Cage Match?

[darin]

Can we pick the best Liberal Debater here, and the best Conservative debater here and have them go-at-it, debate style?

Jim or MtnBiker or Me can pick a topic. Both sides get 10 replies to prove their point, and the winner is voted upon by the forum members?

:)

[hjmick]

Sounds like an interesting idea. There would have to be rules. The use of blogs would need to be off limits. No Newsbusters, Little Green Footballs, HuffPo, DailyKos, and the like. Only recognized news sources for references, no use of complete stories except as references. Only the use of one's own words should be allowed. I realize that this may prove to be somewhat prohibitive to those not used to cognitive thought, but the simple exchange of articles, ideas, and polls written and conducted by others does not a debate make.

[darin]

Good rules. :)

[Hagbard Celine]

Good rules. :)

How would you ensure that it would stay between the two debaters and not get bogged down in ad hominem posted by other members? And how would you measure a clear winner?

[hjmick]

How would you ensure that it would stay between the two debaters and not get bogged down in ad hominem posted by other members?

Unless you can lock out members not participating, monitering by an administator would probably suffice. Said member would be able to delete posts that do not belong.


And how would you measure a clear winner?

This would be the more difficult question to answer. A polling system would be the most obvious choice, but then you would have to rely on the intellectual honesty of our members. Would you, or anyone reading this, have the ability to rise above party affiliation, personal grudges, and personal beliefs to vote for the participant who made the best argument? Whether or not you believed their opinion was right?

[MtnBiker]

How would you ensure that it would stay between the two debaters and not get bogged down in ad hominem posted by other members? And how would you measure a clear winner?

It could be monitored by staff, only the premitted debators could post, other posts would be removed. Or a user group could be created for only the participating members would have posting access.

[darin]

A vote system - or a decision among the staff? We could be impartial and decide a winner of a debate EVEN IF we disagreed with the winner's position. Perhaps that's it - perhaps we Assign a position. The Liberal must debate what we think is the CONSERVATIVE position, and the Conservative must debate from liberal standpoint? :)

Thoughts?

[hjmick]

And spelling ( :bang3: ), punctuation ( :bang3: ), and grammar ( :bang3: ) count. :dev:

[glockmail]

It could be monitored by staff, only the premitted debators could post, other posts would be removed. Or a user group could be created for only the participating members would have posting access.
KISS. Have a parrallel thread for comments from the peanut gallery. :popcorn:

[glockmail]

A vote system - or a decision among the staff? We could be impartial and decide a winner of a debate EVEN IF we disagreed with the winner's position. Perhaps that's it - perhaps we Assign a position. The Liberal must debate what we think is the CONSERVATIVE position, and the Conservative must debate from liberal standpoint? :)

Thoughts? Why limit it to staff?

[hjmick]

You might consider twenty four hours for preparation, research, and such. Perhaps a weekend cage match?

[Hagbard Celine]

A vote system - or a decision among the staff? We could be impartial and decide a winner of a debate EVEN IF we disagreed with the winner's position. Perhaps that's it - perhaps we Assign a position. The Liberal must debate what we think is the CONSERVATIVE position, and the Conservative must debate from liberal standpoint? :)

Thoughts?

I like the idea. This could be very interesting. :)

[manu1959]

gop jeff vs truthmatters

[JohnDoe]

I do't think it will be interesting at all....

UNLESS....

IT IS NO HOLDS BARRED....

in other words, all media is game, not just the main stream media, which is limited to just "liberal" views according to the cons.... ;)

If the weekly standard or fox is going to be used then the huffington post should be allowed........ :D

But truely, all media should be allowed in the debate and we, the readers can make up our own minds, about the source and its reliability..... that would be the only "fair" way, imo.

[MtnBiker]

I like the idea of keeping outside sources to a minimum. The debate would be about presenting one's position not just siting news articles and op-eds.

[Mr. P]

I do't think it will be interesting at all....

UNLESS....

IT IS NO HOLDS BARRED....

in other words, all media is game, not just the main stream media, which is limited to just "liberal" views according to the cons.... ;)

If the weekly standard or fox is going to be used then the huffington post should be allowed........ :D

But truely, all media should be allowed in the debate and we, the readers can make up our own minds, about the source and its reliability..... that would be the only "fair" way, imo.
Then it's a media debate, not a member debate.

