planning a more formal debate internet radio show

[water_bender]

i'm putting together a concept for a new (yes another) internet radio talk show that follows a more structured and formal method of debate and discussion. it will incorporate aspects of a forum/chat room as well as a live on air voice aspect. at this current time i intend to produce the show once a week, though that could increase if demand allows it.

the core of the concept is a fair, moderated debate, equally moderated requiring both sides of the debate to adhere to certain rules such as fact checking, and the exclusion of bias and personal attack. there will be two moderators, one on the side of the official story and one on the side of those that doubt the official story. each moderator will be expected to remain fair and balanced, regardless of the what side is being moderated. each show will have a specific topic of discussion, announced atleast a week or more in advance, and a supporter of each side will be asked to be 1 of the two speaking guests that week.open discussion will be encouraged in the forum the week leading up to the debate as a period of fact and information collection, there will be a live chat room during the show to offer support to the (master..haha) debaters, though it will be a rule of the debate that only factual and sourced information may be offered during the discussion (no speculation, though logical deduction can be allowed), there will be a segment that will be open to speculation, and most likely a call in segment, though the listener call in aspect may not be used at all.

i will most likely be acting as moderator for the 'truther' side, and anyone interested in being a permanent mod for the 'skeptics' side please pm me. i'll be 'interviewing' from there.

as a side note, moderators are allowed to take part in the debate as well, provided they also follow the rules. after all it will be in essence the moderators show.

any takers?

i'm open to legitimate suggestions as to the format of the show itself as well.

[gumboot]

How can you have a "facts only" debate when one side, in the words of Beachnut, has no facts?

And doesn't having a moderator allocated to each side sort of defeat the purpose of having a moderator?

-Gumboot

[water_bender]

no it doesn't. it provides a platform of fair moderation. i guess we can count you out for participation.

[Foolmewunz]

So, you're proposing a two-on-two debate, essentially.

And as Gumboot, paraphrasing Beachnut's favorite topic, points out, what someone like R.Mackey would accept as "facts" and what a Truther Moderator (yourself, for instance) would accept as "facts" may be rather far apart. The Alternate Conspiracists view rumor and innuendo as evidence, after all.

Assume you have yourself as Mod T(ruth), Gumboot as Mod S(keptic), and Mackey v. Ace Baker. Debate #1 would never get off the ground while everyone decides what is acceptable as a fact. Truthers ideas of facts include "well it seems obvious to me".

Besides, as fact-finding missions or educational material, debates really rather suck! Debating is an art unto itself. That's why Fetzer so cheerily accepts offers to debate and TS1234(Ace) also would accept. If they're allowed an open mike, experienced debaters know how to take control of the debate and get their non-sequiturs and ad-homs into the record and accepted by the viewers as "points". Debating is a form of sophistry. You play to the crowd, whether that crowd is an audience or a group of judges on a panel. Some are very good at it. In fact, debate teams at Universities traditionally take either side in an argument. The win is determined by who argues better - not who has the most facts.

[Mobyseven]

water_bender:

Could you give us a run down of how the show would run? Just a preliminary idea?

Also, how are you planning to record the show? And who is going to edit the show - I assume that the show will be cooperatively by a member of the truth movement and a skeptic, so a to eliminate any possible bias from the final show?

It sounds like an interesting idea, anyway. Any idea what the first debate could be about?

