Two-on-two / Group Debates

[His Name Is John]

I love the head-to-head debate formate, however I think it would be great if you could have a debate that had 2-on-2, or even something like 5-on-5. Now of course this would prove rather hard at keeping things structured and ordered, but I have two different ideas how this could work (I will use WinePusher and Abraxas Are Libertarian Economics Fundamentally Sound? debate as a format which I will be adapting):

1. Each person takes a topic.
For example one person on each team tackles Round 1: The Enviroment, Energy and Food Safety. Then one person from each team takes on Round 2 etc.

That way people who have particular skills in debating certain areas can do that and help form a complete argument.

2. Free-for-all style
While you would have to have equal numbered teams, there is no order in who posts when. It works like the normal debate forums when people argue against what ever posts they want to. The only difference is that you can't have random people joining half way through the debate.

The good thing about this would be eventually you could have different groups (skeptics, LGBT, Christian's, Logic101 etc.) challenging another group and have a formate where people who are members of one of the two battling groups can join in, but no one else.

I personally prefer the first example more, what do you guys think?

Many thanks,

John

[DiscipleOfTruth]

I understand where your coming from but I was more so thinking about the readers. Allowing additional person(s) could possibly present information that both teams of not considered. As a watcher I'll see a debate in progress and want to say something that I feel is important in response to what someone said if the opponent didn't mention it. While the teams are trying to ''win'' the debate I think a great deal can be said for additional options that help to put the topic in more accurate detail such as the person that could be added.

Yes it could be somewhat similar to a normal thread but debates tend to be allot more organized and better explained how the debate will proceed. With a normal thread you have very little idea what to expect will be said next.

[otseng]

Usually there is a separate thread created in parallel in General Chat for restricted debates. People are then free to give any input or feedback in that thread.

[Abraxas]

I seem to recall the last time this came up the consensus was there really was no reason that preselected teams could not have a debate in the head to head forum. I'll try and find the link.

EDIT: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0

[His Name Is John]

@Abraxas - Surely because head-to-head is meant for one-on-one debates (even if that isn't the only thing it could be used for, it is the only thing that it is used for). I think another sub-forum for group debates would be grand.

I am guessing the actual creation of such a subform won't happen until two teams are actually ready. If this is the case, then should we propose a topic and select some teams to kick things off.

I recon the topics should be about God, religion or morality. But I am open to anyone suggesting something different.

[Abraxas]

@Abraxas - Surely because head-to-head is meant for one-on-one debates (even if that isn't the only thing it could be used for, it is the only thing that it is used for). I think another sub-forum for group debates would be grand.

I am guessing the actual creation of such a subform won't happen until two teams are actually ready. If this is the case, then should we propose a topic and select some teams to kick things off.

I recon the topics should be about God, religion or morality. But I am open to anyone suggesting something different.

I'm up for one. I would think should we do such a debate the topic should be well focused (e.g. "Is God the most reasonable explanation for X" as opposed to just "God", otherwise the question is "God what?") and should be something for which evidence can be presented (which to me makes ethics a challenging subject). If I had to select, I am partial to scientific or historic topics, such as evolution vs. creationism, the flood, the prophecies of the Bible and their fulfillment, and so on.

[His Name Is John]

I'm up for one. I would think should we do such a debate the topic should be well focused (e.g. "Is God the most reasonable explanation for X" as opposed to just "God", otherwise the question is "God what?") and should be something for which evidence can be presented (which to me makes ethics a challenging subject). If I had to select, I am partial to scientific or historic topics, such as evolution vs. creationism, the flood, the prophecies of the Bible and their fulfillment, and so on.

Hello Abraxas, nice to see you around again (or have you never been away and I have been subconsciously avoiding you?).

I am happy to do a debate of that sort, although I feel that generally they are rather one sided. We would have to word the topic very carefully to make it seem very fair for all involved.

I always love debating ethics, but I understand why it might not lend itself well to a group debate.

The problem I find with your examples (evolution vs. creationism, the flood, etc.) is that for a lot of them I either agree with the atheists, or don't really have a strong opinion one way or another. I guess I could argue evolution vs. creationism on the side of evolution, but be putting the spin that evolution doesn't conflict with Christian faith, which might be interesting.