One on One

About One on One Debates at CR

  • A.I like debate a lot. I would enjoy a One on One debate.

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • B.I like debate. I would prefer only watching a One on One debate.

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • C.I like debate sometimes. I might be interested in a One on One debate.

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • D. I am somewhere mixed between A B & C

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • E. I do not like debating but would enjoy watching a One on One from time to time.

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • F.I have little or no interest in any kind of debates.

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • G.I am somewhere mixed between E & F.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    17
B

Bandit

Guest
One on One Debate

One on One



This is a suggestion for possible longwinded heavy debates in the future. I feel it would be an asset to CR, to offer those who feel they are confident and enjoy debates, a place to successfully do it. This is only a suggestion & others can post ideas & thoughts on it.



Debating, when done decently and in order is a good tool for learning & decision making. Like the presidential debate.

When two people meet, who really want to punch out the rounds, they could ask to be moved into the One on One debate forum and/OR it would offer a place for the moderators to suggest & direct them to, to discuss there differences.



This would also allow for the two persons to discuss & go the rounds, without any confusion of a third party influence & would prohibit gang banging.



You could set a time limit. You could let it go until they beat each other bloody or finally stop & they may come out as friends putting differences aside.

You could even allow a poll somewhere when the debate is over, which would allow the members to cast a vote & comment, on who the best debater is.



Within the One on One forum, it needs to be locked to only the two debaters who agree on the debate. The two debaters agree on the topic & any rules they feel they need to establish right at the beginning. What you will have is a nice forum that allows the public to watch the debate, without others interjecting & throwing the topic off balance.



I suppose you could leave the debate room open to two debaters to join at there own will & see how it works, if the rules are established in the beginning, letting the public & members know that it is strictly a ONE on ONE debate. Others are prohibited from interjecting and may not interrupt the two during the debate. –However leaving it unlocked presents temptation for someone not in the debate to interject in a post, which can be a problem & would most likely result in discipline-



Otherwise, permission will need to be asked for & granted by Admin. It will take the moderators a few extra minutes to open and lock the room, so that the two debaters are not disturbed. I feel it is best to lock the thread to just the two debaters.



I believe this would be a lot of fun & it would make for a good healthy interfaith discussion. I have seen it done in many forums and it is successful. Personally, I have already been through most of the bible debates, so it is not really my thing, but there are others who really enjoy it & will debate about anything and everything. It will also allow the general forums to continue in sharing beliefs without any condemnation and help prevent individuals from hijacking the threads.



Please take the poll & choose that which best fits you. Add your suggestions & comments, to help give CR Administration ideas & feelings about what makes a good successful One on One debate.

Isaiah 1:18, "Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD:"
 
I for one think this would be a great idea. I've noticed some threads get hijacked (and I know I inadvertently did this at least once :eek: ), because one person calls on another person to defend their statements, which ends up in debate. As a non-mainstream person in the Christian forum, I feel that it is sometimes beneficial for me to respond to challenges about my beliefs, but sometimes it feels awkward to do so in the context of the original thread. It would be very nice, not even from a debate stance, to have somewhere that I could go to respond to those challenges without feeling like I'm hijacking the original thread. :) I'm not a really "duke-it-out" kind of gal, but I do think it'd be nice to have a place where people could state their reasons for their beliefs when they are challenged in them. That way, the original threads would be less like debates and more like a discussion of everybody's ideas. People could refer to the relevant debates if they wanted to know the in-depth reasons why so-and-so said such-and-such. ;)
 
path_of_one said:
I for one think this would be a great idea. I've noticed some threads get hijacked (and I know I inadvertently did this at least once :eek: ), because one person calls on another person to defend their statements, which ends up in debate. As a non-mainstream person in the Christian forum, I feel that it is sometimes beneficial for me to respond to challenges about my beliefs, but sometimes it feels awkward to do so in the context of the original thread. It would be very nice, not even from a debate stance, to have somewhere that I could go to respond to those challenges without feeling like I'm hijacking the original thread. :) I'm not a really "duke-it-out" kind of gal, but I do think it'd be nice to have a place where people could state their reasons for their beliefs when they are challenged in them. That way, the original threads would be less like debates and more like a discussion of everybody's ideas. People could refer to the relevant debates if they wanted to know the in-depth reasons why so-and-so said such-and-such. ;)
Click to expand...
I am kind of like you with this Path of One.
I think it is a good thing especially for young people to learn to do properly. It helps them later with every day problems that arise & how to cope with people who thrive on confrontation. It also teaches how to confront in a respectable manner when they need to.

A good speaker with all the facts is not always the best debater. Presentation, simple analogy & good sportsmanship means a lot. Someone coming across stiff necked, puffed up in knowledge with no reasoning skill is not a good debater, IMO.
It can get a little confusing with too many cooks as to wondering who put what in the soup.
One on One also provides a nice neutral ground, like you say for the in depth, so and so said such and such. Especially when the dirt gets kicked up from under the carpet. :)

Anyone else have a thought?
 
OK, I admit it, I'm the one who voted for the very strange position of not liking debate but enjoying to read one. The way I see it debate is not really appropriate for something like religion because true debate always implies someone will win and someone will lose, or at least that is the goal. It can also mean that one might start to twist beliefs and scripture just to "win," once caught up in the heat of a debate.

