[3DGeek]

On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.

Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.

This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.

I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring

This was largely what I was attempting to call for in the poll thread. Debates are a structured thing (or they can be) and we should treat it as such for these topics. There are plenty of templates out there to use for scoring and structure. I really think, if we can get together another one of these for another poll result as was originally suggested, we should pick one and adhere to it. If nothing else it should help provide structure and prevent people from getting too off track (from what I recall most scoring rubrics deduct points for digressions).

I'd be happy to take up this challenge.  A one-on-one debate would keep the clutter down to a reasonable degree and reduce the workload on Tom for answering questions in a timely manner.

[TomInAustin]

On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.

Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.

This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.

I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring

This was largely what I was attempting to call for in the poll thread. Debates are a structured thing (or they can be) and we should treat it as such for these topics. There are plenty of templates out there to use for scoring and structure. I really think, if we can get together another one of these for another poll result as was originally suggested, we should pick one and adhere to it. If nothing else it should help provide structure and prevent people from getting too off track (from what I recall most scoring rubrics deduct points for digressions).

I'd be happy to take up this challenge.  A one-on-one debate would keep the clutter down to a reasonable degree and reduce the workload on Tom for answering questions in a timely manner.

I only wish we could get more FE people on board to help score this.   Otherwise it's a great idea.

[juner]

On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.

Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.

This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.

I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring

I'd be fine with helping with this. It is tough to keep roundies at bay though. They just love to make sure people notice them.

[TomInAustin]

On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.

Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.

This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.

I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring

I'd be fine with helping with this. It is tough to keep roundies at bay though. They just love to make sure people notice them.

An angry rant thread for the spectators should fix that. 

[3DGeek]

On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.

Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.

This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.

I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring

I'd be fine with helping with this. It is tough to keep roundies at bay though. They just love to make sure people notice them.

An angry rant thread for the spectators should fix that.

It would need some serious discipline to keep the main thread from getting invaded...but if Junker is willing to police it, we could make it work.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

As  TA says, a "Tom/3D naughty step" thread, Post the rules at the start with a promise of medievil retribution for infringers by Junker, links to PM's for the two combatants and off we go.

[Curious Squirrel]

I've got basic structure for a debate, along with grading rubric for the judge along with judging criteria to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.

[3DGeek]

I've got basic structure for a debate, along with grading rubric for the judge along with judging criteria to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.

Has anyone discussed with Tom whether he's up for this?   I didn't see anything from him yet?   Maybe these few posts should be moved to a separate topic so they are more clearly visible to all concerned?

[TomInAustin]

I've got basic structure for a debate, along with grading rubric for the judge along with judging criteria to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.

I nominate you for the RE judge

[3DGeek]

On a serious note: This was all a bit one-sided, Tom (bless his bones), was out gunned and even if he had the answers, the amount of points he had to respond to would have been prohibitive, not only that but one bad point by a passing loon from either camp would derail the argument.

Proposal; for the next discussion Tom should only have one person to answer to (3Dgeek is in the zone at present I forward his name), other interested parties would PM their champion if they feel something should be added or to discuss a point, Junker as always would be the Referee for points of order.

This should make the debates much simpler, coherent and easier to follow.

I of course retain the right to call the result, being totally un-biased, so make sure it’s not boring

I'd be fine with helping with this. It is tough to keep roundies at bay though. They just love to make sure people notice them.

Could you please move all of the posts in this thread from #42 onwards into a new thread and ask Tom if he's up for debating in this way?

He's clearly not seeing (or choosing not to respond to) this initiative.

[Tom Bishop]

I'm fine with this.

[3DGeek]

I'm fine with this.

OK - so both sides are on board - we have administrator approval.

The final step...how do we choose a topic?

I'm OK with more or less any topic - the one I'd prefer not to get into is the "view over the horizon" stuff - not because I have a hard time of it - but simply that the evidence is too fuzzy on both sides of the debate to be meaningful.

Since we've gone into some depth recently about a number of areas of "doubt" - how about we pick one that hasn't be delved into too much?

I'd suggest:  "How do tides work?" - and I'd be happy to grant Tom the honor of "First Post" - unless he'd prefer that I kick it off.

[StinkyOne]

I'm fine with this.

OK - so both sides are on board - we have administrator approval.

The final step...how do we choose a topic?