[Dilloduck]

Nice fantasy but there isn't a liberal here who would consent.

[MtnBiker]

I'm sure there are people who would consider such a debate.

Anyone interested, anyone from the full political spectrum?

[LiberalNation]

I'd consent no prob. Win/loose these things are never really fair anyway. We all know a con will win just by the fact there are more here and people will support their own but who cares, still fun.

[Dilloduck]

I'd consent no prob. Win/loose these things are never really fair anyway. We all know a con will win just by the fact there are more here and people will support their own but who cares, still fun.

:laugh2: That's just the kind of debater we're looking for---someone who already claims it to be unfair.

[LiberalNation]

Well it is pretty predicable. If the mods judge their all con and would lean toward the con debaters side cuz they wouldn't believe any points a lib brought up and if it's judged by the entire board, well that's nearly all con to and same reason. Debate judging is subjective most of the time and by being so will always end up a popularity contest.

[Dilloduck]

Well it is pretty predicable. If the mods judge their all con and would lean toward the con debaters side cuz they wouldn't believe any points a lib brought up and if it's judged by the entire board, well that's nearly all con to and same reason. Debate judging is subjective most of the time and by being so will always end up a popularity contest.

So you would consent simply because it would be fun ? I'm curious--why would you think it would be fun?

[avatar4321]

sounds fun if you can find a liberal debater.

[LiberalNation]

So you would consent simply because it would be fun ? I'm curious--why would you think it would be fun?
Why do I find posting on message boards fun? Just do.

[Dilloduck]

Why do I find posting on message boards fun? Just do.

Not just posting, silly. Volunteering to be the representative liberal in a formal debate.

[LiberalNation]

I'd be the representative lib as far as being representive of millions of people who don't think exactly like you can go. There is no standard for a real lib or con, just labels.

[Dilloduck]

I'd be the representative lib as far as being representive of millions of people who don't think exactly like you can go. There is no standard for a real lib or con, just labels.

I get that part---I just wanna know why you think it would be fun to particpate in debate that you have already decided is rigged.

[LiberalNation]

I like playing the underdog. I don't care if I win per say.

[Abbey Marie]

Topic of first debate:

Who and what makes a fair and fun debate. :rolleyes:

[Dilloduck]

I like playing the underdog. I don't care if I win per say.

How daring of you--you want a free shot at winning but already your claiming the game is rigged to couch the effect of losing. I think you may find more satisfaction in life if you actually try your best and be willing to lose without whining about it being unfair. I actually had hopes for ya there for a sec.

[LiberalNation]

Know I think it's rigged because I know political boards, I know how people think, and I know what a popularity poll will end in here. There is no way to give a lib a fair shot unless your judge panel had equal # of libs and cons.

[Dilloduck]

Know I think it's rigged because I know political boards, I know how people think, and I know what a popularity poll will end in here. There is no way to give a lib a fair shot unless your judge panel had equal # of libs and cons.

And yet you would gladly play the role of victim and hope to get in a lucky punch ?? I swear you're above that--aren't you?

[darin]

LN is "NOT" going to be the "Liberal" Debater. No way. MissileMan would be my first choice for a Lib...off the top of my head.

For a Conservative? JEFF - if he weren't so selfish as to take time away from the board for his "education" :)

re: staff - Because the staff of this board is reasonable, and is from a broad demographic. :)

[LiberalNation]

re: staff - Because the staff of this board is reasonable, and is from a broad demographic. :)
Maybe in your own mind. Which of course doesn't make it true.

[glockmail]

:laugh2: That's just the kind of debater we're looking for---someone who already claims it to be unfair. Face it folks. This shit will never happen. There are very few Libs man enough (meant as non-sexist) to admit they have been bested.

[Mr. P]

Face it folks. This shit will never happen. There are very few Libs man enough (meant as non-sexist) to admit they have been bested.

I agree, it ain't happen.

[darin]

Face it folks. This shit will never happen. There are very few Libs man enough (meant as non-sexist) to admit they have been bested.

They won't have to. The staff (or voting members) will decide. :)

[retiredman]

I think that the debaters should not be chosen in advance of the subject. Certain folks have their forte and would be more worthy opponents in those topics.