Peace Out

Mobyseven

[water_bender]

simply put a fact is a fact. if you need me to link you to a dictionary definition i can, but i would hope that you are beyond that. is innuendo a fact? no. is speculation a fact? only if that speculation has an outcome that can be rendered true or false. there's one thing that so many people seem to forget. facts can be false or wrong, it doesnt change that they are still facts. and therein lies the point to what i'm presenting. laying out the facts and making a determination as to whether that fact is a true statement or a flase one. weed out the opinions and misconceptions based on faulty logic and to put an end to theories based on non factual evidence.

might i remind you that this isnt a game. therefore there is no 'winner'. arguments arent made for points, and the only thing 'won' in the end is that those involved and those that listen will walk away with a better understanding of what is true, what is un true, what things are possible and plausible, and what things are not possible and or not plausible.

this will be (in short) a debate between 4 people, 2 of which are taking one side in general principle and the other 2 the opposing. nothing will be considered static, as noone is locked into suporting or defensing any given point. the only people allowed to directly ask questions in the debate will be the moderators. guests will be asked by either moderator questions which the guests will be expected to answer and generally adhere to. the strict guidelines of criminal witness testimony however will not be adhered to. in some cases a yes or no answer simply isnt enough to answer a yes or no question. the 'panel' of listeners and chatters may suggest points to question or offer up supporting evidence to a given question but the duty of including such things falls onto the moderator, although a guest may add info as they see fit. conjecture will not be permitted, but logical deduction will be allowed, and there will be a time a lotted for sheer speculation. at the end of a show i intend and expect for there to be a list of facts, proven to be true or untrue, as well as a list of facts that cannot be decided upon pending more evidence, lies and fallacies will be expected to ocur at some point but i intend to eagerly correct any mistakes made.

i am thinking the first debate might be to describe and examine the different theories what they claim and how within the realm reasonable there are wide diferences in opinion

[water_bender]

i ant the show to be basically live. editing will be limited as i prefer original footage(even if it goes bad) so that arguments of tampering cant occur.

[WildCat]

simply put a fact is a fact. if you need me to link you to a dictionary definition i can, but i would hope that you are beyond that. is innuendo a fact? no. is speculation a fact? only if that speculation has an outcome that can be rendered true or false. there's one thing that so many people seem to forget. facts can be false or wrong, it doesnt change that they are still facts. and therein lies the point to what i'm presenting. laying out the facts and making a determination as to whether that fact is a true statement or a flase one. weed out the opinions and misconceptions based on faulty logic and to put an end to theories based on non factual evidence.
Do you have an example of one single fact from the truther side that supports the CT?

If you do, then "fact" doesn't mean wha you think it does.

[Mobyseven]

i am thinking the first debate might be to describe and examine the different theories what they claim and how within the realm reasonable there are wide diferences in opinion

Hmm...a suggestion.

While I agree that giving a broad overview of different theories is a good tact for a first episode, there isn't really any call for debate with such a focus - any debate that occurs is going to automatically branch out into the technical aspects that would be best covered in debate on another show. For example, the WTC7 collapse, the crash at the Pentagon, etc...

Perhaps a broad overview of different theories could be offered as an introduction to the show, and the first debate topic could be something different, perhaps more specific?

Also, when you give an overview of different theories, how many different theories would be mentioned? And which ones?

[Architect]

Personally I'd run it like we do an inquiry in the UK. Each side would have a paper which would be circulated, in advance, to the other in order that they could focus on the points in dispute. Responses are then circulated. And then the debate begins.

But that's just my thought. It avoids the risk of ambush and if anyone tables a "false" fact then there's time for both sides to prepare information to rebut it.

[Foolmewunz]

simply put a fact is a fact. if you need me to link you to a dictionary definition i can, but i would hope that you are beyond that.

When you learn where the Caps key is, you can be snide and condescending. Until then, let it be.


is innuendo a fact? no. is speculation a fact? only if that speculation has an outcome that can be rendered true or false.


Ask that of Fetzer, Bermas, Griffin, Jones, Jones, Woods, Barrett, Ryan, et al These are the people who constantly recant myths and urban legends as "facts". These are the people who quote opinion pieces as "researched articles".

there's one thing that so many people seem to forget. facts can be false or wrong, it doesnt change that they are still facts.

Now who needs the dictionary definition of "fact". If a fact is wrong, then it's not a fact! Are you trying for a Stundie?


and therein lies the point to what i'm presenting. laying out the facts and making a determination as to whether that fact is a true statement or a flase one. weed out the opinions and misconceptions based on faulty logic and to put an end to theories based on non factual evidence.

