New method for debates

Discussion in 'Members Corner' started by Keshav Murali, Jul 7, 2013.

  1. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Back to studies :( Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    688
    Location:
    The city of Humidity
    @Kunal Biswas @LurkerBaba @ersakthivel @methos @Damian @militarysta @W.G.Ewald @Ray @pmaitra @arnabmit @Lidsky M.D. @Andrei_bt @p2prada @Austin @AUSTERLITZ @Rage @STGN @Dejawolf @Akim

    --------------------
    --------------------

    I was seeing a forum (not going to name it, it is not remotely connected to defence anyway) where they opened a thread to debate who would win in a battle between two people (both with their own superpowers) and the debate was astonishingly clean.

    They formed teams and rules, three on a team, rules which state which condition the two people(with the superpowers of course) would be in. (good health and stuff)

    Two referees.

    And the debate began. After some period of time, the referees would compare their arguments and choose the superior one. The teams worked flawlessly, each of them providing sources, references and text to back their claims. (They were from a book, they even showed scanned pages from the book to validate their arguments)

    It felt like the debate we never had.

    Anybody up for implementing something like that in our forum, because the Arjun vs T-90 is dragging on too much and I have decided, the best we could do is make people volunteer to be on whichever side they want, set some rules and let them debate.

    Something like this:

    Teams:

    Team Arjun: Three people
    Team T-90: Three people


    Rules:

    1. Comparisons shall be between T-90S and Arjun MK.1 only. The teams may compare only the present characteristics of the tank as given below:

    Arjun has the ARDE gun with the old APFSDS, MTU engine, APS and APU.

    T-90S has the 2A46M-2 with 3BM-42 "Mango" rounds or the Indian MK-2 being the best available, LEDS-150 as bought by the Indian Army and no APU.


    All teething problems for both tanks are fixed.

    2. Judges' decision is final.

    3. No swearing or one-liners

    4. No flaming.


    -------------------
    ------------------

    What do you guys think? Can we do it?

    Oh, and If you want to know the link of the forum and thread where I observed something similar, PM me.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Rage, Dejawolf and SajeevJino like this.
  2.  
  3. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    27,611
    Likes Received:
    28,431
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    Nice Idea, Though don't have resources and time to look after another one..
     
  4. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,663
    Likes Received:
    17,161
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Typically, every debate should be like that, but we don't live in a perfect world.

    Also, we need to use consistent terms. I have seen one item being referred to using multiple names in the same paragraph (French Catherine Thermal Imagers). Inconsistencies only add to the confusion. Finally, there is going to be lack of objectivity, unless we strictly allow only Arjun Mark <whatever> and T-90 <whatever>, but we need to define what is <whatever> for each.

    Mr. Lidsky is now @hest.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    Rage likes this.
  5. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Back to studies :( Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    688
    Location:
    The city of Humidity
    What do you mean?
     
  6. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Back to studies :( Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    688
    Location:
    The city of Humidity
    We can manage inconsistencies. Even if we do not live in a perfect world, we can try, can't we?

    Perhaps we can demonstrate a debate in this way, and recommend DFI posters to follow?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  7. W.G.Ewald

    W.G.Ewald Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2 Defence Professionals

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    14,140
    Likes Received:
    8,528
    Location:
    North Carolina, USA
    I believe what was meant is that moderators have plenty to do already. What is proposed would require at least one full-time paid moderator. (DFI could not pay me enough to be a moderator. And I have stated my moderating policy: first-time violators would be warned. Second time violators would be banned. Third time people would be sent to where violator lives. Bad people. :pokerface:)
     
  8. Keshav Murali

    Keshav Murali Back to studies :( Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Messages:
    1,230
    Likes Received:
    688
    Location:
    The city of Humidity
    :troll:

    :megusta:

    I understand that. I wouldn't have enough time either. :okay:
     
    W.G.Ewald likes this.
  9. A chauhan

    A chauhan "अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l" Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    4,928
    Likes Received:
    4,563
    Location:
    Raipur
    IIRC we had this sort of discussion in the DFI earlier, in some threads only selected members were permitted to post and if you wanted to post there, mod's approval was the requirement. Correct me if I am wrong ?
     
    Rage likes this.

Share This Page