this is fantastic.
Nice job Majic

I'm sure I'll be using this forum fairly often. I'm rather opinionated, and am not afraid in the least to debate my often times less than politically correct points of view.

I see that the template displayed shows one rebuttal, and that the character limit is 2,000. If there is only one rebuttal, maybe the limit should be somewhat higher? Just a thought.

Good Job Majic!
I look forward to see how this pans out.
I do have a question though, you mentioned that there were to be no links. I am afraid that then we might have fighters who make unsubstaniated statements trying to make them out as being fact.
That may lead to just a mudracking / mud slinging type of contest which we have seen time and time again on the boards.
That would not be a good thing I think.

Xpert11 and I decided that six rounds of point and counterpoint would provide a sufficient "distance" to actually test our arguments. As a person trained in oratory and debate, I am aware that shorter formats can mean that you don't have to work as hard to make your point. In the shorter format, the person with the better wordsmithing skills has what amounts to an unfair advantage.

With this in mind, I have one suggestion. Suppose that we had beginner, experienced, and elite classes debate? Each could have a progessively more rounds. Say, 2, 4, and 6.

As many already know, there are any number of tactics to be used in a debate. In this case, skill depends on your use of a keyboard. Tactics break down to sly word compilations and cunning argumental constructions. We are essentially dealing with one's skill at written argument. More rounds mean more room to maneuver for veterans. those who need to learn the craft can benefit from the shorter format.