F1 Debate Team

[yurp 0]

I like this idea until I got to adam's post where he nominated himself as judge. Though he may be impartial as far as drivers go, he's certainly partial as far as posters go. Also, I think this should be about a convincing argument and not about the structure of the argument. I see Adam judging the latter far more than the former.

I think the 'winner' should be decided by a poll. Wouldn't it be a far better barometer of a person's argument to convince a majority of readers than one judge?

A personal attack accusing me of making things personal - gotta love it.

In my defence...

I disagree with lines of argument that I see as illogical or incorrect - I don't care who writes them.

I have disagreed with Andres, Steve, Andres, Monza, Andres, Yourself, Andres, Tommy, Andres, Chris, Andres, Pabloh, Andres, Murray, Andres, George, Andres, Maure and Baldy to name a few.

I have also agreed with all those posters too.

I often disagree with someone in one thread and yet agree with them in another. It has nothing to do with who they are, just what they happen to be saying n a certain subject.

I'm sorry if you've interpreted our recent disagreement as personal - I took exception to your line of argument, not to you. I fear you have done the opposite.

Quite frankly, I like everyone here - you included. You all make the place enjoyable and on occasion challenging. I actually agree with you all 90% of the time.

Anywho - to keep the peace, I retract my offer to adjudicate. Andres will do a great job.

Incidently - I think you also missed my post above...

Oh yes - and here's another idea - 1 judge, but the victory should be decided by jury of 2,4 or 6 other members. Judge may cast deciding vote in case of a tie.

I think a judge should act to keep the debate fair and within the bounds of rational discussion - a jury should decide the winners.

I fell short of suggesting a poll because I thought it would end up like a DOD verdict. People would probably not even read the posts, they'd just vote based on whether the like the driver or not - making the whole exercise pointless.

This is Steph's thread, so let's leave it at that.

EDIT

Great idea, Adam! Wait, are we talking about the fights in Jell-o between female members of the Forum, right?

what??? - do you think we're talking about something else????

[Quiet One 15]

Wait. I think there's a misunderstanding. Perhaps the world "judge" was misleading. "Moderator" would be more like it.

Mike, Adam had a point there. We continuously have debate about teams and drivers.And they all end up becoming a matter of who gets tired first. Usually the discussions end up being just cheap wind up contests or taking the absurd/joking path. If McLaren's debate is going to end up with a discussion for the upteenth time on whether Hamilton "trounced" Alonso by 0 points, or how worthless are Schumi's achievements because he parked his car at La Rascasse, or how Hamilton mobsters are going for the whole solar system domination, or people talking about FIArrari, Teflonso and other idiocies, then count me out.

A poll will allegedly show who was the most convincing, but forgive me for being too prejudiced, I think it will just end up with people voting whatever they would have voted in first place with or without the previous debate. I think we could keep the debate interesting if some moderator keeps it focused and points the most obvious fallacies. That way it will also be of any worth for those who happen to read or lurk around without participating. In short, being more useful that just the 20 or so usual posters voting whatever we usually vote for after every gp.

A moderator does not have to be completely objective although that would be great. All he has to do is point the arguments' fallacies and such. His world is not final and he will have no "extra powers" whatsoever, so teams can easily ignore him.

"Then you are a twatface " might be convincing for some, but hardly a good way of making this whole debate idea worthwhile.

I think we have more than enough people we can trust to act as moderators beyond any bias they might have. I am having the arrogance of nominating myself (this time seriously) in any non-renault, non-Alonso related debate. You can add Jenson Button or Hamilton and Macca if you don't trust me enough. Most of us are mature enough to handle a debate without letting our own bias dominate us. I would trust Cav any day as a moderator if he doesn't choose the "easy troll path" he likes to take sometimes. (No, I am not attacking him, we all know when he is seriously putting an effort and when he is just coming for a witty one liner and disappearing again). Just like I take the easy troll path against Jenson Button just for laughs.(I don't hate the guy, it's impossible to hate him, actually)

Just my take.

[cavallino 2]

I'm in I'm in I'm in

[yurp 0]

Wait. I think there's a misunderstanding. Perhaps the world "judge" was misleading. "Moderator" would be more like it.

Mike, Adam had a point there. We continuously have debate about teams and drivers.And they all end up becoming a matter of who gets tired first. Usually the discussions end up being just cheap wind up contests or taking the absurd/joking path. If McLaren's debate is going to end up with a discussion for the upteenth time on whether Hamilton "trounced" Alonso by 0 points, or how worthless are Schumi's achievements because he parked his car at La Rascasse, or how Hamilton mobsters are going for the whole solar system domination, or people talking about FIArrari, Teflonso and other idiocies, then count me out.

