What if one wanted to witness two chosen posters for a public debate? “Fantasy Debate?”
I haven’t thought it all the way through; feasible?
I think suggesting debate pairs may be a nifty thread for one of the "lighter" topic discussion areas of the thread. Indeed, I think that might be an entertaining thread for members who have taken notice of other members. (I wouldn't start such a thread because I pay so little attention to who says what and how that I wouldn't know whom to suggest for even the first "fantasy debate" pair.)
As for the notion of there being an area for public debate, IIRC, there already is such an area... Battleground or something like that, I think. Maybe I'm mistaken?
As for the viability of an actual debate, I don't think it's viable here. I don't because:
- I have little confidence that folks will narrowly enough define affirmative/negative debate topic scopes such that the topics can be practically handled in a venue like this.
- I don't observe that the forum has many folks who are capable of posting comments that directly focus on the key themes of a thread.
- I wonder whether there are experienced forensic debate -- particularly L-D and parliamentary; those being the two forms that are best suited to a written venue -- judges. I don't know.
- I don't see enough members who are capable of/willing to eschew presenting fallacious lines of argument.
- I can count on one hand the number of members whom I've observed routinely posting structured and well organized essays, which is what an online written debate would take.
- Debating at topic well requires researching the topic. How much evidence do you see of DP members researching the topics about which they remark? For the topics I most often remark upon -- theory and practice pertaining to law, economics, business and the intersection of those three -- I rarely see folks who've researched the matter on which they've remarked and I often see remarks that even the most basic level of research (or specific subject matter training) would have deterred one from making, if not entirely, at least in the way the remark was made.
Then again, I could be wrong. To be sure, my doubts derive from my own experience (thus expectations) with debating (HS, college and as a panel debater at a few symposia and economics and business conferences). It may well be quite entertaining for a number of people. I certainly am not of a mind to be a naysayer of the sort who'd oppose the forum actually developing a place, structure, format, etc. for such argy-bargy to occur.
As for your question about feasibility, sure, it's feasible in some form or fashion. It's also feasible that some folks will find it entertaining, challenging, worthwhile, or any number of things that appeal to them.
Implementationally, it doesn't have to perfect from the get go; I'm nearly certain it'd have to be something that starts and then gets tweaked. If the forum administrator(s) and you're of a mind to develop the idea, start by defining what the goals are and then develop rules, structures, formats, technology enablers, etc. that aid and abet meeting one or more of those goals. Good luck.