I was thinking since this place is so good for thoughtful discussion, it could be good to have set up debates under the debate tag with certain controversial topics. Ideally the poster would just set up the debate in the top without taking either side, and could debate in the comments. Each user could start by stating their own side and backing it up and then let the debate go on from there.
What do you guys think? Or do you think it is too confrontational to do well here?
I dunno about debating. Discussions definitely. But debating implies that you are trying to win the other side over. Instead, we should focus on exploring the idea and cooperatively explore the idea and come to a conclusion. That, IMO, is much more of hubski's style. But debates might work, depending on how they are set up. I just feel like it might divide the community, which wouldn't be a good thing.
By making the goal "convince the other side" that means there is a winner and loser. Namely, the winner is the convincer, and the loser is the convinced. I have no problem switching my "side" when approaching topics, but others are less likely to do so. That's why I think reframing it to be a "discussion" would be better. It doesn't create an "us vs them" mentality, and instead it creates an "us vs the topic" mentality. This allows the community to work as a group to tackle a topic, rather than work against each other. I suppose the most important thing would be to keep it civil. It can be very easy to split a community.
I like this idea, though I agree that maybe #discuss or #discussion would foster more of a cooperative and informative experience. I even think it would be neat to have some threads where people are asked to deliberately approach the issue from the other side's perspective (in good faith). Like #devilsadvocate.
Along with that, it seems vulnerable to "ganging up" on one side or another by sheer presence of preference for a given side. If the thing is structured well and people went along with that structure, it could work. I am not however, suggesting that any sort of moderator (in the internet forum sense) be appointed. Perhaps people nominated by agreement to mediate could work . . . That said, I don't think that I would participate.
Thus the quotation marks. What I mean, is that a side could win by default (or seem to) simply because of the sheer number of others who might voice similar opinions or take certain positions that would be naturally opposed to another position. Additionally, that can happen even with the utmost civility. I did not say that you were supporting all of what Loogawa said, merely restating what he said to provide proper context for what I am saying. In a debate setting, the winner is determined by the strength of their argument. The number of participants is also predetermined, unlike what seems to be proposed here. Thus, in a formal debate, a position cannot be overwhelmed by numbers within the constraints of the debate. In a setting like hubski, where users are encouraged to freely wander in and out of threads, contributing where they feel they should, what I am outlining seems very possible. Again, thus the quotation marks. It might not be consciously done, but say that people looking on decide to share an argument because they agree with it, or even badge it. Well, then that lends itself to at least the appearance of popular assent. If members go further and comment, indicating their assent and perhaps adding to that particular argument rather than addressing the other side, well then that might lend itself to the appearance of a win, too. All of that can be accomplished without any aggression at all.
I'd watch but I don't think I'd participate. Maybe poach the ruleset from the debate subreddit?