I'm OK with more or less any topic - the one I'd prefer not to get into is the "view over the horizon" stuff - not because I have a hard time of it - but simply that the evidence is too fuzzy on both sides of the debate to be meaningful.

Since we've gone into some depth recently about a number of areas of "doubt" - how about we pick one that hasn't be delved into too much?

I'd suggest:  "How do tides work?" - and I'd be happy to grant Tom the honor of "First Post" - unless he'd prefer that I kick it off.

I still like using satellites. You prove satellites exist, you completely blow up FET. Maybe not the most original, but the overwhelming amount of everyday tech that uses sats make it easy to prove. Just my humble $.02.

[3DGeek]

I'm fine with this.

OK - so both sides are on board - we have administrator approval.

The final step...how do we choose a topic?

I'm OK with more or less any topic - the one I'd prefer not to get into is the "view over the horizon" stuff - not because I have a hard time of it - but simply that the evidence is too fuzzy on both sides of the debate to be meaningful.

Since we've gone into some depth recently about a number of areas of "doubt" - how about we pick one that hasn't be delved into too much?

I'd suggest:  "How do tides work?" - and I'd be happy to grant Tom the honor of "First Post" - unless he'd prefer that I kick it off.

I still like using satellites. You prove satellites exist, you completely blow up FET. Maybe not the most original, but the overwhelming amount of everyday tech that uses sats make it easy to prove. Just my humble $.02.

Well, some FE'ers are OK with satellites - claiming they move in various loops across the Earth just like the sun and moon do.  After all, the Moon is a "satellite" - if it works then why not others.   Others do completely deny them...I'm not sure where Tom sits on that point.   But even if denying them were a 'given' - the willingness to call "conspiracy" at every turn is going to make for a really tedious debate.

The Wiki page: https://wiki.tfes.org/The_ISS_and_Visible_Satellites and ALL of the other pages under: https://wiki.tfes.org/Space_Travel ...have no text in them.  It's hard to argue with nothingness.

[Tom Bishop]

I'll take your offer of "first post". I'll let you guys decide on what subject to discuss. Nothing is off the table.

[inquisitive]

I'll take your offer of "first post". I'll let you guys decide on what subject to discuss. Nothing is off the table.

Distances is good.  Nothing like measurements to define the shape of an object.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

As 3D was first to take up the mantle, let him go with the Tides, If C Squirrel is happy to be the RE judge we need to know the FE one (Parsifal?), I think finding someone who is neutral will be difficult so a long-standing participant who has some respect here (rules me out), I would trust Junker to know who is a good fence sitter and be able to approach them.

For future debates, each side take it in turns to forward a subject and champion.

[Curious Squirrel]

As 3D was first to take up the mantle, let him go with the Tides, If C Squirrel is happy to be the RE judge we need to know the FE one (Parsifal?), I think finding someone who is neutral will be difficult so a long-standing participant who has some respect here (rules me out), I would trust Junker to know who is a good fence sitter and be able to approach them.

For future debates, each side take it in turns to forward a subject and champion.

I would be more than up for taking on being the RE judge for this one. Hopefully Tom/Junker can assist in putting forth a FE judge and as close to a neutral judge as we can get. Perhaps the neutral judge could even be a newcomer if we find one willing? That's the closest I can come up with for neutral in my mind, as it should leave them without too many preconceived notions about the people involved at the minimum, which is a good start. Alternatively Jura's idea of someone with at least some respect from both sides could fill that role to a degree, with the hope they have expressed at least a somewhat neutral stance before. When we've got that ready I would suggest Junker or one of the judges should create the post with the rules laid out in that first post. The the first reply can be 3D's opening statement(s).

[Tom Bishop]

What are we judging?

[TomInAustin]

What are we judging?

The debate is what we are judging.

I've got basic structure for a debate, along with grading rubric for the judge along with judging criteria to help guide what is being looked for. I would suggest 3 judges, one confirmed RE, one confirmed FE, and one as neutral as possible. Scores can be averaged among what the three give, though each should be attempting to be as impartial as possible. I would suggest in addition the thread should be highly moderated with the notice on the front that anyone posting other than Tom/3D will have the post deleted and warned they will receive a ban of length so they will not return before the period for debate is over if found posting a second time. Debate period to be 1, maybe 2 weeks depending on if we want a set number of 'rounds' or just let them go for a while and declare time for closing statements the day or so before the final day.