Okay.

might i remind you that this isnt a game. therefore there is no 'winner'. arguments arent made for points, and the only thing 'won' in the end is that those involved and those that listen will walk away with a better understanding of what is true, what is un true, what things are possible and plausible, and what things are not possible and or not plausible.

I'm afraid you may need that dictionary again. A debate as I was speaking of it and as it's practiced in University, College, and even High School, is a contest. You may have never heard it used that way, but there are actual competitions. Google is our friend.

this will be (in short) a debate between 4 people, 2 of which are taking one side in general principle and the other 2 the opposing. nothing will be considered static, as noone is locked into suporting or defensing any given point. the only people allowed to directly ask questions in the debate will be the moderators. guests will be asked by either moderator questions which the guests will be expected to answer and generally adhere to. the strict guidelines of criminal witness testimony however will not be adhered to. in some cases a yes or no answer simply isnt enough to answer a yes or no question.

<<snip>>

I have no problem with the rest that you're proposing, but it sounds a lot more like a panel discussion and free-for-all. With the moderators taking sides, and actually in more likelihood taking a starring role.

And, as I said, I don't see great value in debates (panel discussions, etc...). I'd far rather see a good journalist interviewing a subject on a difficult topic, or read a well-researched and documented article or paper. But, hey! That's just me. Bust a gut trying!

[uk_dave]

Good grief, another self important internet radio show with a handful of listeners.

No thanks.

If you have proof that 911 was a govt conspiracy then present it. No more games.

[Architect]

The lad made a proposition; I reckon we should be making suggestions as to how such a forum might work, rather than simply getting stuck into the fella.

[Mobyseven]

Personally I'd run it like we do an inquiry in the UK. Each side would have a paper which would be circulated, in advance, to the other in order that they could focus on the points in dispute. Responses are then circulated. And then the debate begins.

But that's just my thought. It avoids the risk of ambush and if anyone tables a "false" fact then there's time for both sides to prepare information to rebut it.

That sounds like a very good idea to me. Also means there are specific talking points for the debate.

The lad made a proposition; I reckon we should be making suggestions as to how such a forum might work, rather than simply getting stuck into the fella.

Agreed.

[Foolmewunz]

Guys, I'm just expressing my personal opinion. If you want to take the bait and discuss rules of evidence with water bender and pursue this, feel free to do so.

Ya oughta know me by now, most of you.... I don't base my positions of whimsy.

Ergo, before anyone steps into this spider's web, you might want to see the lengths to which WB will take a discussion of a relatively insignificant issue. The crappy quality of the DoubleTree video. This would be like the discussions with Ace on setting up a debate according to ever-shifting rules. Only in this case, it'd be more into minute and obscure details. Remember, this is a guy who said above that facts can be both wrong and right!

Homework Assignment:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71167

Can you establish factual vs. non-factual with someone who will not budge an inch?

[ConspiRaider]

Debate is the wrong forum for Inside Job 9/11 discussions. Water Bender, get your facts together, present them to a U.S. Attorney, and leave it up to the judicial and prosecutorial systems to determine whether a case can be made, charges made, and adjudication is warranted.

Inside Job 9/11 deals with non-facts versus facts.

Calling yourself a "truther" indicates that you have no idea what the concept of truth entails. Calling yourself an "obscurer" is much more accurate. Try it on. It'll start rolling off the tip of your tongue before you know it.

[steve s]

i am thinking the first debate might be to describe and examine the different theories what they claim and how within the realm reasonable there are wide diferences in opinion

:confused: :confused: :confused:
I think you should first learn to create a coherent sentence before appointing yourself moderator of this debate.


facts can be false or wrong, it doesnt change that they are still facts.

So it's a fact that Abraham Lincoln was the first president of the United States?

simply put a fact is a fact. if you need me to link you to a dictionary definition i can, but i would hope that you are beyond that.

