New Debate Modes

I was thinking about the different debate modes we have on the site now, and I thought of a couple more we could use. Let's first look at the different modes.
- Regular Debate (customized rules)
- Quick Debate (More than 5 rounds, 900 character max)
- Team Debates (Multi-User Debates, Co-Collaboration)
- Parliamentary Debates

The new modes I've proposed are as follows. The first being the blitz debate , which apparently even tophatdoc has been hoping for awhile. The idea is to add a high prep time, but when it is over, have a short time slot to make arguments once its over. Such as 15 minutes, 30 minutes, or an hour. Simulating as close of a version as you can to a "live" debate by text.

Idea two, is the Epic Debate . It is exactly how it sounds. 10,000 to 20,000 character minimum, and the option of doing 10-20 rounds. I would absolutely love to do an extremely long, extremely high content debate. This is going to be my number one push for awhile.

The next idea was the Congressional Debate , which is a form of debate used in over 40 countries. The reason why it's so cool, is because it works off the actual congressional structure, and would be a blast in teams. In a congressional debate, two "parties", the majority house, and the majority senate, receive a piece of legislation, and refine the legislation in one round, and the speaker appeals to the house in the next, on why they should accept their legislation. The Cx is where the minority party, asks the speaker questions about his proposed changes. Congressional Debates aren't graded by "BOP", but who made more convincing refinements to the bill, based on impact. Pretty much who can argue the same resolution better

Lastly, the Cross Examination Debate . A debate, usually philosophy, where both sides participate in an extended cross examination, and make one case at the end of the debate. This is an improvement over my earlier "cross examination" only debate, but this one provides a closing speech.

Three minor proposals to follow this thread....
- The ability to write round one during prep time (originally proposed by STALIN)
- Ability to end Cross Examination when both debaters agree to (maybe ending cx when both debaters push "End Cx")
- A "opinion" box to follow the "feedback" box on debates. I often want to give a short analysis of the topic and its importance, even my own personal views, but there's really no place for that. The "Opinion" box wouldn't affect the score of the debate. It's also interesting seeing if people changed their viewpoints after reading a debate.

bump do to random posting bug. DO NOT BURY

Blackflag: I like the blitz debate idea.

I don't like the epic debate idea. Mostly because the facility is already there to create a debate so large that I will struggle to read it. I honestly would not want to read such a massive debate so I can't really get behind this one.

I don't really feel strongly about the congressional debate one. Not being a politician, or particularly interested in policy, especially American policy, which is what this would end up being, this idea doesn't sound like a debate I would read, much less vote or participate in. If demand is there though, I say go for it.

The cross examination one I also feel ambivalent about. Doesn't rock MY world but if the demand is there...

I see


..................................................................

nzlockie: I don't really feel strongly about the congressional debate one. Not being a politician, or particularly interested in policy, especially American policy, which is what this would end up being, this idea doesn't sound like a debate I would read, much less vote or participate in. If demand is there though, I say go for it.
Not true about American Policy. Over 80 countries have a bicamarel congress, so you can debate laws being proposed in 80 nations. The reason I'm interested in the idea, is because it allows you to take the role of the party your representing, and allows for interesting topics you can't do in a parliamentary debate (because they aren't party or country specific).

The first congressional debate I want to do is actually regarding an Islamic law going through the Malaysian congress.

I don't like the epic debate idea. Mostly because the facility is already there to create a debate so large that I will struggle to read it. I honestly would not want to read such a massive debate so I can't really get behind this one.
The debate should be for the enjoyment of the debaters, and not the judges. I don't think the capablilties of a debate should be limited by the need of the judges. If you start an epic debate, you are already aware that a vote is a long shot. I'm more intrested in doing, rather than being reviewed.

What is possible is 10,000-15,000 minimum and a maximum of 10 rounds.

Blackflag: Yeah that doesn't change my opinion. I barely like debating internal laws in my own country, let alone a country I don't live in.

Just not my bag. Happy to support it if others want it though.

Blackflag: Sure im ok with that then.

Are you saying that that is what's possible now?
If so, doesn't that already meet your criteria?

Blackflag: The first congressional debate I want to do is actually regarding an Islamic law going through the Malaysian congress.
For example, I would have to actually take on the viewpoint of the party I'm representing, despite the fact that both me and the opposition.
If the bill was "Law on the banning of sodomy in Malaysia", I couldn't make an argument not in line with the views of the party I'm representing. e.g. Barisian Nasional

nzlockie: Fortunately the set up can be done manually if enough people were intrested.

nzlockie: No, the maximum amount of rounds is 10, and there is no minimum character rule.

Blackflag: *^ The Maximum amount of rounds is 5

Blackflag: Blitz debate might be interesting. I did one ages ago on DDO. My opponent forfeited every round. But I've long thought that that sort of thing in a "quick debate" style format would be interesting.

