We have a massive number of people awesomly good at arguments here. Just look at some of the debate we get into. Step in with an argument and no facts to back it up, and you'll be torn to threads in seconds.
Thus, I propse a series of structured debates. It'd work just like a normla debate, with rules for forum. That is, a time limit not of minutes but of 24 hours and of what fits into a single forum post. The other rules would still apply - an afformative and negative team, each of three members (or possibly four) a topic open to interpretation, and an odd number of Judges (One or three most likely).
For this to work, we'd need at least six people other than me interested, three for each team. If there's more, people can rotate between debates (which would take about a week each) or have more judges.
Since I'm organising this, I elect that I could Judge the first, unless someone else particualrly wants to, and I have a good idea for the first topic.
On the subject of topics, these could be anything from both serious debates, or more likely important stuff - we can decide once and for all weather Eowyn or Arwen is hotter, or if Spiderman would beat the Hulk in a fight, and backed up with conclusive evidance.
So, anyone interested, or is it a stupid idea?
