loseyourname said:
I love the idea of a debate. I know this forum already basically hosts people debating in just about every thread, but they are not real debates. Real debates are formal and have rules. Real debates stick to a topic. Real debates involve people defending single opposing propositions, with focus, and without regard to what they actually believe. I think it would be a great way for us to present the cases for and against controversial stances related to the social impact of science, without the clutter and nonsense typically associated with internet forums. Ultimately, it doesn't even matter who wins. I would imagine there are very few of us who have ever participated in formal debates and who know how to evaluate the performances anyway.
This is precisely the reason I don't like formal debates. They are too rigid. Highly controversial scientific issues aren't black and white. While it's a good exercise to learn to argue the opposing view, it isn't constructive to have to stick with that view if you don't agree with it, or when there are compromises to be addressed. It may be good training for a political candidate or someone heading to law school, but is counterproductive for a scientist. In science, when there is controversy or you are writing a review of a subject, the ideal is to be able to balance both sides of the argument. It's also rare to find only two sides to an argument. When something is truly controversial, there are usually many ways people look at the issue.
I really have never seen a debate with any other purpose than to sort out a winner and a loser, which aside from puffed egos, also leads to hard feelings, and can lead to division among the membership. What gets missed is that in a good debate, there is no winner and loser. Instead, everyone learns something.
I don't think an anonymous debate would resolve that. I think we can recognize the writing styles of many of our members, and they would also be conspicuously absent from "the peanut gallery" during the debate. Knowing the competitive tendencies of some of our members, I can only see anonymity leading to speculation over the identity of the debaters.
If you want to get a good discussion going on some controversial issues in a way that won't spiral into a flame war, it might be better to set aside an area on the forum where a topic will be introduced for a limited time, open to the membership, but with a strong moderator presence explained right up front. Any and all posts that are in any way off topic, just statements of opinion without any supporting evidence, or even stick as much as a little toe over the line to even hint at an attack on a poster rather than the argument will be deleted without discussion (but if it doesn't break normal board rules, don't give people warnings for it, just keep the thread clean). I don't know, though, it seems that would be stifling.
You're funny.
(these words sound cool, i just wanted to put them in a sentence)