A poll will allegedly show who was the most convincing, but forgive me for being too prejudiced, I think it will just end up with people voting whatever they would have voted in first place with or without the previous debate. I think we could keep the debate interesting if some moderator keeps it focused and points the most obvious fallacies. That way it will also be of any worth for those who happen to read or lurk around without participating. In short, being more useful that just the 20 or so usual posters voting whatever we usually vote for after every gp.

A moderator does not have to be completely objective although that would be great. All he has to do is point the arguments' fallacies and such. His world is not final and he will have no "extra powers" whatsoever, so teams can easily ignore him.

"Then you are a twatface " might be convincing for some, but hardly a good way of making this whole debate idea worthwhile.

I think we have more than enough people we can trust to act as moderators beyond any bias they might have. I am having the arrogance of nominating myself (this time seriously) in any non-renault, non-Alonso related debate. You can add Jenson Button or Hamilton and Macca if you don't trust me enough. Most of us are mature enough to handle a debate without letting our own bias dominate us. I would trust Cav any day as a moderator if he doesn't choose the "easy troll path" he likes to take sometimes. (No, I am not attacking him, we all know when he is seriously putting an effort and when he is just coming for a witty one liner and disappearing again). Just like I take the easy troll path against Jenson Button just for laughs.(I don't hate the guy, it's impossible to hate him, actually)

Just my take.

yes - moderator is a far better term.

moderator keeps the debate on topic, evidence based and impersonal.

jury passes verdict.

as for the proposal that hooka pipes be used to play croquet on your tummy, I'm not entirely sure that would lie within the remit of this thread.

[Kopite Girl 0]

You lot are confusing.

I actually like Mike's idea. The non-participants get to vote who wins. Its simpler that way.

God. Its not as if my memory isn't as good as it was! I'm confused now.

Right. Non participants to vote, but to keep adam happy we have a 'speaker' who gives a general opinion based on the two teams arguments. Is that simplified enough?

Eh. Whats logic again? And while I'm at it, I can't remember for the life of me. Whats that word when you do something spur of the moment, with no thought you just do it?

[cavallino 2]

ok I can't be bothered reading the whole thread, but:

speakers (posters in this case) for and against.

responses/ rebuttals.

interjections/ questions from 'audience' with posted responses - probably fixed number of questions.

Jury system to vote - 3 people or 5 people.

Word limits on everything.

A moderator to keep personal attacks out - there are probably a mere handful of people here who are suited to this role. And you don't volunteer for this, you get nominated. I nominate the Bald guy, Mike, Graham, Monza, Steph as people who are smart and mature enough to moderate the debate.

[cavallino 2]

Oh, to see how this should work, go to http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showforum=12

[AutoRacer5 0]

I'd like to join in on this. I'd have more free time over the summer to try this out.

[Insider 0]

No pressure Georgie. Just say what you think!

@sean dude - you in or out my friend?

I'm in - to do what?

[Kopite Girl 0]

Debate of course!

Cav. Read the thread mate!

YAY. AR5 is back! Welcome back Chris!

[yurp 0]

You lot are confusing.

I actually like Mike's idea. The non-participants get to vote who wins. Its simpler that way.

God. Its not as if my memory isn't as good as it was! I'm confused now.

Right. Non participants to vote, but to keep adam happy we have a 'speaker' who gives a general opinion based on the two teams arguments. Is that simplified enough?

I think you and Mike have misunderstood me - I don't think I explained my thoughts clearly enough...

I don't want to pass judgement on who wins at all.

That's actually the exact opposite of what I was offering to do.

I don't think the judge/moderator/speaker/chair should offer any opinions at all on the actual debate.

As Andres says - they are just someone to keep the debate orderly and fair. "Moderator" is a better name for the job.

Concerning who decides the final verdict, I suggested a jury, but a vote might work - if you like that idea, then let's try it.

Just thought of an interesting debate...

"Does Sutil deserve a Merc?"

This opens the topic up to talking about Sutil's ability compared to other drivers, the Merc's capabilities compared to other cars and Sutil's own historical record. I think it provides enough scope for an interesting and fairly even debate.

How will teams be chosen? Ping pong balls anyone?

