Iâ€™ve noticed that H2H isnâ€™t hugely active at the moment, and also that the C&A debates often end up a bit mis-matched in numbers supporting each opposed position. I like the more formal structure of H2H, but am a bit put off by the thought of being â€˜out on my ownâ€™ and trying to start a debate there.
I did wonder whether it would be at all practical (and whether thereâ€™s any interest) to run a formal debate with equal numbers on both sides, and a set limit of posts for each? Say, three forum members per team, plus a panel of three judges (picked from current or past Moderators) to â€˜scoreâ€™. That might be a way of encouraging more of us to explore and learn, rather than risk being â€˜crowded outâ€™. No reason it canâ€™t be kept relatively short (say just 3 or 4 posts each).
There are plenty of good debaters here. On the theist side, FWI, ElijahJohn, The Tanager and bjs came easily to my mind, although I know thereâ€™s plenty of others Iâ€™d enjoy engaging with.
For â€˜judgesâ€™, Iâ€™d think first of otseng, Zzyzx, and marco - if youâ€™d be willing to take on the task of impartial observers. Being able to credit a strong claim which you donâ€™t agree with, and penalise a weak point that you do agree with - that sort of thing.
Probably the hardest thing to get agreement on: a suitable topic. Possibly something like the â€˜Problem of Evilâ€™? It would have to be clearly worded in order to get agreement from all sides.
Am I being overly optimistic that such a thing could ever happen? Does it pique anyoneâ€™s interest?
Feedback and site usage questions
2 posts • Page 1 of 1