So far, it's looking good. I don't want to create a sub-forum that isn't going to get any use. I fully expected that not everyone would be interested, but maybe others will gain interest once it gets going.
If you wouldn't want a long drawn out debate, and neither would I, then perhaps we could limit to a number of days, Ken. I am accustomed to debating teams from my high school and college days, but one on one can be stimulating. A healthy exchange of ideas and seeing the other side of a coin is what makes life so interesting in my opinion. As for opinions, they should be respected, but not necessarily stated as fact unless a source can be named.
Yes, the two could decide just how long they'd care to debate a topic. Sounds like the most viable plan.
How will topics be chosen? Maybe a list of possibles, a member chooses one and states his position, and another with the opposite viewpoint announces they want to take them on?
What I had in mind was that the OP would either already have someone in mind to participate in the debate with him or her, and that they would decide on a topic; although, from time to time, there might be a need for possible topics to be presented, if only to get some activity going.
Perhaps a list of topics could be presented and if two people are interested in one then it might begin a debate with each taking a side they'd prefer. I know it presents a problem if both want the same side, but it doesn't necessarily reflect one's beliefs or feelings, but objective thinking from all perspectives.
I'd like to see this. There are times I've wanted to flesh out positions on some issues with some members, but have not attempted it because there would [understandably] have been lots of side discussions in it. If we did this, we could put a Sticky with Debate Guidelines (no ad hominem attacks, etc), for those who agree to abide by them. I've seen areas like this on other forums, but those were used to have verbal fist-fights to settle personal disputes. Which brings up another issue...would some of the Terms of Service be suspended in that area (personal attacks, etc.)?
That could be up for discussion. It could be in a private area where only registered and logged-in members could view it, and therefore not spidered, in which case the rules could be adjusted, or the OP could set the rules for a thread. If it is to be viable, there would have to be a way to control the noise, by which I mean off-hand comments from people who aren't really participating, or who don't know the subject but want to participate anyhow, as well as off-topic stuff.
I like your post but to briefly opine, the jury is still out as to how it would really work and the type of mediation that would have to be readily available should it be needed. A personal dispute topic or sub-topic could be a real tricky thing because if it wasn’t handled properly, it could wind up separating the forum into factions and cliques which is already hard enough to avoid. As I already wrote, for me the jury is still out but of course, if it happens then so be it.
Yeh, there's always the issue of too much conflict & negativity driving people away, even if they do voluntarily view it. The one place I've seen it done was a forum based on custom software. They were able to set it up so participants were By Invitation Only. In essence, we're talking about making invitation-only Private Conversations public. The upside I see (especially around politics and social issues) is that 2 well-intended parties can actually wade deep into hot topics without getting derailed. And it might deepen & expand the knowledge of the participants. Everyone should benefit, But you may be right. It might not be worth the risk. And there's the perceived issue with those of us who are moderators being in open conflict with members should we choose to engage in such an activity (although no one here takes a heavy hand in anything.)
As it is with almost everything, trial is the better part of an experiment. Maybe the staff can get together, post a thread about whatever horse that hasn’t already been ridden to death, take a survey on who might wish to debate the topic, then pick two of the willing and let the debate begin. When the debate has been declared over, take another survey as to whom the winner is and give ‘em an all expense paid trip to an imaginary nation of their choice. Ya’ll might get a bite or just drown a worm but until ya’ll try it, you’ll never know.
The essence of the matter is that there's no point in setting it up unless... There are members interested in participating in such a format; and There are members interested in following the discussion. Otherwise, if no one is interested in following it, one-on-one (or more) debates could take place in Conversation between invited participants.
My dimes worth of input, and I am not a member who choses to participate in Political forums or discussions, mostly from past experiences elsewhere. With that said though. On this site/forums, there are past members, several new members who don't chose to wade into the Political waters, AND they are unsure if this site is leaning in one direction or the other, which Political direction is favored? Some say neither is favored, others meanwhile firmly believe that it is. SO, how about clarifying beyond a shadow of doubt, is this forum fully welcoming to all sides of the Political arena, and with no ambiguity...
I think that if two people wanted to debate an issue, and any interested people could follow along, but not participate, this would actually go really well. Since the debate does not have to be political in nature, we could debate things like science, climate change, aliens/UFO’s , health topics, ancient history, and all kinds of interesting things. The debate would not be just a bunch of personal attacks, but would include information about the topic, so everyone following along could learn, and it might even inspire new threads for the whole forum.