I'll do it for you.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
fact /fækt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fakt]
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.


Steve S.

[Architect]

Steve, Conspi; lads.

Any problems with my suggested UK PLI format? There are no unfair ambushes, particular areas of concern (eg disputed "facts") are flagged up in advance, and so on.

[Architect]

Can you establish factual vs. non-factual with someone who will not budge an inch?

That's the point of the precognitions and the responses; if anyone is blatantly misrepresenting an issue or evidence then the other team has the chance to (a) prepare their detailed rebuttal accordingly or (b) point out that it's all a sham, and drop out.

[Arus808]

this is the same water-bender that is on myspace, and believes the crap in The Pentacon.

[Architect]

I didn't say that I wasn't suspicious about his motives or suggestions, merely that we should see if there is an acceptable, even handed way in wish his proposed debate might work.

As I said before, the advantage of the precognition system is that each time has to lay its cards on the table; there is very little scope for ambush. If the CT side of the table bases its entire evidence on facts that are blatantly no such thing (concrete cores spring to mind) then everyone knows about it well in advance.

[nicepants]

simply put a fact is a fact. if you need me to link you to a dictionary definition i can, but i would hope that you are beyond that. is innuendo a fact? no. is speculation a fact? only if that speculation has an outcome that can be rendered true or false. there's one thing that so many people seem to forget. facts can be false or wrong, it doesnt change that they are still facts.

Could you give us an example of a "fact" that is false or wrong?

[Calcas]

Could you give us an example of a "fact" that is false or wrong?

He uses them all the time at lcf.

He'll begin a conversation on, say, WTC7 with something along the lines of, "It's a fact that WTC7 was a controlled demolition..."

Once he believes in something, it becomes a fact to him. Even if later proven wrong, it's still a fact.

[uk_dave]

Steve, Conspi; lads.

Any problems with my suggested UK PLI format? There are no unfair ambushes, particular areas of concern (eg disputed "facts") are flagged up in advance, and so on.

I don't see the point.

The 'truthers' are entrenched in their beliefs

So-called 'fencesitters' are unlikely to bother with another lame internet 'radio' broadcast

So why indulge the 'truther' debate fantasy?
If the 'truth' movement has evidence which hasn't been shown to be totally baseless then it's time they tested it in law.
Of course some will argue that it won't matter because the judiciary and political establishment is against them (boo hoo) but, short of a revolution which installs a 'truther' as dictator in the US, they have to work with what they've got.

Internet 'radio' debates aint gonna bring down the government, so one can only conclude that this is just another 'truther' all talk and no action ploy.

I say, if they have the goods they should get off their lazy arses and do something.

But they won't because they don't

[Architect]

Well, for a start refusing to debate the issues demeans us. And secondly, and with due respect to the OP, I have considerable doubts as to whether the CT brigade would sign up to a regime wich ensured fairness and openness.

[uk_dave]

Well, for a start refusing to debate the issues demeans us. And secondly, and with due respect to the OP, I have considerable doubts as to whether the CT brigade would sign up to a regime wich ensured fairness and openness.

True. But I do understand why the scientific community declined to address the intelligent design fantasy for so long.

My tolerance for the 'truther' bs is wearing thin.

But I concede that, whilst no one is actually working towards having 911 ct fantasies taught in schools, to ignore the fantasy completely would allow them free reign.

I just can't imagine that they have anything new to bring to the table. It will be the same old crap that's bee proven to be wrong time and time again on these pages.

They'll refuse to accept the truth, just like any good religious fanatic.

Critical thinkers will get a headache trying to understand and then counter the 'truther's convoluted claims.

