The eBate: Rules & Guidelines
Posted in Blogosphere, eBates on | 3 minutes | 6 Comments →
As stated in the introduction, the eBate is a real-time, one-hour long online debate between myself and another writer.
In the introduction, I said I would look for some folks to volunteer as moderators, but I've realized what I was really looking for were qualified people who can assess the debate once it has concluded, and pronounce judgment. So in essence, I was really looking for judges, it seems – but then again – maybe the distinction is mostly semantic. To me, a moderator describes an authority figure whose purpose is to control an open forum. I'm looking for qualified people to stay out of a closed debate until it's over, and then offer their reasoned opinions. At any rate, I've found what I think are three reasonable volunteers: Commenter Brad, MS Quixote, and Lifeguard, who recently resurfaced over at his blog, The Meme Pool.
Neither Brad nor Lifeguard argue belief, either: Both are skeptics of the atheist variety. Better, both of them have showed a consistent willingness to both agree and disagree with me, and we've always had reasoned discussions for over a year now. In fact, though there are good things I can say about anyone including my detractors, I consider Brad and Lifeguard to be the most objective, reasonable and open-minded atheists I've encountered online. The same goes for MS Quixote, only he does argue belief – Calvinist Christianity in particular.
This leads me to the following question, which I'll leave up to whoever wants to answer it (it's been a ghost-town 'round here lately): Should each debater be allowed to bring an equal number of judges? Wouldn't an odd number of judges preclude an annoying tie? Should I ask that my opponent bring judges that do not argue their own position, as I am? Should pairs of debaters make these decisions individually, as opposed to being forced to abide by an overarching agreement?
In general I prefer simplicity, and I see no need to construct any exhaustive rules orguidelines for what should really be pretty straightforward. I will object to a particular claim and ask the person making it to respond. By closing the comments until after those who have proven their rationalism have spoken, the chance of descent into sub-claims and ad hominem nonsense seems greatly reduced. There is no time limit, but sans a concession from either side, all I ask is that both parties commit to at least one full hour of one-on-one dialog.
The first person I'm going to ask to eBate me is Deacon Duncan of Evangelical Realism, and the topic of our debate – should he choose to accept – will be his new post series, The Evidence Against Christianity.
Any comments and feedback for ways to make this idea as productive as possible would be greatly appreciated.
Brad
says...An odd number of total judges would preclude a tie (assuming judges are allowed only thumbs up / thumbs down conclusions) – but how much of a priority should that be? I, personally, don’t put a grand amount of value in official resolutions of debates (merely for the fact that they’re official, that is), so I’m basically indifferent as to whether or not a tie is possible.
As for the number of judges – if the total set of them selected by you
and, say, Deacon Duncan at ER is agreed by you and him, then the number doesn’t matter. If that mutual contract necessitates equal number of alloted delegates, then so be it. Furthermore, I think if DD wants any judges at all he should choose at least one theist, because that will force him to lose potential absolute bias and keep him on the ropes same as you, cl.
Lastly, in general, pairs of debaters should have some individualized options and some collective non-options, but which and what and how will always be subject to consent by both persons as this is, by definition, a social contract. I think that covers my thoughts for now.
cl
says...Good feedback. Thanks for helping out.
That’s pretty much how I feel. The main goal is a one-on-one real-time discussion. I don’t really care who wins or loses, and we should probably not even structure the exercise thusly. I just want reasoned feedback on the discussion from people that I trust as reasonable and intellectually honest.
I agree, and I would probably ask DD to only select theists as judges – just as I’ve only selected atheists in this case – so far. I’d ask MS, but I know he would agree, so what’s the point?
Brad
says...Admittedly, I was verging on writing the same thought. When I read your “By closing comments until …” line, I got an impression that this debate isn’t intended in the formal flavor, but is rather, like you say, a 1-1 dialog that roots out the rest of the caravan. I don’t think we judges are purposed as deciders in the matter – there are no centralized deciders just like in any typical open forum. (Despite some preemptively defensive sentiments at ER.) Rather, we’re here to try and thwart the otherwise invariably downturned trajectory that follows in thread after thread. By that vein, I think judges could be called “power commenters,” to borrow a term from computer system administration. If this sounds like an acceptable direction, then perhaps MS could provide just one more angle or iota of elucidation to the yarn.
At this stage I’m wondering what Duncan’s thoughts are.
cl
says...YES, so eloquent, so beautiful. Bravo for that sentence.
Great suggestion, and I’ll credit you whenever and if ever I receive any compliments on that idea. Also, this angle reduced the significance of the number of judges. Considering them ‘iotas of elucidation’ eliminates the need to stress over fairness.
I don’t think he’s going to do it. I’m also pretty upset that he apparently only takes criticism seriously when non-believers offer it. I’d love to hear your opinion.
Lifeguard
says...I’m just going to say “ditto” to Brad’s comments– great suggestions, and I’m actually a LOT more comfortable with the direction Brad’s suggesting here as opposed to “judging” the outcome of the debate. I’d rather discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the respective arguments, then maybe we could even let the interlocutors respond to the points we raise in the post mortem.
cl
says...Lifeguard, I agree, and that’s why I originally used the word moderators to describe what I was looking for. At any rate, I’ve already factored the feedback into the structure. I think this is going to be great, and I think you guys are really going to be impressed if I can make this work out how I see it in my head right now..