Courtroom Forum

[Divine Insight]

I just had an idea for a Courtroom Forum that I would like to propose.

This would be something along the lines of the Head-to-Head forum.

To take part in the Courtroom Forum the participants would need to outline their case prior to starting the thread just as they currently need to do for Head-to-Head.

The idea in its Simplest Form:

Here's the basic idea in brief.

Like Head-to-Head the two debate participants state their initial cases in a request to start a Courtroom Thread.

Unlike Head-to-Head they must also request a "Judge" to oversee their case.

The Judge can be anyone:
Someone the participants chose themselves and agree upon.
Or perhaps they just welcome anyone to volunteer to be their judge
Or, because the Forum Exists (assuming it is created) there could be a thread where people who would like to be a judge post their name on a list of "Available Judges".
Then the participants can have a list of judges from which to choose.

Again, in its simplest form, there would be three participants.
1. The Judge
2. Debater #1
3. Debater #2

The Judge would open the thread and ask each debater to present their initial cases. The Judge would then be in charge of deciding which points the Judge would like the debaters to elaborate on specifically.

The Judge would be in full control of the debate going back and forth between the debaters until the Judge decides he or she has enough evidence to make a final ruling. The Judge then pronounces the ruling and that ends the case.

This could be an interesting forum I think: People could always ask for a retrial and a different judge. And no one will ever be incarcerated.

~~~~~
More Elaborate Ideas:

I certainly don't want to bog down this original idea with unnecessary baggage.

But if a simple Courtroom Forum works out, it could potentially grow to become a bit more elaborate.

For example within the thread there could be the three active posters as I've mentioned above:
1. The Judge
2. Debater #1
3. Debater #2

However, there could also be an additional "jury" that has been selected to simply read the thread. The Judge could then ask the jury for a "verdict" and simply pronounce the verdict that the jury has rendered. The jury could be any size, but should also be selected before the court thread starts.

Also, it could be possible to call "*Expert witnesses" These would be people who would be called into the thread at the request of the debaters and approval of the judge and permitted to post. The two debaters could then question these *expert witnesses* just as in an actual courtroom.

*the only expertise an expert witness is required to have is the fact that a one of the official debaters called them in as such. And of course they would need to agree to be a witness.

The witnesses would then be excused, everything being controlled be "The Judge".

I think it could be great.

[McCulloch]

I think that there might be some merit here, but I don't like the courtroom metaphor. Perhaps Moderated Debate, or something. The point, if I understand it correctly, would be to try to capture the the essence of debate, that is to convince someone (or even many) to your position on an issue. To that end, there would be debaters on one side, debaters on the other side and a jury of people, who would strive for impartiality and who are initially undecided on the issue. The debate would proceed until a specified end condition and then the jury would decide which side, if any has convinced them.

[otseng]

I think there's potential here. But one potential problem is that the judge has the ultimate authority. So, the debate can turn out to how the judge wants the debate to turn out. If he favors one position, he can easily make that position win, even if the other side might be the stronger position or have the stronger debater.

[Divine Insight]

I agree with the comments offered thus far.

My suggestion is indeed merely a suggestion, and it was made rather quickly without any attempt to refine the details.

I agree that Moderated Debate may very well be a better title for the Forum. Courtroom Forum does sound a bit authoritative. I used that term simply to reflect the basic idea of a courtroom structure.

I also agree that a "jury" would be far better than having a single judge decide. As Otseng points out a single judge could very easily manipulate the debate in a biased fashion.

The "jury" idea, of course, requires more willing participants. And "jury selection" could also creat a biased jury as well.

Here's an idea in that regard. Perhaps a thread could be started to inquire how many people would be interested in serving on a jury in such a scenario. This could test the waters to see if there is sufficient interest for a large enough jury pool to select jurors from.

If there are enough people interested in becoming jurors, then perhaps people can start brainstorming on how a jury might be selected in a way to attempt to produce an unbiased or well-balanced jury.

In the end, I'm sure there will always be bias involved. Thus the outcome of any of these moderated debates will always have that element associated with them. So they can't really be pointed to as any sort of absolute victory.

If people are going to take the outcome of these moderated debates too seriously, then maybe it wouldn't be a good idea.

Two things that caused me to think of this idea was a recent thread on 'How do you know who won a debate?"

And the other thing that caused me to think of it is that when two un-moderated individuals debated, they tend to jump on the parts of the other person's arguments that are the weakest, and they tend to ignore responding to the questions that are being asked about their weakest points.

Having a "judge" who forces the debaters to address the tough questions, might be interesting. And it would be perfect, of course, if the judge were truly unbiased in this regard, but that's probably unrealistic to hope for.