I can guarantee you epic debates will see a super-high number of forfeits. The long minimum will encourage debaters to post irrelevant material that won't particularly be helpful for the site. One of those epic debates would literally be the length of War and Peace, which I do rather feel is far too much to READ in a month's voting time even if one made an effort to do so, let alone judge fairly. There's other considerations too - if the text is that long, it will take longer to download, which could impact on edeb8's SEO. At a certain point the database will start choking up as well. And it will become much harder for me to moderate everything if I have to look through long dissertations to see if anything is out of line.

Congressional debate sounds a lot like MUNA. I have a very good friend / former student who is currently involved with running a pilot program for MUNA online in New Zealand (which hopes to expand worldwide soon), and I've never done anything like it myself, so I feel like I probably wouldn't be best suited to program this if edeb8 did this. Just would be a little out of my comfort zone. I know and understand traditional format debates really well and can deal with unusual rules (like in LD) but this would probably be taking it too far for me.

I'm a bit like nzlockie on the CX debate idea. Personally I think the lack of structure would make it really hard to develop points. Mostly you'd have just arguments and not formally constructed cases, which would tend to attract the kind of people that "opinions" attracted to DDO. If people really want a conversation about particular issues, then groups or forums might be a more appropriate venue for that. Making a thread, perhaps, specifically for only two members to post in up to a certain point in time, when other people can weigh in on who was more convincing. It wouldn't be rated, of course, but then this is just such a different skill that I almost don't think it would be fair if it was.

I can guarantee you epic debates will see a super-high number of forfeits. The long minimum will encourage debaters to post irrelevant material that won't particularly be helpful for the site. One of those epic debates would literally be the length of War and Peace, which I do rather feel is far too much to READ in a month's voting time even if one made an effort to do so, let alone judge fairly. There's other considerations too - if the text is that long, it will take longer to download, which could impact on edeb8's SEO. At a certain point the database will start choking up as well. And it will become much harder for me to moderate everything if I have to look through long dissertations to see if anything is out of line.

The point isn't to appease the judges or readers. It is for the satisfaction of the debater's. If there are lots of forfeits, so what? If there is lots of irrelevant material, so what?
My one thought, would be that epic debates would have to be moderated and accepted by you. They can be an exclusive thing that you maybe accept one of a month. That way you can moderate the topic to make sure it is sufficient, and check both debaters to make sure they aren't the forfeiting type.

Congressional debate sounds a lot like MUNA. I have a very good friend / former student who is currently involved with running a pilot program for MUNA online in New Zealand (which hopes to expand worldwide soon), and I've never done anything like it myself, so I feel like I probably wouldn't be best suited to program this if edeb8 did this. Just would be a little out of my comfort zone. I know and understand traditional format debates really well and can deal with unusual rules (like in LD) but this would probably be taking it too far for me.
The format is extremely easy.
- The placeholder proposal would be in the "rules". E.G
The government of Pakistan shalt issue an ultimatum against the oppressive Republic of India, for the destruction of all nuclear weapons, the establishment of full diplomatic relations, and the returning of our sovereign Pakistani land of "Jammu and Kashmir", or the armed forces of the Islamic Republic will be forced to intervene militarily"
- Pro, or majority house, will make changes to the proposal, based on what he thinks it needs, what it doesn't need, ect.
- Con, or minority house, will refute the changes
- Cross Examination is where the majority house and minority house agree on what to add or remove from the proposal
The government of Pakistan shalt issue a letter of friendship to the government of India, requesting full diplomatic relations to discuss the disarmament of nuclear weapons, and opening up dialogue on the future of the sovereign territory of the Islamic Republic, Jammu and Kashmir. If the Republic of India fails to receive our letter, we will be forced to issue an ultimatum of our reasonable demands.
- The majority senate will then recieve the bill, making changes like the above round
- The minority senate will refute the bill like the above round
- Cx, both the majority senate and minority senate agree on changes or omissions to the bill like the above round
The government of the Democratic Islamic Republic of Pakistan, will hereby issue a message to the Republic of India. Demanding the immediate disarmament of nuclear weapons, the restoration of Jammu and Kashmir to the Islamic Republic, and as a token of our gratitude, we will restore full diplomatic relations with the Republic of India
- The final stage being the commitee stage. The majority house will make a second speech on why their changes should be accepted, and the majority senate will do the same.
- Cx they agree on the final changes.

Ah, error with bold

Blackflag:

admin: Always remember to put the [ /b ] after a bold section!

Blackflag: It is for the satisfaction of the debater's.
If so, I would strongly prefer they make 2 5-round debates (like a "part 2" thing) with unlimited characters, and include these stipulations in the rules.

The format is extremely easy.
Yip, still sounds like MUNA, and I've never done anything like it at all. Find somebody who knows the system well and can program, then we can talk about adding it into edeb8.

admin: If so, I would strongly prefer they make 2 5-round debates (like a "part 2" thing) with unlimited characters, and include these stipulations in the rules.
Is it out of the question that you make a format with more than 5 rounds, and a character minimum?
Yip, still sounds like MUNA, and I've never done anything like it at all. Find somebody who knows the system well and can program, then we can talk about adding it into edeb8.
All you would need to change is the names. It is the parliamentary debate, but with a different concept.