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.

[Moses Yoder]

I can see this being useful if you have a judge who is impartial and educated in debate. My wife enters counted cross stitch stuff in the fair, and she is an expert on the stuff. A judge who knows what good stuff is will always give her a good placing, like this year she won the overall first place judge's choice award with a piece. A judge who doesn't know what they are doing will always give prizes to the larger more dramatic pieces that are stitched on larger thread count and the stitches not laid flat etc. So it depends on the judge, which is often the case in life I guess.

[Angel]

Reading from Debate.org website, I see that they have open voting on their debates. So perhaps we can set up different types of judging systems, like one involving one judge, another involving a group of judges, or open voting for everyone. We can even do a combination of each type so that way we'll compare how these different groups would judge. I think a jury who actually follows the debate as it's going on would judge better because other people may not take the time to read every single post of the debate if they start reading it after it's done and they have 30 pages to read through.

Another thing to have are the key factors that people would vote on like the quality of a debate. Debate.org voting options are:

What position you had before the debate?
What position you have after the debate?
Who made more convincing arguments? ,etc, etc.

Here's one sample debate with those options...http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy- ... ssible./1/

I'm not claiming that the voting would be perfect measure but it's better to have some data on the debate and its debaters rather than to have nothing.

[otseng]

http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy- ... ssible./1/

I like that system of voting. I'd have to carve out a huge amount of time to implement something like that, but I think it'd be worthwhile.

If it boils down to adding some element of seeing who wins a debate then I'm all for it.

We can try it out and refine it with future debates. Any volunteers as debate participants, judges, jury?

[playhavock]

Great idea! I want in!

I would like my first case where I will be prosucation to be "God is guilty of existing" where we assume that innocence is the case until guilt is proven. (if God is innocent God does not exist)
I will be defending God's innocence of existating and I will be waiting for any one to prove that God does exist.

that or I'll be a judge

[Divine Insight]

Great idea! I want in!

I would like my first case where I will be prosucation to be "God is guilty of existing" where we assume that innocence is the case until guilt is proven. (if God is innocent God does not exist)
I will be defending God's innocence of existating and I will be waiting for any one to prove that God does exist.

that or I'll be a judge

In light of the video that Otseng posted in this thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... highlight=

It might be interested in taking you up on your challenge Playhavock.

You are looking to defend God in a case where God is being charged with existing right? Specifically the biblical God?

In the video that Otseng posted it suggests that we should sometimes debate a view that we disagree with. I don't truly believe that the God of the bible exists. However, I believe I could give a good argument for the prosecution of the Biblical God. I think there's enough evidence to take this God to trial.

The question isn't really whether I can convince myself, but rather can I convince a jury that this God exists. I would certainly try my best as prosecutor to convict the biblical God on charges of existing.

So I would be willing to be the prosecutor in this case. If you'd like to be God's defense lawyer defending that he doesn't exist at all and therefore cannot be guilty of the charges I bring against him, that would be cool.

That could be a fun trial. I would do my very best to get this God convicted.

So if you want to play this courtroom game, I'm game.

We'll need a judge and jury now to hear the case and either find this God guilty of existing, or exonerate him on charges that he doesn't even exist at all.

It would be interesting to see if I can get a jury to convict the Biblical God of existing.

Who would like to preside over this case as judge? (subject to approval of the prosecution and defense lawyers)

And can we get a fair-sized volunteer jury?

The State of Humanity versus the Biblical God bought up on charges of existing.

[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.

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.

I agree the op has a good idea and it should be implemented. I just waa disagreeing with you statement that without a decalred winner it is pointless to debate

[AdHoc]

http://www.debate.org/debates/Polygamy- ... ssible./1/

I like that system of voting. I'd have to carve out a huge amount of time to implement something like that, but I think it'd be worthwhile.

If it boils down to adding some element of seeing who wins a debate then I'm all for it.

We can try it out and refine it with future debates. Any volunteers as debate participants, judges, jury?

I'll volunteer for whatever you need... participant, judge, jury, serving tea and sandwiches, whatever you need.

[wiploc]

I'll volunteer for whatever you need... participant, judge, jury, serving tea and sandwiches, whatever you need.

Me too.

[wiploc]

I voted no even though I like the idea.

That is, I'm against saddling the moderators/sysadmin with additional burden. But, on the other hand, I think the new format can be accomplished without additional burden.

Suppose Joe and Sara want a courtroom-style debate. They pick three judges, and start their discussion in the Head-to-Head area. They also set up a Peanut Gallery thread, where spectators can comment.

And, additionally, there's a third thread, just for the judges. After the agreed debating time, the judges give their opinions in their thread.

Alternatively, maybe it's possible for the moderators to change who is allowed in a Head-to-Head thread. If so, after the agreed period of debate, the debaters themselves could be excluded from the debate thread (but they could then post in the peanut gallery thread) and the judges could be allowed into that thread to render their verdict.

[Yochanan]

[Replying to post 1 by Divine Insight]

Great idea but i would rather the jury to decide and the judge only announce the verdict and make sure the debate is going by the rules like when someone ignores a question or so