[glockmail]

They won't have to. The staff (or voting members) will decide. :) Then the Lib will just say it was unfair. He/she will never admit defeat. That's what liberals do.

[jackass]

I choose Jimnyc for ANY argument. That mFer is like a pit bull. Just wont let go!

[darin]

I choose Jimnyc for ANY argument. That mFer is like a pit bull. Just wont let go!

I was hoping for a SMART conservative...

:poke::finger3::cheers2:

So - we'll 'pick' from a list of volunteers. After 'who vs. whom' is announced, we'll post a topic and ONLY those two will respond - 10 replies each.

After, we'll vote for a wiener. :)

[Yurt]

I would pick Diuretic (looberal), but not sure his time zone difference would play a factor.

And 5stringjeff as the converse (ative).


If that doesn't work:

NM vs. TM

:laugh2: :popcorn:

Oh, you wanted a real liberal vs a real conservative debate....

[Said1]

I would pick Diuretic (looberal), but not sure his time zone difference would play a factor.

And 5stringjeff as the converse (ative).


If that doesn't work:

NM vs. TM

:laugh2: :popcorn:

Oh, you wanted a real liberal vs a real conservative debate....

that's a good pick, I'd like to see that too.

[Jon]

that's a good pick, I'd like to see that too.

Me three!

[dan]

I agree with LN on this one, no way this would be a fair debate, or maybe the debate would be fair, but not the decision-making on who won.

[darin]

I agree with LN on this one, no way this would be a fair debate, or maybe the debate would be fair, but not the decision-making on who won.

I think it'd be FAIR - and the participants would think it's fair...now...the groupies for each side may not think it's fair - IF their side 'lost'...but having the participants argue the OPPOSITE position would go a long way to ensure no voting for fan-favourites, regardless of their debate skills.

[dan]

I think it'd be FAIR - and the participants would think it's fair...now...the groupies for each side may not think it's fair - IF their side 'lost'...but having the participants argue the OPPOSITE position would go a long way to ensure no voting for fan-favourites, regardless of their debate skills.

I'd like to think that after all this time, I'm a little more than a 'groupie'. I'm just looking at it realistically: the board is 90% Conservative. Say the topic is abortion. Even if the liberal side is much, much more articulate, most here would vote the other way simply because they disagree with the topic at hand. I mean, just look at this thread: most of the cons on here have already decided the liberals lost, and the debate hasn't even started.

Obviously, what I say has little bearing. I'm no great debater, so I'm obviously not going to be taking part, but I can definite see how this is going to go:

1. Debate happens
2. Regardless of outcome, conservatives support conservative side, liberals support liberal side
3. Conservative is deemed winner
4. much patting-of-backs

[jimnyc]

I disagree with those thinking it would be unfair but let me explain why...

Here's how I propose would be a good way to run the debate:

1- Have multiple subjects as options for debate, or have 2 parties agree ahead of time as to what they would like to debate.

2- Staff would start a thread in the appropriate section. They would announce the subject to be debated and who the participants will be. The staff member will open with a question to one of the participants. (this can be rotated with each debate, first liberal than conservative...) Anyone else posting in said thread besides announced opponents will have their comments deleted and be banned from further participation in that thread.

3- The first respondent will answer the question and add any starting argument.

4- The second respondent can also answer the question, reply to the first respondents answer, and add their own argument...

5- This goes on until each party has had an opportunity to provide 10 posts to their debate.

6- Staff member will announce the end of the debate, and then add a poll to the thread and allow the board to vote

Do I think some conservatives or liberals will vote along party lines regardless of the merits of the arguments? Absolutely. I'm not even going to attempt to say it would be fully fair in that department. But I do think we have a lot of honest members on this board that are capable of voting based on the argument even if the subject argued differs from their own views.

And the final tally on the vote will NOT be a true indicator of the winner. I think regardless of how the vote goes most will know deep inside who presented a better argument. The true winner will be the board and all of it's members. If played fairly, and kept civil, it can be a fun thing for all involved. And lastly, to keep anyone from fearing too much bias, we can always add in debates that take a lot of politics out of the equation. Maybe debate entertainment issues, current events outside of politics, sports, computer or photography issues... And if all goes smoothly, and continues in a manner that the board enjoys, we can even re-open a specific forum just for holding the debates. Unless of course the board feels it would be better to have a central location such as this from the get go.

