Alright, folks, I just had an idea. I want to have an actual structured debate in which one person is appointed to the "for" side and one to the "against" side. One person is elected moderator. Three people are elected as judges. The moderator is not also a judge.

Format of the Great Debate:

1) For side: Give opening statement
2) Against side: Cross examines/addresses flaws, or issues in For's argument and asks For questions.
3) For side: May respond to cross/answer questions (MUST answer all questions).
4) Against side: Give opening statements (Repeat steps 1-3 in opposite order)
5) For side: Give closing statement (will elaborate on this later).
6) Against Side: Give closing statement (may not respond to For's closing statement).

The moderator will make sure no one steps out of line, and will "give the floor" to the debators.

The judges will NOT participate in the debate, and will come into the debate with little opinion and/or previous knowledge of the subject. The judges will determine who should win the debate based on their persuasive skills and argument alone, not based on topic matter.

For example, if a debate is about abortion, and you're strongly pro-life, you shouldn't be a judge or, if you really want to be a judge, then you should not simply vote for the person who argues against abortion simply because it fits your beliefs. If he made a better argument than the For side, then by all means, vote for him.

Is this clear?

Now, I am electing myself moderator for this one. I'll throw out a few things for you guys to vote on/discuss.

Topic
I was thinking of these topics for our first debate, as they are simple, and some of them are obscure, which means they'll require research.

Option one: Euthanasia (human)
Option two: Censorship of the Arts
Option three: Prostitution
Option four: Human Cloning
Option five: Security Versus Liberty

Nominees/volunteers for Debaters and Judges

Now, I have none as of late. You may of course volunteer yourself, in fact I encourage you to. If you nominate someone else (because you think they would be interesting to watch), then you may, but they have to agree or else they won't be counted. I'll list all the nominees after a few have been made.

So does this make sense to everyone? I'm scheduling this debate for November so I can sort out all the preliminaries now. Tell me which topic you're most interested in, and who you want to see arguing them.


EDIT: I have now added a link for the topic to make tallying easier. The pick will expire on November First, so make your choice now!