Political Jack needs a debate forum

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I know there are plenty boards on here to have debates. But my suggest is to have one board set aside for for one member to be able to call out another member in a closed debate.
When one member makes a challenge the other member can accept the challenge or not but be branded a coward. Rules will be agreed to before the set debate begins and three judges will be picked by both parties involved .
Times will be set also. No one but those involved in the debate will be allowed to post in that thread.

 

[Union_Jack_1972]

I know there are plenty boards on here to have debates. But my suggest is to have one board set aside for for one member to be able to call out another member in a closed debate.
When one member makes a challenge the other member can accept the challenge or not but be branded a coward. Rules will be agreed to before the set debate begins and three judges will be picked by both parties involved .
Times will be set also. No one but those involved in the debate will be allowed to post in that thread.

Not in a million years...

What some call debate is just plain filth and I am guilty of this...

So let say we wanted to debate about how you think I am a pompous ass all the time, and I wanted the rules to be us meeting in the PJ street at high noon and the last man standing after our Filipino Slap boxing is the king of bitching for the day, but alas under the old management there was a private board that allowed us to write filth to each other, and at the end it just was a thread for one poster and his rants ( not me ) about the African American community, so it was closed when Dave sold the place...

So I have to say it will never happen again...

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

Not in a million years...

What some call debate is just plain filth and I am guilty of this...

So let say we wanted to debate about how you think I am a pompous ass all the time, and I wanted the rules to be us meeting in the PJ street at high noon and the last man standing after our Filipino Slap boxing is the king of bitching for the day, but alas under the old management there was a private board that allowed us to write filth to each other, and at the end it just was a thread for one poster and his rants ( not me ) about the African American community, so it was closed when Dave sold the place...

So I have to say it will never happen again...

That's where the preset rules would come into play. To prevent such actions.

 

[Woolleybugger]

I did this once with an old adversary over on Slate. We debated originalism. It went on for about 1000 posts before we ended it. Took us several days and it was a great experience. I kept the threads. You need a topic first and two people who are genuinely interested in revealing their own thought processes through a debate format.

 

[fairsheet]

I did this once with an old adversary over on Slate. We debated originalism. It went on for about 1000 posts before we ended it. Took us several days and it was a great experience. I kept the threads. You need a topic first and two people who are genuinely interested in revealing their own thought processes through a debate format.

As I remember it, formal "competitive" debate consisted of one side being handed one side of the question and the other, the other. Ya didn't get to choose which side you wanted. Your mandate was simply to make the best case you could, with the hand you were dealt.

In that vein then..I think it'd be interesting to see a debate in which each side was required to argue the OPPOSITE of what might be her natural position. Myself....I think I could do a good job with some questions, but not with others.

But...I like to think the latter's more a function of the question than of me. Let's take the question of whether or not NATO should put troops in Ukraine. My natural position is - no way in hell! But, I think I could do a credible job of arguing the opposite.

On the other hand...the question of whether or not there's any there there as regards Benghazi?.....There's no way I could make the case that there is, since the whole question was pulled straight from the Fox/GOP's ass in the first place.

 

[Woolleybugger]

After all these years on boards, I like to think I know the conservative position better than most laymen conservatives. Personally, I would not want to advocate for a position that I do not support in a debate. If I spend the time and energy to debate at length, I want it to be about something I care about and feel passionately about. What happens when you do this is that you dig deep into your own bias or opinion to justify yourself. It reveals what you know and what you think you know. Most of have developed our worldviews in a passive manner over the years. Our brains just seem to develop opinions without really having a long list of reasons associated with them. It's more like looking at a situation, assessing it quickly and then making a decision about how to proceed. My experience on boards since 1999 has been one of self-discovery because my politics really have not changed that much, I just know why I believe what I believe now.

 

[Constitutional Sheepdog]

I love it having a debate about having a debate forum

 

[fairsheet]

After all these years on boards, I like to think I know the conservative position better than most laymen conservatives. Personally, I would not want to advocate for a position that I do not support in a debate. If I spend the time and energy to debate at length, I want it to be about something I care about and feel passionately about. What happens when you do this is that you dig deep into your own bias or opinion to justify yourself. It reveals what you know and what you think you know. Most of have developed our worldviews in a passive manner over the years. Our brains just seem to develop opinions without really having a long list of reasons associated with them. It's more like looking at a situation, assessing it quickly and then making a decision about how to proceed. My experience on boards since 1999 has been one of self-discovery because my politics really have not changed that much, I just know why I believe what I believe now.

Woolley,

I just said it would be "interesting"! In any case, the idea of "challenging" someone else to a debate in a forum such as this, doesn't sound very useful. One of two things would happen, 99 times out of 100.

1. One guy who's all over his subject will "challenge" someone he believes to be a maroon, with the idea of putting him in his place. That's weak and counterproductive.

2. OR (more likely) it'll be the maroon challenging the gal who's all over the topic. And in that case, the gal's simply walking into a circular and interminable exercise in nothingness.

 

[Woolleybugger]

Woolley,

I just said it would be "interesting"! In any case, the idea of "challenging" someone else to a debate in a forum such as this, doesn't sound very useful. One of two things would happen, 99 times out of 100.

1. One guy who's all over his subject will "challenge" someone he believes to be a maroon, with the idea of putting him in his place. That's weak and counterproductive.

2. OR (more likely) it'll be the maroon challenging the gal who's all over the topic. And in that case, the gal's simply walking into a circular and interminable exercise in nothingness.

I guess I just picked a guy who was indeed pretty damn good at what he knew. We had a long history together so we knew that we were dealing with serious people with command of the subject. But you are right if the opponents are not matched.