I enjoy reading a debate because I pretty much always learn something when there is a strong exchange of ideas between well-informed participants. I've found that I get that from the forums here anyway without a formal debate board. I can understand some here wanting a place set aside for those very strong arguments to keep them out of other threads. I thought that was what the Comparative board was for, although I've noticed that people don't really go there much.

my 2 c
lunamoth

added in edit: maybe we just need a catchphrase like "take it over the Comparative Board" when things get too heated in a thread. :)
 
hey Lunamoth, Do you want to have a one on one with me? I promise it wont hurt too much. tease

I often see a debate like that as a chance for people to work out differences & become friends rather than enemies at the end & not so much who wins or loses. I never really viewed CR as a heavy debate board, but rather people who would like to try & get along. Let's face it, someone without the basic ethic of trying to get along is not going to last here very long. Which is a good fundamental IMO.:)
AND is one of the reasons I joined in the first place.

On the other hand, certain views get washed out easily if they are gang banged. I have a lot of beliefs that I will never even bring up with people, unless they ask, because I know what happens.
Group discussion is totally different than a debate. You have to kind of watch your P's & Q's, to not offend. But when you put two people together, the scene changes & it allows them to really get down to the nitty gritty & you get a fair wrestling match instead of a bar room brawl.You lose the fear of being rejected as the debate takes on the hills & turns.

I have seen some well done, confident, fun debates & I have seen some very lame, despiteful ones. Not every topic would have to be a religious one. I think it helps to get to know the person a little before hand.
There really are not that many active participants here, but as it grows I feel it will be a plus & a nice added on option. It can be a good, challenging experience for people who have never done it.

Add your comments members:)
 
It's difficult to debate with someone or some view that you don't really respect. An intelligent debate is one that challenges issues, not just opinions. A good debate doesn't always necessarily stick to facts either, understanding ones values and principles gains the respect of the audience and the opponent. I would enjoy watching a debate and being in one - but I haven't really come out in a solid way yet about my views in particular in this forum.
Suggestion:
Let an audience member pick the discussion thread and label it as a debate. If an audience member has talked in this forum long enough to get to know people, then they may even try to suggest those who should participate in the debate. No more than three people at a time.
 
Those are some good suggestions Truthseeker. I nominate Truthseeker for the first one on one debate.:)

I think it was Larry King who recently invited 3 leaders, I believe Islam, Judaism & Christianity. That is a nice debate too, where the topic is made & one person asks the questions & the three guests each get time to respond & they kind of go the rounds that way. CNN hosts some good debates. It is not uncommon for them to cut someone off if they are coming across extremely irate.
I also agree Truthseeker, it can be difficult to debate with someone if you dont highly respect the view/belief.

I was kind of tricked into a debate with someone once & it was all going fine. Then out of woodwork four other people jumped all over me with loaded guns. I was comfortable debating with the first person who started with me & wanted to continue the topic but just with him because I realized I had been set up for a gang bang. So I stopped the debate.
 
Great ideas, everyone!

But maybe, instead of a time limit, there could be a limit to the possible number of posts for each participant (five for one, and five for the other, perhaps?). That way, people don't have to read through five pages of one paragraph long arguments/counter-arguments.

Just a suggestion...
 
That's a great suggestion.
But a little more than five - maybe fifteen for each person max. That's two pages for a whole debate. Then other members can come in for discussion about the debate.
 
I fine with no limits on debate - there is great potential for long and detailed and worthwhile reading - I shouldn't wish to put a limit to that.
 
That's true. I guess I wouldn't want to get myself ready for a discussion that must be shut down after two pages. Doesn't really feel like a discussion. Must articulate something now. See you guys in the morrow.
 
Maybe connected to that area somehow could be some information on different formats of debate in case anyone wants to get technical?
 
May I ask what the purpose of a debate would be?

Perhaps it would be best to begin by clearly stating the premise, and then build an argument that is free of fallacy as defined by the old Greek standards. There is a website that lists the thirteen classic fallacies and goes into other variations as well.
Using Aristotle's Syllogism might be a good start too.

Peace

Mark
 
I have not voted yet. Still weighing the pros and cons--

(I am editing my message here, because I missed some of what you originally posted, and I see that you have already addressed some my questions--sorry--gotta read more carefully! But rather than delete it all and start over, well, you understand?)

If there were one-on-one debates, I think that it might be a good idea to limit the posts to one a day (or even less) alternating between the debaters. Just a thought, but that gives plenty of response time, as well as time for observers to meditate, cool down, etc.

Also, I am wondering how the topics would be chosen--would the forum be polled?

How about the participants? Would they agree between themselves on a topic they would like to present, or would the topics be chosen by someone in charge of "topic choosing":D ? (There lies Language, just begging to be used properly, but alas--my feeble mind hiccups while reaching for it!) Anyway, if that were the case, then, how would the debaters be selected?

I am not sure it would eliminate the heated "mini-debates" that steal away with those threads, unless maybe the topic was off-limits until the debate was over--and should there be a time limit for that, too?

I don't know--that sounds like lots of limits, doesn't it? I guess if the idea is to create a useful outlet, then perhaps those limits are not practical. And I think it is possible that some of them could really confuse a brand-new member who joins the forum in the midst of the event.

Anyway, as I said, just weighing and mulling--debating with myself, I suppose. I will vote later. I will say this much, for now--if there were debates, I would prefer to be an observer, at least for a good while.

InPeace,
InLove
 
Last edited:
One more thought--I like the idea about a place to post comments after the debate, but I really don't like the idea of voting on the best debater. It suggests a winner and a loser, and to me, that is not what this forum is based upon.
 
It has been a while since anyone posted here, and I was fairly new (guess I still am--right?) when I replied to it.

My views have changed. Frankly, there are so many one-on-one's going on here in CR that I am beginning to think it would be a good idea for those who just need to do that.

Anybody else think so?

(But, if we do it, please, I beg--let's not vote on the winner--please? Can't we just all decide that for ourselves?)

Do I sound frustrated--well, hmmm....thinking, thinking, praying, maybe even chanting.... Oh, I know! Logging out....:)

InPeace,
InLove
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top