Debate Forum

[Celtics Insider]

***Now, before I discuss anything in this thread, please read the ENTIRE thing and hear me out before flaming away***

I think it would be a great idea to have a Debate Forum. There would be numerous topics between sports, everyday life, and yes, politics. Debating is a very intellectual process, and requires a great deal of thinking.

Now, some of you may be asking "is this guy serious? half the kids are 12 and would troll the **** outta that forum!"

Well, here's how I would implement it:


1. First off, we'd need to find out how big the audience would be. Is there 20 people interested? 200 people? More?

2. Once we estimate a good rounded number, we would divide the forum into subsections such as Football, Baseball, Basketball, Other Sports, and Politics, or whatever GLB could think of at that time. This would just help so each section isn't too crowded.

3. After that, we would start setting up debating "tournaments" where the winners would receive some kind of prize (homepage trophy or a couple hundred FPs or something?). There would be a thread with the brackets and there would be a sign-up forum. These tournaments would consist of the first 100 people who signed-up, and the rest would be on the waiting list for the next tournament. If someone can't make the debate or doesn't show-up for a week without notice, the next member on the waiting list replace them.

4. Once the brackets were set-up, the moderators would create a thread for each "matchup" and would post the question in the thread and who's "turn" it was. Each moderator would be assigned 10 matchups (so a total of 5 moderators with 20 people per moderator).

5. The first person would provide their response to the statement, and when they submit it, the post will NOT automatically be submitted, but will be pending approval (this is where CB html coders will help). This will prevent trolls from attacking the topic and causing arguments.

6. The second person would counter-examine the first person's viewpoints, or provide a rebuttal.

7. Then, the first person would provide their own rebuttal to the second person's rebuttal, then the second person would do the same again.

8. Once this has been achieved (so it would be 2 posts by each user), the debating would be over, and the moderator would lock the thread. Once all the debates are finished for the 1st round, the moderators would re-open each thread with a poll at the top, and everyone would vote for the winners.

9. Rinse and repeat.



Any and ALL suggestions are appreciated

[wdleehi]

This whole site is one large debate. 

[GroverTheClover]

This whole site is one large debate. 

/thread

[fairweatherfan]

This whole site is one large debate. 

No it's not.

[indeedproceed]

This whole site is one large debate. 

No it's not.

LIES! It's that kind of negative thinking that is plaguing America right now. I don't see how you get from A to B there, Mr. "FAIRWEATHERfan", but I'm proud to be an American. And I won't have you slandering my mother. 

[Gomesfan]

This whole site is one large debate. 

**** TP dude!!! 100000000000% right this whole site is a debate, I am going to start a thread calle dthe "non-Debate forum"!!!

[Donoghus]

In all seriousnees to the OP,

I'd found that large undertakings on this site tend to be logistical nightmares for staff and the general public.  Projects start off with promise then unforseen events occur that complicate things.  Add to that, the fact that people tend to have short attention span to things & people will lose interest if things drag on for awhile.

Plus, as been mentioned, we already have a bunch of forums and threads that are open to discussion among all on this site.  Sometimes they turn into heated debates while others just remain rather casual discussions.  The politics forum is a bit different and is governed more strictly.

I can just see a competition like this getting rather heated if not managed properly and I'm not sure how it could be managed properly.  IMO, politics would be a no-go since we already have posters who have opted out or just been banned from the thread all together.

I appreciate you putting forth the suggestion and its encouraging to see a "newbie" like yourself stepping forward.  I just don't really see it as a feasbile idea here. 

[Bahku]

Personally, I see a blog (such as CB) as a debate forum anyway, but without the strict grading and polling suggested here that I fear might only serve to cause hard feelings, divisions, and cries of favoritism. Also, as Don suggested, it would be a rather colossal undertaking on the mods' part, and I think there is plenty at this point to keep them sufficiently busy. Debate is great in the right place, but I think the dsicourse and close guidance here at CB is already encouraging to debate, but with a casual friendliness that makes for a more welcoming atmosphere. Just my quite humble opinion, of course.