No 'undecided' will be listening anyway

So it will end with 'truthers' talking about common sense and complaining about semantics, and rational people complaining about the lack of 'truther' comprehension and we'll be precisely where we are now

[ConspiRaider]

Well, for a start refusing to debate the issues demeans us. And secondly, and with due respect to the OP, I have considerable doubts as to whether the CT brigade would sign up to a regime wich ensured fairness and openness.
It could only "work", for what that's worth, if conducted like we do debating here. A person gets their say, fully. No interruptions, time limit on answer, same exact time allotted to each of the debaters. The moderator offers no opinion at all. Just presents the questions, in an impartial fashion.

And in fact this could be done in stages, production-wise. The two sides never even have to see or hear each other. You get their timed statements and edit it together.

That takes the spectacle out of the debate, the bias, the hijacking of it, the interruptions, the insults.

[Architect]

Now your thinking!

I still think it has to be a PLI type forum, personally, but I'm open to more suggestions.

Where has our OP disappeared to, btw?

[Mobyseven]

It could only "work", for what that's worth, if conducted like we do debating here. A person gets their say, fully. No interruptions, time limit on answer, same exact time allotted to each of the debaters. The moderator offers no opinion at all. Just presents the questions, in an impartial fashion.

And in fact this could be done in stages, production-wise. The two sides never even have to see or hear each other. You get their timed statements and edit it together.

That takes the spectacle out of the debate, the bias, the hijacking of it, the interruptions, the insults.

I quite like that idea, aye!

[PhantomWolf]

I'd love to see a real debate done. 4 members a side. 5min intros, then 10 minutes each, plus 10 minutes summing up by the "captains" at the end.

Basically you have an Affirmative and a Negitive team based on the proposition that "The WTC Towers were destroyed by a Controlled Demolition."

The team captain of the Affirmative would open his side's argument and has five minutes to present an outline or overview of what their their case will be. The Negative team's captain then opens their case using his/her five minutes to outline their case. The debate then starts with the Affirmative Captain speaking for 10 minutes on his/her topic, adreesing the points they want to get across. Once they have had their 10 minutes, the Captain of the Negitive team starts their address, first rebuting anything the Affirmative Captain has said that they wish to deal with, then putting over their side of the argument as to why the proposition is wrong. The debate would then progress with each speaker alternating between Affirmative and Negative till all four have spoken. The two Captains then get an extra 10 minutes each to sum up their case and reinforce any points their teams have already made.

The Moderator basically is only there to introduce each speaker, tell interjectors to shut up and keep the time for each speaker.

I seriously doubt that any Truthers would be willing to submit to that sort of format however since they'd get their butts well and truely kicked about the room.

[water_bender]

"Fact in investigations

In investigations a fact is an item of information that can be verified as either true or false. For example, the statement "the President is standing in the back of the classroom" is a fact because it can be verified as true or false by turning around and looking. In this context, "fact" does not imply truthfulness - only objectivity. If it is subjective (" The President is a snappy dresser") then it is either an opinion or a conclusion and cannot be verified."

this is the definition of fact by which this process will be operating. first an item is determined to be fact or opinion. if it is opinion it is thrown out. if it is factual then its validity is investigated. are we clear now? if you can't grasp this concept then your participation is not welcome. if you can't adhere to the proposed rules, then your participation is not welcome. if the extent of your involvement is limited to the remarks 80% of you have been making then your participation is not welcome. how hard is it to be objective?
harder than i thought if i'm to form my opinion based on most of the responses.




i agree that most of what cters say is utter trash. conversely so is most of what the skeptics say. i'm putting forth an idea that satisfies fairness to both sides of the debate. if i was doing anything other than that then i wouldn't bother asking a skeptic to co-moderate. i wouldn't have the desire to have the whole process to be live. i wouldn't bother, period.




phantomwolf : the format yuo are describing is a form of lincoln-douglas debate. i'd agree to that form of debate, just not for the show i am proposing. they, while useful, don't make for good radio. i also find them to lend themselves to be limited in thier scope. i also tend to prefer debating in a one to one format under lincoln-douglas rules as i often have very little confidence in those that are on my team. anytime you want to engage in a debate of this type, i'm willing.




as to the question of why it took me so long to respond... i don't spend my life here, or anywhere else on the net.

