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

[TheBlackPhilosophy]

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

Excellent idea John, I think the first idea might be best out of the two.

[His Name Is John]

Thank you.

I agree that I think the first idea would be the best out of the two. That way you can get some epic and in-depth debates, with masters of their fields going head-to-head as part of a larger discussion.

[otseng]

Sure, I'd be willing to set up a "Team Debate" subforum. Once there are two teams that have agreed to debate, I'll set it up.

[His Name Is John]

Ah brilliant. Many thanks otseng!

[DiscipleOfTruth]

This is a great idea, but I'd take it a step further and ask for a sub forum that allows any amount vs any amount. Provided that all who are involved with the specific debate have agreed to the numbers.

[otseng]

This is a great idea, but I'd take it a step further and ask for a sub forum that allows any amount vs any amount. Provided that all who are involved with the specific debate have agreed to the numbers.

Yes, team debates can include team sizes of any number, as long as the participants are all decided ahead of time and no additional people can join the debate.

[DiscipleOfTruth]

Maybe even allow additional people to be added to either side at any time so long as all who are actively involved agree to it? Yet, only way a person can be subtracted from the debate is if that individual wants to exclude themselves, or a moderator action is required to some type of rule violation(s).

[otseng]

Maybe even allow additional people to be added to either side at any time so long as all who are actively involved agree to it?

I'm not too keen on adding people after a debate has started. Each team should do their work up front to decide who can be on their team and not while the debate progresses.

[ThatGirlAgain]

Maybe even allow additional people to be added to either side at any time so long as all who are actively involved agree to it?

I'm not too keen on adding people after a debate has started. Each team should do their work up front to decide who can be on their team and not while the debate progresses.

I agree with otseng. If it is going to be open ended like that, it is not much different from an ordinary thread. Also, the bigger the team, the more likely they will start to diverge from each other during the debate. (That should be fun to watch!)