I’ve noticed that H2H isn’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 ‘out on my own’ and trying to start a debate there.
I did wonder whether it would be at all practical (and whether there’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 ‘score’. That might be a way of encouraging more of us to explore and learn, rather than risk being ‘crowded out’. No reason it can’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 there’s plenty of others I’d enjoy engaging with.
For ‘judges’, I’d think first of otseng, Zzyzx, and marco - if you’d be willing to take on the task of impartial observers. Being able to credit a strong claim which you don’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 ‘Problem of Evil’? 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 anyone’s interest?
Could H2H be used for a team debate?
Moderator: Moderators