[water_bender]

Well, for a start refusing to debate the issues demeans us. And secondly, and with due respect to the OP, I have considerable doubts as to whether the CT brigade would sign up to a regime wich ensured fairness and openness.

i agree and it seems the same can be said of the jref brigade as well.

[uk_dave]

i agree and it seems the same can be said of the jref brigade as well.

What would convince you that the official account of 911 was correct?

[Architect]

And your thoughts regarding my suggested PLI/precognition format?

[water_bender]

Hmm...a suggestion.

While I agree that giving a broad overview of different theories is a good tact for a first episode, there isn't really any call for debate with such a focus - any debate that occurs is going to automatically branch out into the technical aspects that would be best covered in debate on another show. For example, the WTC7 collapse, the crash at the Pentagon, etc...

Perhaps a broad overview of different theories could be offered as an introduction to the show, and the first debate topic could be something different, perhaps more specific?

Also, when you give an overview of different theories, how many different theories would be mentioned? And which ones?

perhaps the better method would be pick a theory to be discussed, and devote an entire piece on it. the theories i'd want to investigate are official, lihop, mihop, lihop as it pertains to official, mihop as it pertains to official, space rays, no planers...

on second thought maybe the theories in and of themselves shouldn't be debated, only specific aspects of theories. overall discussion of each lends itself to becoming mired in the crap, and frankly there wouldn't be enough time ever to discuss any of them in length...perhaps sticking to merely defining them for the purpose of any person listening or involved understands the definition of the terms being used.

[water_bender]

And your thoughts regarding my suggested PLI/precognition format?

i havent come to an opinion on that one actually. it seems like a decent idea, though i am more afraid of it being difficult from a production aspect. i also think it takes away from it being a radio program. i do think its a good format for a written sort of piece though. perhaps even being useful for the inclusion of 'experts' who cant take an active participation

[water_bender]

What would convince you that the official account of 911 was correct?


a fair factual debate devoid of name calling and sensationalists.

[Architect]

i havent come to an opinion on that one actually. it seems like a decent idea, though i am more afraid of it being difficult from a production aspect. i also think it takes away from it being a radio program. i do think its a good format for a written sort of piece though. perhaps even being useful for the inclusion of 'experts' who cant take an active participation

You have two problems that the proposed format addresses well:

1. There will be "facts" that perhaps make great soundbites but which are no such thing. A simple example is the suggestion that steel doesn't fail in even a "normal" fire scenario. The use of precognitions pre-debate limits the attractiveness of such options to the protagonists and also allows the opposition to address them at an early stage, thus ensuring fairness.

2. Neither side trusts each other, and is wary of an ambush. This format is essentially a "cards on the table" pre-debate, setting the boundaries for the discussion and allowing the moderators to focus on what both parties identify as the core (no pun intended) issues.

I should add that each team also lists its core reference documents beforehand, rather like disclosure of evidence in court, in order that it's a level playing field.

I can't take any credit for developing it - this is how we run public inquiries (yes, that's how we spell it) in the UK, and it's a system that's been getting fine tuned for 50 years.

[Architect]

Let me give you an example of how this would work, based on an issue which (if I read it correctly) you and I agree on over at LC.

There is strong photographic and eyewitness evidence of fireball damage around and apparently emminating from liftshafts at ground floor/lobby level. This is corroborated by eyewitness testimony of the blasts themselves, injuries, and the smell of aviation fuel.

If a team wishes to found upon this, the other side have a chance to gather evidence and present the opposing case as part of their written, pre-debate rebuttal. It may be that they dispute that the fireballs existed, in which case they are wasting everyone's time, or alternatively it may be that they dispute the source of the fireballs (say, explosives) in which case they will have to offer evidence to support that hypothesis and also explain issues such as the odour of jet fuel.

