Some suggested additions:
1a) specify the limiting length.
1b) Fouls come with the deletion of the offending content, not just a verbal note of the error. If statements in someone's post breaks one of the rules, such as digressing from the topic then that content should be erased from the thread by the moderator and not allowed to exist as part of the case presented.
1c) If content is deleted then that poster should be given the opportunity to respond to the original point(s) of their opponent's post in a rule compliant manner.
1d) An alternative to the deletion is the moderator highlighting in red all content that breaks the debate rules and the infractions deducted from that side's points at the end.
2) It is my opinion the rules of this forum are not well applied so measuring the debate by the rules is a questionable standard unless the rules are applied in the debate with consistency greater than found in the boards outside this debate. For example, this forum's rules prohibit both off-topic content
and personal attacks, but both happen routinely without sanction throughout the forum. Furthermore, one of the most basic rules of internet discourse in ANY forum is to keep the posts about the posts, not the posters. I, therefore, respectfully recommend the word "
you" be prohibited. The statement, "
My opinion the forum rules are not consistently applied," is a much different statement than "
You moderators don't apply the rules yourselves and you're all hypocrites." That kind of content should be prohibited in this debate and any such content deleted (especially since the Arm v Cal board is one of the boards where this often happens).
4) The Moderator introduces the topic and does so in the form of a thesis statement to be proven or disproven. The Affirmative case is presented first. Since there is a limit on length this will likely mean only one aspect of any given topic can be presented and therefore only the one specified aspect of the affirmative case is what will be debated. It is, therefore, also necessary for the Affirmative side to decide and well-articulate the single best means of proving the Affirmative case given the limits in length. This also, therefore, given the limits on topical content, the Negative response. The Affirmative case cannot be ignored in favor of content that is irrelevant to the Affirmative case. Both the Affirmative poster and the Negative poster must begin their first post with a summary statement to which they will adhere through the rest of the debate. In this way each side is consistent with both the overall topic of debate but also their side of the debate. The recommendations here in #4 are fairly standardized procedures in formal debate in academia. Goggling "
rules of formal debate" will confirm this.
6) Not answering a yes/no question directly should be a deduction for each lapse and no more than three lapses permitted. The poster should be required to answer the third time the question asked. I recommend the "
three strikes rule" be a basis for forfeiture of the debate and applied to the two-unanswered questions forfeiture rule. I also recommend the poster asking the question that doesn't get answered be expected and permitted to ask the question alone in a post where nothing else is written. This enables a quick resolution of the matter and in cases of noncompliance it highlights the obfuscation.
Other recommendations in no particular order:
- Limited number of exchanges: The Affirmative side should be limited to a set number of posts with which to prove the affirmative case. The Negative side has the same number of posts to refute the Affirmative's posts. At the end of that set number each side makes a summary post.
- Concession: Either poster may concede the debate at any time.
- Statement of agreement: Each poster should state agreement wherever possible and apprpriate and this statements no counted toward a posts length limitation. For example, "I agree," is sufficient, or "While I agree 'X' is true But....." and then a new statement begun asserting additionally relevant content in either affirmation or negation of the point(s) made. Because Arms and Cals share some views this should be affirmed.
- Claims must be evidenced. This is especially necessary for any claims one sode makes about the other. For example, "Calvinists believe X" must be evidenced, just as "Arminians believe Y" must also be evidenced. This will avoid strawmen and place the onus on the poster making the claim, not his/her opponent or the moderator. Personally, I think the debate should be limited to the sound, exegetical use of scripture and not extra-biblical sources.
- Content presented as fact must be accurate and demonstrably and objectively verifiable as fact (not opinion or bias).
- No new arguments may be presented in a rebuttal. This means that each poster has a decision to make with each of the posts: rebut the opponent's prior post or continue making the Affirmative/negative case and save rebuttal for the summary.
- The onus is on the Affirmative side to prove the thesis. The Negative side does not have to prove an alternative. All the negative side has to do is provide content sufficient to question the veracity of the Affirmative side's argument's ability to prove the thesis. This also means that the Negative poster who presents an alternative but does not disprove the Affirmative side's case has lost the debate. The whole point of the debate is to prove or disprove a single thesis, not assert multiple theses.
- No real or perceived gains made outside of the established rules will be allowed. For example, the premise, "Well Side A made a good point here in post 5" is of no merit if that point has nothing to do with the thesis to be proven.
- The Arminian side should be argued by an Arminian, the Wesleyan side by a Wesleyan, the Pelagian side by a Pelagian, and anyone not themselves a subscriber to that specific position (a so called "devil's advocate") should be expected to argue in a manner consistent with that position. The same should be true of the Calvinist side. The way around this is to broaden the sides to monergist v synergist. That frees up both sides to argue diversely within the prescribed division.
I might be open to either the Affirmative or Negative ("devil's advocate") side dependent upon the topic selected. I also believe I can be an impartial moderator if that's amenable to the posters, and if that is the case then I don't care what is the subject to be debated.