Thoughts?

[dan]

I disagree with those thinking it would be unfair but let me explain why...

Here's how I propose would be a good way to run the debate:

1- Have multiple subjects as options for debate, or have 2 parties agree ahead of time as to what they would like to debate.

2- Staff would start a thread in the appropriate section. They would announce the subject to be debated and who the participants will be. The staff member will open with a question to one of the participants. (this can be rotated with each debate, first liberal than conservative...) Anyone else posting in said thread besides announced opponents will have their comments deleted and be banned from further participation in that thread.

3- The first respondent will answer the question and add any starting argument.

4- The second respondent can also answer the question, reply to the first respondents answer, and add their own argument...

5- This goes on until each party has had an opportunity to provide 10 posts to their debate.

6- Staff member will announce the end of the debate, and then add a poll to the thread and allow the board to vote

Do I think some conservatives or liberals will vote along party lines regardless of the merits of the arguments? Absolutely. I'm not even going to attempt to say it would be fully fair in that department. But I do think we have a lot of honest members on this board that are capable of voting based on the argument even if the subject argued differs from their own views.

And the final tally on the vote will NOT be a true indicator of the winner. I think regardless of how the vote goes most will know deep inside who presented a better argument. The true winner will be the board and all of it's members. If played fairly, and kept civil, it can be a fun thing for all involved. And lastly, to keep anyone from fearing too much bias, we can always add in debates that take a lot of politics out of the equation. Maybe debate entertainment issues, current events outside of politics, sports, computer or photography issues... And if all goes smoothly, and continues in a manner that the board enjoys, we can even re-open a specific forum just for holding the debates. Unless of course the board feels it would be better to have a central location such as this from the get go.

Thoughts?

Well, it does seem to be better-organized than I had thought. I'll definitely be checking it out, and I think it'll help steer the board away from the personal-attack drudgery it's been stuck in lately.

[jimnyc]

Well, it does seem to be better-organized than I had thought. I'll definitely be checking it out, and I think it'll help steer the board away from the personal-attack drudgery it's been stuck in lately.

Dan, I do agree with some of what you said. If there wasn't common civility and we just left the thread open ended, with a simple vote, it's obvious that liberals wouldn't get a fair shake.

But if you and I debated, and I laughed my way through the debate with sarcasm and off handed opinions, and you laid out a civil argument lined with factual links to backup what you're saying, would you really care if a bunch of people voted against you? My hope is that the voting members will vote based on the arguments proposed, and how they were structured, and not pre-determine who the winner is just because of party lines.

Maybe you and I can open things up by debating whether or not we can implement a fair debating system on a board that is majority conservative! :laugh2:

[dan]

Dan, I do agree with some of what you said. If there wasn't common civility and we just left the thread open ended, with a simple vote, it's obvious that liberals wouldn't get a fair shake.

But if you and I debated, and I laughed my way through the debate with sarcasm and off handed opinions, and you laid out a civil argument lined with factual links to backup what you're saying, would you really care if a bunch of people voted against you? My hope is that the voting members will vote based on the arguments proposed, and how they were structured, and not pre-determine who the winner is just because of party lines.

Maybe you and I can open things up by debating whether or not we can implement a fair debating system on a board that is majority conservative! :laugh2:

Fair enough, but I've got dibs on the "sarcasm and offhanded opinions" side!:laugh2:

[82Marine89]

Would you, or anyone reading this, have the ability to rise above party affiliation, personal grudges, and personal beliefs to vote for the participant who made the best argument? Whether or not you believed their opinion was right?

No problem.

[glockmail]

....1. Debate happens
2. Regardless of outcome, conservatives support conservative side, liberals support liberal side
3. Conservative is deemed winner
4. much patting-of-backs


My take on this is different:
1. Debate happens
2. Conservative argument is based on logic and facts, liberal side on emotions and poll results; conservatives support conservative side, liberals support liberal side
3. Conservative is deemed winner
4. much patting-of-backs
5. Liberals cry foul and continue the debate

[dan]

2. Conservative argument is based on logic and facts, liberal side on emotions and poll results;

This is what I'm talking about. It's already assumed that the liberal side will fail, why bother?