~~~~~

Another thought that came to mind also, is that perhaps if there is a large jury, the jury could be suggesting to the judge which points they would like to hear more details on. In this way the judge would just be a mediator who makes sure the jury hears responses to everything they are concerned about.

Anyway, the whole suggestion is just an idea and will no doubt require further brainstorming and refinements.

Whether it can work in practice or not is a whole other story.

But it might be interesting to try to orchestrate at least one such moderated debate to see how well it might work, or not work.

[LiamOS]

I wouldn't mind a small bit of jury duty now an then, provided I'm vaguely interested in the topic.

A selection of judges seems a far better idea than a single person.

[Nilloc James]

If the two debaters agree on the judge via consensus neither has a right to complain regardless of how the trial turns out.

Plus no one actually goes to jail so the occasional slip up won't hurt anyone.

I think it is an interesting idea.

@Mccolloch: Isn't this entire forum MODERATED debate? I think either judged or competative debate would be a good name.

[AdHoc]

Great idea.

I think it would add another dimension of interest to the debate and make the job of moderating more interesting as well.

[Angel]

If it boils down to adding some element of seeing who wins a debate then I'm all for it. In another thread, I brought up the point that a winnerless debate is a bit like a pointless debate unless your opponent tells you that you won which I've rarely see happen in debates. So in the end you walk away not knowing how you did except by your own personal assessment. If the audience is there watching the debate then you may as well get their feedback whether it be through a poll or through some type of jury-like system to determine who won the debate or made a stronger case.

[Nilloc James]

If it boils down to adding some element of seeing who wins a debate then I'm all for it. In another thread, I brought up the point that a winnerless debate is a bit like a pointless debate unless your opponent tells you that you won which I've rarely see happen in debates. So in the end you walk away not knowing how you did except by your own personal assessment. If the audience is there watching the debate then you may as well get their feedback whether it be through a poll or through some type of jury-like system to determine who won the debate or made a stronger case.

Just because there is no formal winner it doesn't mean it is pointless for two reasons:

1. other people read these arguments and could be convinced or at least moved slightly

2. it is still a learning experience for the debaters.

[Angel]

If it boils down to adding some element of seeing who wins a debate then I'm all for it. In another thread, I brought up the point that a winnerless debate is a bit like a pointless debate unless your opponent tells you that you won which I've rarely see happen in debates. So in the end you walk away not knowing how you did except by your own personal assessment. If the audience is there watching the debate then you may as well get their feedback whether it be through a poll or through some type of jury-like system to determine who won the debate or made a stronger case.

Just because there is no formal winner it doesn't mean it is pointless for two reasons:

1. other people read these arguments and could be convinced or at least moved slightly

2. it is still a learning experience for the debaters.

I agree with your points, but do you see any harm in selecting a group of people to weigh in on how two people did in a debate?

I guess with me I don't come here to debate just to debate. I come here to put my views forward and to try to successfully argue for them and convince people. In those regards, I've learned little to nothing on this forum and other debate sites about how I've done as a debater unless my opponent tells me which RARELY happens. The rare times that it happens usually boils down to my opponent disagreeing and just reiterating their own position.