Hey folks, I haven't been on this site for a long time, although I've been here a long time (2003).

I will let you all know right now I am an undergrad at the University of Victoria, history major and minor in public administration. This is about my Master's project, and TWC is in fact a crucial element to it.

I am exploring how we debate each other, and how we approach debate online as opposed to in person. I have met with members of the Legislative Assembly of BC and the Parliament of Canada as well as geared my university education towards looking at how to get a better debate out of people, in particular in matters pertaining to governance.

The purpose is to further the cause of good governance. In this project I have to look at the point of debate in terms of what communication is in human relations, how arguing and debate is beneficial and how one point supersedes another and the weighing of facts in any given debate is carried out.

I've written on how the internet affects identity and approach. The Youtube comment section, for instance. This forum, in another.

Ultimately, I am looking for evidence of good, effective debate. What does this look like?

Actually, it looks as though the rules of this forum are carried through.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Topics that have resulted in heated discussion may be temporarily closed to provide a short cooling off or refocus period and to promote composed discussion without implying any prejudice or favoritism to any one side of the issue.

1) Debate in good faith and respect other members. Elaborate and further develop your arguments whilst trying to respond to other members' arguments. Do not continue to repeat the same arguments.

2) Address the argument, do not attack the person. Debates should be as detached and impersonal as possible. Do not post in such a manner that would elicit a strong, emotional response if possible. Your argument should be phrased in such a way that minimizes the ability to misread the post.

3) Try to back up your arguments with evidence and sources where appropriate. Any statistics used in your posts should be sourced.

4) Do not post images or videos without some clear supporting text discussion. Examples of supporting discussion include: who is the author of the video and what his/her viewpoint is and why you think it is important. Posts with image or video trolls and other spam posting will be removed at the discretion of the moderators.

5) Avoid any form of misrepresentation. Do not state that something is fact or a well known fact just because you read it in a message board, website or blog. Statements made in blogs or amateur videos are not acceptable foundations for new threads and threads such as these may be closed at a moderator's discretion.

6) Every thread must begin with some question or framework for the discussion you wish to initiate. You may not start a new discussion topic solely by posting a copy of an existing news story, image, quote from a web site, or other source information. In the instance of this occurring, a moderator may request that commentary be added within a reasonable amount of time or the thread can be closed.

7) Plagiarism is generally frowned upon. If something is not your work, please clearly state the source and include any material quoted directly from the source in quotation tags.

8) In the event that a member begins to post disruptive and inflammatory arguments against other members of any political orientation, religion, or nationality, a moderator may enforce a one day forumban on this member in order to facilitate an effective cool down period in the instance that a single member is the sole instigator of any overtly hostile action. This measure will only be taken after continued misbehaviour following a written warning in the form of a PM to the member. The moderator is required to mediate in such disputes and act in an unbiased manner to resolve the problems. Once the situation has been resolved, the member may be unforumbanned early.



It means sticking to the topic. It demands much though. It calls on those who approach debate in this way to give credit where credit is due. It also asks members to be prepared to be wrong. It asks them to take a deep breath, consider the text of the perception presented, the gathered evidence and information, pore over them, and respond.

If they are upset, they can walk away, and come back in ten minutes and look at the other party's words again. They can be reminded, if they are not constantly already, that every word they type can be scrutinized, making disingenuous arguments or ones based in fallacies less tempting to make. The other party has time to view what is sourced and presented, and tear away or build upon what is meritorious in the opponent's argument.

The format of debate then, done through computer screens, sets the tone, and places boundaries on the approach the member will take. Those rules that Siblez had enumerated should come to mind. What do they do to members? How does that formatting affect the culture of debate?

Debate in this form means two or more (but not much because it becomes unwieldy) come together with the same goal. This is not some parliamentary debate where one side goes "yay" the other "nay" over some "Be it resolved" statement. The purpose must be the same or else the debate becomes adversarial rather than collaborative. In this way people add their perceptions towards the same end.

So, at this point, I would like to ask others to link me to any debates they have found that is evidence of synthesizing the various views that enter into a debate. If you see a forum thread that strikes you as a particularly good example, link it here and maybe add why.

This is crowdsourcing. I want thoughts, now gimme.