[glockmail]

This is what I'm talking about. It's already assumed that the liberal side will fail, why bother?
Actually my point is a little bit different. Liberal arguments are based on emotion; conservative's on logic. Both sides may have good solid arguments, but there is no way a logical jury will vote for an emotional argument. And vice-versa.

[dan]

Actually my point is a little bit different. Liberal arguments are based on emotion; conservative's on logic. Both sides may have good solid arguments, but there is no way a logical jury will vote for an emotional argument. And vice-versa.

OK, I do agree with your last statement. However, I feel it's too broad a generalization to say that all liberal arguments are based on emotion. For example, nearly all liberal arguments on subjects pertaining to religion or science are based more on logic than the conservatives' faith-based arguments. Again, this is a generalization, as there are christian liberals and nonchristian cons, but you know what I mean.

[JohnDoe]

Actually my point is a little bit different. Liberal arguments are based on emotion; conservative's on logic. Both sides may have good solid arguments, but there is no way a logical jury will vote for an emotional argument. And vice-versa.

I'd much rather "think" with my heart, have emotions, feel what others may feel, look at the whole picture from both sides, before I make a decision....make it "personal", not with waxed cold emotions or thoughts that disregard the "humanity" involved with the circumstances!

And btw, that is WHILE I also examine the FACTS. :D

jd

[Mr. P]

So what wins, facts or emotion?

[JohnDoe]

So what wins, facts or emotion?BOTH!

They intertwine..... :D

I am a DOVE, from head to toe, but I also recognize, that SOMETIMES HAWKS are needed for our own protection....

Maybe it is a "female" thing, cuz my dad is a HAWK and he is a Democrat?????

But then there are Abbey and Kathianne and Stephanie that are also HAWKS in my opinion.... hahaha..... so who knows?

jd

[darin]

I like what Jim as posted - But having the staff vote would be one way to keep 'partisan' voting from happening.

Dan - I wasn't calling YOU a groupie - but you know the groupie-type; those who ONLY support people on their team.

:D

[dan]

Dan - I wasn't calling YOU a groupie - but you know the groupie-type; those who ONLY support people on their team.

:D

I believe the term is Band-Aid.:D

[Mr. P]

But you disregard the fact that making decisions with BOTH, can SAVES lives also and making a decision quickly, without thorough contemplation can kill tens of thousands of INNOCENT people.....such as what has happened in Iraq....which might not have happened if the time was taken to analyze the ENTIRE SITUATION and consider the consequences of our actions before making the first move....

I think my way is better....:D


hahaha! But of COURSE I DO! :laugh2::laugh2:,

I wouldn't hesitate to War with any country that tried to attack us....Being a Dove from head to toe does NOT mean I would not defend ourselves if being attacked!!!! I may have a soft heart, but I am not stupid, and I enjoy living!!!!!!

jd
I am not disregarding anything. I said "It can't always be both"..(cept I left the "t" off "It".).

[dan]

Let's not overdo it here, nobody's saving any lives by debating on here.

[Mr. P]

Let's not overdo it here, nobody's saving any lives by debating on here.

It could happen. Well, ok, maybe not.

[LiberalNation]

I like what Jim as posted - But having the staff vote would be one way to keep 'partisan' voting from happening.
No, not really.

[darin]

No, not really.

That's an odd opinion you have. Let's explore it.

If I'm right, and the staff CAN be absolutely impartial you've lost nothing. If YOU are right, and the staff consists of partisan hacks, lacking the ability for 'free thought', then...well...you've lost nothing.

So...uh?

[LiberalNation]

and since what constitutes a partisan is subjective, neither of us can truely say one or the other. One mans true is another man lie and all that.

[Mr. P]

That's an odd opinion you have. Let's explore it.

If I'm right, and the staff CAN be absolutely impartial you've lost nothing. If YOU are right, and the staff consists of partisan hacks, lacking the ability for 'free thought', then...well...you've lost nothing.

So...uh?

Please stop slapping the membership in the face! 4 staff members DO NOT have a corner on objectivity. If staff are the only ones to vote you may as well take it to a back room and play together. Geeezzzzzzz.

[Abbey Marie]

Sigh. Let's not have the debate.