[yurp 0]

ok I can't be bothered reading the whole thread, but:

speakers (posters in this case) for and against.

responses/ rebuttals.

interjections/ questions from 'audience' with posted responses - probably fixed number of questions.

Jury system to vote - 3 people or 5 people.

Word limits on everything.

A moderator to keep personal attacks out - there are probably a mere handful of people here who are suited to this role. And you don't volunteer for this, you get nominated. I nominate the Bald guy, Mike, Graham, Monza, Steph as people who are smart and mature enough to moderate the debate.

Looks like you did read the thread, because the bolded bits are exactly what I've been suggesting.

Not sure if audience participation is a good idea to start with - it would just become like any other thread very quickly.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Ok. Cool.

Well. Either by tagging, I'll pick the first teams, with a little help, and I'm in complete agreement in sticking to a low profile driver/team (i didn't say crap lol)

I'm not sure if word count would help. I think one post, and then the opposing team posts their argument, say like - for (team lead), against (team lead), for, against, for, against and then closing statements from both leads.

A vote, and a moderator sounds most excellent. Well done dude.

Why does Chris call you twatface?

[Kopite Girl 0]

Looks like you did read the thread, because the bolded bits are exactly what I've been suggesting.

Not sure if audience participation is a good idea to start with - it would just become like any other thread very quickly.

Didn't you know Cav was a seer? He knew you were gonna post that before you did.

[yurp 0]

morning steph - here for practice 3?

think you should get andres to start a thread, introduce the rules etc and start things off.

he should probably add the vote only after the debate has ended - though I think there's still a danger of many people not reading the debate and just voting anyway - but hey - try it and see.

i'm off out - back for qually though - yay - we're racing again.

[cavallino 2]

Controlled audience participation for questions is good. Oh and polls to decide are a sucky retarded idea.

[yurp 0]

Controlled audience participation for questions is good.

I entirely agree as long as 'controlled' is the opperative word. If it becomes a free for all, it will decend into chaos.

Oh and polls to decide are a sucky retarded bad idea.

Again, I entirely agree, but Steph and Mike like the idea of a poll, so I'll go along with it. I've written 3 times that I think a jury is a better plan, but this debate idea is Steph's baby after all.

[Max Mosley 2]

Count me in when there's space after those who posted above me. It's a fun idea. Moderator is a much better term than judge, though I think you'd have to give them some guidance as to what's allowed. And I hope no one starts saying all threads should be run like this!

Oh, to see how this should work, go to http://forums.autosport.com/index.php?showforum=12

Very interesting. Especially the fans vs FIA cases!

[mikathegreat2 2]

Put me down on the list!

[AleHop 0]

I think the 'winner' should be decided by a poll. Wouldn't it be a far better barometer of a person's argument to convince a majority of readers than one judge?

Ok then, but you know polls need someone to cook the final result, I want to be the cook.

[Kopite Girl 0]

Controlled audience participation for questions is good. Oh and polls to decide are a sucky retarded idea.

Explain your reasoning. Genuinely.

Just think its fair to have the other people on the list vote in a timed vote/poll as this is the best way to control the audience so to speak. If people want to get involved, all they need to do is say.

Adam, yep- after debate has ended, thread starter needs to add poll/vote to run. How many days? 2?

[JHS 1]

So....when's this going to start then? Any clues on who'll we will be debating over first?

[cavallino 2]

Explain your reasoning. Genuinely.

Just think its fair to have the other people on the list vote in a timed vote/poll as this is the best way to control the audience so to speak. If people want to get involved, all they need to do is say.

Polls are a stupid popularity contest. If the object of this exercise is to raise the tone (which I hope it is), polls are just a waste with people voting on their biases. A small varied jury with non anonymous voting and who have to explain their reasoning is much better.

[Rainmaster 7]

Polls are a stupid popularity contest. If the object of this exercise is to raise the tone (which I hope it is), polls are just a waste with people voting on their biases. A small varied jury with non anonymous voting and who have to explain their reasoning is much better.

Agreed.

[yurp 0]

I think a judge should act to keep the debate fair and within the bounds of rational discussion - a jury should decide the winners.

I fell short of suggesting a poll because I thought it would end up like a DOD verdict. People would probably not even read the posts, they'd just vote based on whether the like the driver or not - making the whole exercise pointless.

Polls are a stupid popularity contest. If the object of this exercise is to raise the tone (which I hope it is), polls are just a waste with people voting on their biases. A small varied jury with non anonymous voting and who have to explain their reasoning is much better.

This is getting silly - you just keep rehashing what I said already.