Debates?

[Kardas]

Time to get the ball rolling.
I said I would try and get debates set up during my term as President, but first I would like some input from all of you.
Essentially, would you like to engage in debates from time to time and what type would you prefer?
For clarification, an informal debate is somewhat similar to a Socratic seminar. This type of debate can be open, and you can decide to change your opinion whenever you want. A goal is perhaps to convince others, but it's quite open-ended. Another term for this is the Lower House debate I think.
A formal debate is structured, and needs sign-ups. There are many types of formal debate, but essentially these differ only in structure.
With a formal debate, 1-4 people are assigned to either the proposition or the opposition and given a topic to debate on. Unless it is a double debate, it will generally follow in this order:
1st proposition- starts the debate and outlines the plan if they have one
1st opposition- rebuttal
2nd proposition- rebuttal and adds another idea to the plan of the proposition
opposition conclusion- outline what the debate essentially focused on, and explain why your side deserves to win
proposition conclusion- add to the outline if you wish, but at least say why your side deserves to win.
With a double debate, each side also has a second group who should give a twist to the topic and debate about something that wasn't touched upon by the first groups.
The jury will then discuss privately, declare the winner and give constructive criticism to all participants.

One advantage to hosting debates is increasing the 'knowledge economy' which our former PM Balkenende was so fond of saying.

If you also have topics which you wish to debate on, please post'em here, and there's a big chance they might be used when we start!

[Teutonic]

Both offer a good chance at something fun, but personally, I prefer the informal variety. Formal debates often feel somewhat rigid in what you can do, though they are a far better test of debating skill and knowledge, they don't go as far in the entertainment aspect, especially when replies may be forthcoming in as much as 12 hours time-a lot of the heat can be withdrawn from the debate as a result.
That said, there's no reason why we can't have both.

[Cantiliahantan]

i go for formal it sets the rules allowing for no mistakes

[Kardas]

It seems as if we're already conducting informal debates in our Political debating chamber, so if we poll'em and give the option to withdraw votes (as you can do on this one) we can get informal debates running quite well. I also favor debates as I like to have flexibility. That said, formal debates show off your skill better, and allow you to get a new point of view about issues should you debate against something you believe in. for instance.
Teutonic's right though, we can easily provide for both.

Any cool ideas for topics? I've already considered nuclear energy, given that it's in the spotlight again because of the Japan earthquake/

[Teutonic]

Personally I'm happy with both. I just argue more than I debate
Nuclear energy is nice and controvertial. Should provide a decent debate.Why not draw inspiration from current afairs, for example, This house would establish a no fly zone over Libya (if in formal style) which is a good morally grey topic to discuss.
We've also got plenty of ethical conundrums;Banning extremist parties, censoring the internet, CCTV flooding-there's plenty we could do for either debate.

[Kardas]

OK we can start setting up a formal debate I think. I'll create a sign-ups thread, and we should be able to get a debate running shortly after. Will also post about this and the Fantasy RP on the RMB.

Unless anyone has a cool topic that they'd rather debate, the first one can be "this house believes nuclear energy is safe and sustainable."

My wording isn't that great I think. Anyone who can express the OP better?

[Teutonic]

If that's the debate you're going to go for, wording isn't really relevant. It couldbe opened up somewhat by having "this house believes that nuclear energy is the future of energy production" which would allow for a greater range of points, but sort of fade into irrelevance with teh French fushion reactor they're building. nevertheless, it never hurts to open debates up to a wider variety of points. Even potentially "This house believes that Nuclear energy is a 'green' energy solution" may provide good potential, but if you don't like the ideas, don't take them up-this is just a quick brainstorm done in procrastination against other things- I'm happy to help more when time isnot of the essense.

[Kardas]

Well, your post reminded me I need to specify a little thing. Debate will be about nuclear fission.

How's this:
"This house believes that Nuclear fission energy is a 'green' energy solution"

with thanks to Teutonic.
I'll post a sign-ups thread soon. Is anyone interested in the position of judge? I believe would be convenient to have 2 (if 2 people want to go, I'll sign myself up)

[Cantiliahantan]

I wish to join as a judge please

[Teutonic]

That sounds good.
If we're ever short of motions, I can always steal my school debating society motions (though they're awful half the time)
If ever you're short of a judge, I'm happy to lend a hand. Chairing debates is always fairly fun anyway.

But aside from that, I'll see you in the sign ups

[Kardas]

One other thing: Should we allow people to choose what side they're on?
When I was in a debating club, we never did it. It has the added benefit of being able to evenly distribute sides as well.

[Teutonic]

In my experiance, picking sides allows for a biased debate. If everyone was allowed to pick a slot, they'd all flock to one side or the other.Some of the best deabtes I've been involved in ahev had people strignently opposed to their motion argueing for it.
As a result, I would say put do it randomly-in informal debate people can pick a side after all-formally, the whole fun is having to broaden your view, and argue ground you've not considered before.