[darin]

and since what constitutes a partisan is subjective, neither of us can truely say one or the other. One mans true is another man lie and all that.

You're one very very confused person. Okay then.


Please stop slapping the membership in the face! 4 staff members DO NOT have a corner on objectivity. If staff are the only ones to vote you may as well take it to a back room and play together. Geeezzzzzzz.

I'm sorry my insistence that the Staff can be completely unbiased in this matter means to you I'm saying 'the members of this board cannot be unbiased'. I'm sorry that's what you read-into what I said. It's not my intent. My intent is this: Reducing or limiting the voting pool helps ensure this doesn't become a popularity contest.

[Mr. P]

You're one very very confused person. Okay then.



I'm sorry my insistence that the Staff can be completely unbiased in this matter means to you I'm saying 'the members of this board cannot be unbiased'. I'm sorry that's what you read-into what I said. It's not my intent. My intent is this: Reducing or limiting the voting pool helps ensure this doesn't become a popularity contest.

I think your intent is power. Sorry.

[darin]

I think your intent is power. Sorry.

Okay then. Whatever. :) I honestly don't believe you believe that. There's no "power" to be gained by selecting the 'winner' of a cage-match debate. It's plain SILLY to think so.

[darin]

I'm trying to clean this thread up - so - let's all stay ON topic - the topic is: Cage-Match Debate between two users.

Nothing else. :)

[Mr. P]

I'm trying to clean this thread up - so - let's all stay ON topic - the topic is: Cage-Match Debate between two users.

Nothing else. :)

D, deleting posts just proves my point.

[darin]

D, deleting posts just proves my point.

Deleting the off-topic posts so this thread is easier to follow proves your point, eh?

See? I can't do anything about that. First off, it's such a HUGE and nasty leap of "Logic" to say:

"You (dmp) deleting off-topic posts in this thread proves my point that your suggestion the Staff vote for a winner in the Lib vs. Cons Cage-Match debate is all about POWER"

That I am honestly flabbergasted. It's like saying Chocolate chips prove my point that cows don't wear sneakers.

The two are so vastly removed from anything remotely considered a 'connection' it's weird.

2ndly:
My 'suggestions' are suggestions. If you have valid suggestions to make the Cage Match happen, PLEASE share them. This is brainstorming...this thread.

[Mr. P]

Deleting the off-topic posts so this thread is easier to follow proves your point, eh?

See? I can't do anything about that. First off, it's such a HUGE and nasty leap of "Logic" to say:

"You (dmp) deleting off-topic posts in this thread proves my point that your suggestion the Staff vote for a winner in the Lib vs. Cons Cage-Match debate is all about POWER"

That I am honestly flabbergasted. It's like saying Chocolate chips prove my point that cows don't wear sneakers.

The two are so vastly removed from anything remotely considered a 'connection' it's weird.

2ndly:
My 'suggestions' are suggestions. If you have valid suggestions to make the Cage Match happen, PLEASE share them. This is brainstorming...this thread.
Nice twist..transparent for anyone following along, but nice.

[darin]

Nice twist..transparent for anyone following along, but nice.

Again - there you go...you don't WANT to know what I'm thinking or the motivation behind my suggestions because ANYTHING I say you'll denounce or dismiss.

SO -

What would make Mr. P happy, mmkay? What suggestions for the 'Cage Match' do YOU have which would warm you to your toes?

[Hagbard Celine]

Again - there you go...you don't WANT to know what I'm thinking or the motivation behind my suggestions because ANYTHING I say you'll denounce or dismiss.

SO -

What would make Mr. P happy, mmkay? What suggestions for the 'Cage Match' do YOU have which would warm you to your toes?

You're wrong. I do want to know what you're thinking and your motivation behind your suggestions. :dance:

[Sitarro]

I'd consent no prob. Win/loose these things are never really fair anyway. We all know a con will win just by the fact there are more here and people will support their own but who cares, still fun.

are you sure you aren't black?

[Abbey Marie]

You're wrong. I do want to know what you're thinking and your motivation behind your suggestions. :dance:

PM dmp. I'm sure he will be happy to discuss it with you.

Thread closed for now. We'll continue the cage match discusssion at a later date.

[darin]

You're wrong. I do want to know what you're thinking and your motivation behind your suggestions. :dance:

At least you're honest. :)