[Roy Hobbs]

I say, give it a shot, on a small scale.  Start a thread called "debate signup", or something of that nature, to gauge participants.  Then, give a couple of them a topic to debate, and see how it goes.

I do believe that there are interesting things about an "A vs. B" debate; Jeff and I one of these on the front page, where we were assigned positions in the "re-sign Rondo or wait" debate.  It was fun, informative, and productive.

I agree with Dons that it's something the staff probably shouldn't be involved in, especially initially; not only is it a big time commitment, but it also has the potential to rub the person who "loses" the debate the wrong way.

However, any "grass roots" type of threads will be encouraged, so long as people remain respectful.  I say, give it a shot.

[BASS_THUMPER]

dono..why u put that in " "..?

[cdif911]

the first debate should be if this debate forum should run

ps I third that this whole site is generally a debate

[Edgar]

I debate this thread...

 nah...really

[MattG12]

All for it... people who don't like it don't have to click in to it.

To elaborate, I probably wouldn't join in because I tend to get extremely heated when I debate anything. Had a debate in class today and I was yelling not only at the other side, but the moderators as well. (To be fair they were extremely biased towards the other side and I had had enough)

However whether I participate or not, I have no problem with a forum dedicated to debate topics. Sure the whole site is basically one big debate, but it can't hurt to try it out.

[PLamb]

Forget teams

Just individuals on a basketball or sports subject

Get a list of people that want to try it and two nights before a subject is given and the two participants are given the question

Say the question is "Is the 19 year old age limit good for the NBA" and is given to the two contestants on March 1st

On March 3rd by noon each contestant has to submit a post, as long as they want with as much stats as they want to support their side of the argument

A poll automatically goes up and closes in 24 hours voting on the winner of the debate

Then on March 2nd a subject is given with two new people for sides being published and voted on on the 4th

March 3rd new subject and new people for publishing and voting for on the 5th

And so on



And that's it

Nothing more

No team competition
No critiques from the readers, just votes
No keeping track of wins and losses or tournaments
Just fun debate every day from 2 people on a basketball or sports related subject

[Edgar]

Now, some of you may be asking "is this guy serious? half the kids are 12 and would troll the **** outta that forum!"

37

Well, here's how I would implement it:


1. First off, we'd need to find out how big the audience would be. Is there 20 people interested? 200 people? More?


1

2. Once we estimate a good rounded number, we would divide the forum into subsections such as Football, Baseball, Basketball, Other Sports, and Politics, or whatever GLB could think of at that time. This would just help so each section isn't too crowded.


mmmmm.......... wait thats what we do already


3. After that, we would start setting up debating "tournaments" where the winners would receive some kind of prize (homepage trophy or a couple hundred FPs or something?). There would be a thread with the brackets and there would be a sign-up forum. These tournaments would consist of the first 100 people who signed-up, and the rest would be on the waiting list for the next tournament. If someone can't make the debate or doesn't show-up for a week without notice, the next member on the waiting list replace them.


 


4. Once the brackets were set-up, the moderators would create a thread for each "matchup" and would post the question in the thread and who's "turn" it was. Each moderator would be assigned 10 matchups (so a total of 5 moderators with 20 people per moderator).


mmmmm..... I dont like mods





5. The first person would provide their response to the statement, and when they submit it, the post will NOT automatically be submitted, but will be pending approval (this is where CB html coders will help). This will prevent trolls from attacking the topic and causing arguments.


mmmm...No caps please


6. The second person would counter-examine the first person's viewpoints, or provide a rebuttal.


or as usual post a funny pic


7. Then, the first person would provide their own rebuttal to the second person's rebuttal, then the second person would do the same again.


or... post a counter pic

8. Once this has been achieved (so it would be 2 posts by each user), the debating would be over, and the moderator would lock the thread. Once all the debates are finished for the 1st round, the moderators would re-open each thread with a poll at the top, and everyone would vote for the winners.



that means 100000004567 more threads
9. Rinse and repeat.



Any and ALL suggestions are appreciated


ty

my head hurts just thinking the load...
thats all

really