By the time you get to the debate, each team is able to focus on the critical points (one assumes the CTers would stick with the continuous lift shafts issue) rather than waste a pile of time arguing about issues which they might, in fact, actually agree on.

A similar example is the aircraft impacts. Now as far as I can see, the CT lobby now largely agree that real planes hit WTC1 and 2. There is therefore no practical purpose in this even apeparing in the debate, either to support the CT lobby or as a means of discrediting its wildest fringes. Instead the debate might focus on the damage caused by those impacts and whether it was sufficient to cause collapse.

A word of caution. The one disadvantage of this system for the participants is that it highlights wooly thinking. So, for example, if a set of structural calculations are produced but the other team cannot produce a detailed rebuttal then it it reflects extremely poorly on their case. The mods have no choice but to put up their hands and say "sorry, but that just doesn't cut it.....can you substantiate your rebuttal or not?"

[Mobyseven]

water bender:

I don't have a great deal to add to what Architect has said - it seems to me that what he is proposing would be the best (and fairest) way to run things.

As to your worries that it would be difficult from a production point of view - why? To me it seems that doing things in this way would allow for a more focused discussion of important issues. Keep in mind that the papers that are written would not be read in the actual debate (as I understand it), they are simply there as a means of allowing both sides to fact check and so on before the actual debate, and to better focus on the most contentious and important issues.

The papers could then also be available as 'extra' material on the show's website.

Also, I feel that rather than discussing "LIHOP", "MIHOP", etc, the discussion should focus more on things such as "Collapse of WTC7", "The UA93 Crash", and so on. This allows for more detailed and focused debates.

[Architect]

Keep in mind that the papers that are written would not be read in the actual debate (as I understand it), they are simply there as a means of allowing both sides to fact check and so on before the actual debate, and to better focus on the most contentious and important issues.

The papers could then also be available as 'extra' material on the show's website.


Correct; the precognition (sorry for the formal title) would not be read out as part of the debate (how dull would that be) but could be referred to in the course of the discussion itself as would the reference works.

I would suggest that each "side" kicks off the debate with a summary of the key issues of their case, iunasmuch as these are likely to be relevant to the debate itself, a little like a lawyer's opening remarks.

Then we have the debate.

Then each side gets a brief (no more than 2 or 3 minute) summing up of what they feel the debate showed (or otherwise) as regards the points under discussion.

[Mobyseven]

Architect, it's as if you read my mind...and then thought of something better.

:D

[Architect]

You know, when I do a public inquiry (most recently in Sefton, of all places) I usually get paid a whack for this kind of stuff!

Consider it my donation to the cause!!

[chillzero]

If you wish to have moderators in a debate, you need to understand their role and function. A moderator should be able to withold personal opinion, and ensure fairness in the debate. A moderator therefore should not contribute to the debate, nor should they stand for either side.

The moderator should be in the middle, ensuring that each side gets equal time and attention, and that rules are agreed to and abided by.

I would normally expect any host to assume this position, and provide a good framework for a debate. If there are any biases the host feels they cannot suppress (being human), then they should be announced up front, and an independant moderator called in for that particular debate.

Your format has 2 people in each team debating each other, but seems to have no middle man retaining order and decorum.

[Architect]

Good point; I think OP envisaged two moderators, one from each side, but one wonders how that would work in practice.

[chillzero]

Good point; I think OP envisaged two moderators, one from each side, but one wonders how that would work in practice.

It won't.

A moderator is by definition moderate in opinion, and therefore not leaning toward either side in a debate. To facilitate this, they should not participate, rather oversee the running of the debate.

A moderator should be a background role, unless action is required to be taken to return the debate to topic, or issue the agreed penalties for any rule breaches.

[Architect]

In that case the simple solution for the two parties to agree on a willing neutral moderator. Frankly I've no idea who that might be, but there you go. I'm sure that we could come up with suggestions.

[Mobyseven]

I had actually assumed that was implicit in Architect's setup.

