MSO debates: Topic ideas and volunteers

[frootloop]

Recently there's been a lot of interest in the idea of having 'formal' debate threads on MSO. The purpose of this thread is to find out who'd be interested, what topics people would like to see debated, and some ideas for debate rules/timings etc.

So, if you're interested, post here. If you've got any ideas for good debate topics, post them here. If you've got any ideas about how the debates should be run, post them here.

In a week's time (Sunday 14th), we'll take all of those ideas into consideration and start the MSO debates! It might be easier to see how popular certain ideas are if I make polls out of the suggestions midway through the week, but we'll see how it goes.

Who's keen?

 

[GV]

Capitalism's role in the healthcare system?

 

[frootloop]

Here are my (very loose) ideas:

1) I'm keen, obviously.

2) The (very) recent healthcare reforms in the U.S. would make a great first topic in my opinion.

3) I reckon we have teams of 3 or 4, each 'captained' by a moderator. If we only get two teams worth of people, then obviously each debate would just be those two teams (although members could rotate if that proved a more popular idea). If we had more than two teams worth of people, we could have two teams debating one topic, then the other teams taking the next one.

I reckon there'd be a one-week time limit on each debate, with each team member allowed to make a set number (probably 2 or 3) of replies in order - i.e. team 1 opens, team 2 replies, team 1 defends... etc.

Obviously MSO rules would still apply, so no personal attacks etc. Any posts in the debate thread made by non-participants would be deleted.

Not really sure about scoring. Maybe a poll (which participants obviously couldn't vote on)? Maybe the admins could act as independent judges?

 

[rustyedges]

Potential structure:
Two teams of three (numbers permitting), each member can make one post, alternating what team posts. Each post can have a rebuttal to the previous reply.
After each team has made three posts, one member from each team has a chance to add in anything else at the end. Winning team is decided by a judge based on what team made the best case.

Potential topic ideas:
-Euthanasia
-Infanticide
-Opt out contraception
-Medicinal cannabis
-Informed consent in research
-Ethics of cloning
-Private medical care
-NZ > Aus

 

[chinaski]

Potential topic ideas:
-Euthanasia
-Infanticide
-Opt out contraception

Could potentially roll all three themes into one argument.

 

[Benjamin]

Maybe the admins could act as independent judges?

No dice, I want to be involved & debate. I think a poll while the debates are ongoing and also perhaps a minimum quality argument level - i.e. references to support arguments. Following the full discussion we can make the thread open to other replies from non-debating participants.

Could potentially roll all three themes into one argument.

I laughed way harder than I should have, thanks for this.

Will update this post with further potential topics later tonight.

 

[biom]

possible topics:-
1. That Graduate Medicine produces better doctors than undergraduate medicine
2. That Mr Trump's changes to Obamacare will deliver better health outcomes in the USA
3. That UTAS' admission system for 2017 proves the correctness of the second law of Thermodynamics

From these suggestions there is perhaps a policy decision needed. Are the debates intended to be a scholarly discourse or are they intended to be an opportunity for people to create well considered but creative arguments that defend the indefensible?

 

[iStudent]

What about changing it so that it's more inclusive - e.g. perhaps having 2 rigid teams but it is open to others such as myself who are not committed enough to do this weekly but could be keen to contribute to the discussion when appropriate

Edit: although this wouldn't make it a "debate" haha
But please consider this approach in the interests of keeping the free for all style of MSO's arguments in the past (which encouraged people to argue the point that resonated with them most)

 

[frootloop]

No dice, I want to be involved & debate.

Fair enough, figured you and/or Mana would probably want to join in! We could always just have a revolving panel of mods/regulars who aren't participating in that particular debate to judge.

From these suggestions there is perhaps a policy decision needed. Are the debates intended to be a scholarly discourse or are they intended to be an opportunity for people to create well considered but creative arguments that defend the indefensible?

Why not somewhere in the middle? I reckon pure scholarly debates would probably get a little stale, while giving people like myself and Sherlock free rein to bs our way through an argument would just end up getting ridiculous. I reckon we choose sensible topics on which there's enough evidence available to construct good arguments around, but not so much evidence that the matter is essentially sealed.

We're all capable of being semi-grown-ups, so I'm sure we can agree on sensible, interesting debate topics, and that people will call out anyone who gets too 'creative' or off-track in their replies. Personally I don't think we need hugely strict rules when it comes to the debating style people can use - they're very quickly going to work out what the judges/everyone else respond well to, which should keep everything sensible.

 

[Kiwiology]

I'd be mad keen.

 

[Mana]

Happy to participate and/or judge debates - noting I will probably opt for the latter due to time issues.

 

[Ruth]

I'd probably be more keen to referee/judge than debate, but might join in on a few if the topic is interesting

Having said that could be hard to stop myself from joining in hahaha - would prefer at least semi-solid rules

 

[Sherlock]

Juvenile delinquency.