Debate

[Lord Zero]

We're confused at the fact that you say real debating?

Please tell us what you mean about real debating, I never thought there was such thing as fake and real debating.

Proper debating. By that I mean using the official international debating rules.
Which is why I'm saying about two individuals rather than a bunch of people throwing in their opinions. Debating now, does not mean opinions. If you watch or even participate in "proper" (rules) debating, you will see that opinions do not matter. You need to be able to debate on anything.

[Concentric]

Yes i know what you mean, although that would be more like real debating i dont think its that appropriate to force people to argue on a subject they may not feel strongly about. Maybe you could just organise a subject and say who wants to put forward a side of the arguement.

[Lord Zero]

Yes i know what you mean, although that would be more like real debating i dont think its that appropriate to force people to argue on a subject they may not feel strongly about. Maybe you could just organise a subject and say who wants to put forward a side of the arguement.

I'm afraid that's what debating is about. Arguing a perspective you don't believe in. It makes it more of a challenge ;P

[GommeInc]

Thats seems a bit OTT using official debating rules. International Debating we have here is good enough for me.

[jrh2002]

The only reason you would argue for something you dont believe in is if you were getting something out of it like these polaticians who will do the total opposite of what they believe so the keep their jobs and keep getting their big fat salary, if we wanted it so 2 people could debate anything it would require alot of setting up to stop others posting, alot of trouble when this forum is doing great as it is and i see no reason for a sub-forum.

I'm afraid that's what debating is about. Arguing a perspective you don't believe in. It makes it more of a challenge ;P

[GommeInc]

Oh only 2 people debating at a time, must read closely in future. What a naf idea!

[Lord Zero]

The only reason you would argue for something you dont believe in is if you were getting something out of it like these polaticians who will do the total opposite of what they believe so the keep their jobs and keep getting their big fat salary, if we wanted it so 2 people could debate anything it would require alot of setting up to stop others posting, alot of trouble when this forum is doing great as it is and i see no reason for a sub-forum.

If you win a debate where you were arguing for something you didn't believe in does that not show intelligence and skill? That's one more reason of many.

It would not be hard to set this up. 30 mins' max? And that's with a coffee break.

EDIT: That is generally the amount of individuals in a debate, Gomme. Unless you are having a team debate in which case it's usually 2 individuals per team.

[sierk]

Maybe we can set up small debating competitions, if it can be set up properly. Maybe MissAlice can choose 2 ppl, and start a post where these 2 ppl only must reply once each. Then she closes the thread. Now the 2 participants can in turn edit their post replying to the other person. MissAlice would pick what the subject is and who is for and who against.

[jrh2002]

Well it might show skill but if you are arguing for something you don't believe in it seems more a lack of intelligence and a little hypocritical to me, your right it would not take long to set it up for a couple of people but its not a one off situation as others would also want to debate against each other so it would end up very time consuming, if you require a debate against somebody you could always do it by pm :p

If you win a debate where you were arguing for something you didn't believe in does that not show intelligence and skill? That's one more reason of many.

It would not be hard to set this up. 30 mins' max? And that's with a coffee break.

[Lord Zero]

If you would let me, I could organize and set up the whole thing?