Request for help with Rules for a Head to Head debate

[Zzyzx]

.
I have been asked to suggest some "rules of engagement" for a Head to Head debate involving Theist vs. Non-Theist viewpoints. Here are some ideas that occur to me. I solicit advice and assistance from others toward the goal of developing a fair and sensible set of rules for the proposed debate

1. Debate is to consist of a total of ten posts each – alternating

2. No post shall exceed 1500 words including quotations

3. A response is to be posted within five calendar days (120 hours) unless delay is agreed

4. Ask no more than two critical questions (bolded and numbered to identify). Other questions may be asked but are not critical to be answered.

5. Answer honestly, openly and fully to the best of ability the two critical questions last asked by opposition or acknowledge inability or unwillingness. Answer any other questions optionally as judgment indicates.

6. Discuss additional issues only after answering the critical questions (or acknowledging inability or unwillingness). Additional points are permitted.

7. Substantiate all claims and statements challenged or acknowledge inability or unwillingness and withdraw the claim or statement in the next post.

8. Discuss ideas, not personalities. Do not make any personal comments.

9. Standard English definitions of words shall prevail

10. Circular reasoning is not permitted (no work shall be cited to prove itself correct)

The limitation to ten posts encourages focus and keeps the thread from going on ad nausea.

The limitation on word count (to three or four standard text pages) also helps with focus and keeps the debate from becoming an endurance contest (and from boring readers). It might be wise to limit to 1000 rather than 1500 (what do you think?)

The "two critical questions" gives each of us a chance to focus on issues that we consider of primary importance.

A pledge to answer openly, honestly and fully the two critical questions commits us to sincere communication.

Substantiate or withdraw is fundamental to ethical debate. I will gladly withdraw any statement that I cannot substantiate. I realize that "substantiate" can be variously interpreted; however, I use the term to mean to provide evidence that an impartial third party could be expected to recognize as reasonable, fair and sincere.

Debating ideas rather than personalities is the goal of informed debate. I recognize you as an intelligent and capable human being – and am not concerned about or knowledgeable of any personal characteristics (and do not wish to discuss personal matters).

Standard definitions are the basis of informed communication. Neither party is to use esoteric or special or personal definitions. Merriam Webster Dictionary definitions shall be accepted (unless mutually agreed via PM).

[McCulloch]

I believe that you have made a good start, however I have a few additional ideas.

Regarding definitions:
An effort should be made to define key terms that may be ambiguous prior to beginning the formal debate.
Avoid equivocation. When using terms which could have more than one meaning in context, specify the intended use. Unless otherwise specified, formal rather than informal meanings will be assumed.

Regarding critical questions:
I like the idea of having critical questions numbered for identification. Perhaps one debater could use 1,2,3... and the other A,B,C... . It should be either obvious or made explicit how each identified critical question relates to the question being debated.

Moderation:
I would like to see more moderation in head-to-head debates. Not just rule enforcement, but posting in the thread with occasional summaries of critical questions and their responses, notes about relevance, proactive dispute resolution. Impartiality might be an issue, since all of the moderators are primarily debaters.

[Confused]

Moderation:
I would like to see more moderation in head-to-head debates. Not just rule enforcement, but posting in the thread with occasional summaries of critical questions and their responses, notes about relevance, proactive dispute resolution. Impartiality might be an issue, since all of the moderators are primarily debaters.

Would the impartiality be less of an issue if the ones moderating were the two administrators. Each are distinctly opposite in their beliefs so perhaps if they were the ones adding the input, they could combined, limit the issue. Or perhaps two moderators who are also opposites in their beliefs.

[Zzyzx]

.

Regarding definitions: An effort should be made to define key terms that may be ambiguous prior to beginning the formal debate.

Agreed

Avoid equivocation. When using terms which could have more than one meaning in context, specify the intended use. Unless otherwise specified, formal rather than informal meanings will be assumed.

Agreed

Regarding critical questions: I like the idea of having critical questions numbered for identification. Perhaps one debater could use 1,2,3... and the other A,B,C... . It should be either obvious or made explicit how each identified critical question relates to the question being debated.

Excellent Idea. Perhaps critical questions from subsequent posts could be numbered / lettered sequentially to permit later reference.

Moderation: I would like to see more moderation in head-to-head debates. Not just rule enforcement, but posting in the thread with occasional summaries of critical questions and their responses, notes about relevance, proactive dispute resolution. Impartiality might be an issue, since all of the moderators are primarily debaters.

Would the impartiality be less of an issue if the ones moderating were the two administrators. Each are distinctly opposite in their beliefs so perhaps if they were the ones adding the input, they could combined, limit the issue. Or perhaps two moderators who are also opposites in their beliefs.

I really like the idea of "involved moderation" by two moderators representing opposing viewpoints.

Perhaps reader comments could be encouraged in "shadow threads" in General Chat. Comment threads have been present but not emphasized.


Are any of the items I raised initially not clear or not necessary?

[Confused]

I think so far, you have been very thorough in the rules. I would state that if the two participants wish to vary in their debate, they should be allowed to state their variations in advance to each other, as well as the two moderators who will be primarily moderating the debate (note that at times, some of us may not be as available so we may request another on the same "side" as we are to fill in when necessary).