Agreed - one moderator is required, who may not interfere any more than their position requires. They are there to moderate, not participate.

[CptColumbo]

You really need an independant third party to do the planning and provide the moderator. For example the League of Women Voters usually handles the Presidential and many other debates around election time. They would then not only moderate the debate, they would handle the negotiations about the ground rules. Formal rules of debate are not what you usually see on TV, try to attend one at a high school or college to get an idea of how they work. There are strict guidelines that most people, from all sides, will have great difficulty adhering to. Also familiarize yourself with the ways a person wins a formal debate. There was actually an episode of "Charm School" on VH1 where the ladies were asked to have a formal debate, it is a good example of how restricting the rules are and how a novice reacts to them and may think they've made there case, but didn't.

I would suggest going to a local college and approach one of the speech professors, they usually also handle the debate team. A fee may be charged by him/her, as it involves a great deal of time on his/her part. To save money, you could propose it as a project for a student to get credit for. As school is out for the year in many areas, you could also see if there is a local debating society who could perform the same duties.

Hopefully this will get you started.

[Architect]

Do you have debating societies in America, like the Senior Lit over in the UK? That may be a sensible place to start.

[CptColumbo]

Do you have debating societies in America, like the Senior Lit over in the UK? That may be a sensible place to start.

Most major cities do, and sometimes college towns. A google search will probably produce some.

[PhantomWolf]

phantomwolf : the format yuo are describing is a form of lincoln-douglas debate. i'd agree to that form of debate, just not for the show i am proposing. they, while useful, don't make for good radio. i also find them to lend themselves to be limited in thier scope. i also tend to prefer debating in a one to one format under lincoln-douglas rules as i often have very little confidence in those that are on my team. anytime you want to engage in a debate of this type, i'm willing.

Actually it's a variation of the Australia-Asia Style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_debate) with the teams extended to 4 rather then the standard 3 members. As to doing such a debate, I'm sure that if someone was willing to pay my travel costs, I'm love to gather a team and do it. The main trouble I'd have would be determining the other three team members.

[Mobyseven]

Actually it's a variation of the Australia-Asia Style (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_debate) with the teams extended to 4 rather then the standard 3 members. As to doing such a debate, I'm sure that if someone was willing to pay my travel costs, I'm love to gather a team and do it. The main trouble I'd have would be determining the other three team members.

Hey - if there are travel costs covered, count me in! :D

I don't see that happening though...

[gumboot]

What is with Conspiracy Theorists redefining words like "fact" to suit their own weird view of the world?

First we had the "a fact is something that is believed" and now we have "a fact is something that can be proven true or false".

For f-sake people, get a frikken dictionary!

-Gumboot

[LashL]

What is with Conspiracy Theorists redefining words like "fact" to suit their own weird view of the world?

First we had the "a fact is something that is believed" and now we have "a fact is something that can be proven true or false".

For f-sake people, get a frikken dictionary!

-Gumboot

They're using the Tinhat Dictionary of 9/11 Troof, gumboot. Apparently, it does not require any semblance of adherence to the real world; it eschews facts and evidence; and living in reality is optional for its adherents.

[PhantomWolf]

Goes nice with their definition of truth.

Truth - n tooth: What I want to believe.

[slingblade]

there's one thing that so many people seem to forget. facts can be false or wrong, it doesnt change that they are still facts.

And.............we're done. Well, I am, anyway. When facts are false and up is down, it's Miller Time.

[Foolmewunz]

I already nominated his first Facts is What I Want 'Em to Be post for a Stundie. You guys can take the second version if you want.


http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2617212#post2617212

[Architect]

Bump


So, Water-Bender, how are your proposals and thoughts on this shaping up?

[Mobyseven]

Bump again for Water Bender, on my glorious return to the forums. :p

[Architect]

Welcome back, Moby.



I for one am disappointed that Water Bender seems to have disappeared. I was more than happy to try and thrash out a fair and reasonable format with him, and thus wonder at the extended silence.