[Discussion] Next Coliseum Match!

[Surlethe]

Fellow Senators, let's throw out some ideas for the next Coliseum match topic and possible contestants!

[Patrick Degan]

Well, we can always invite new chewtoy MichaelFerrari1 to treat us to an exhibition of his incomparable wisdom.

[RedImperator]

I'd rather see two competent people debating a subject in which there's genuine room for rational people to disagree. One-sided ass-whoopings are fun, but I'd like to actually learn something from a featured debate.

[Surlethe]

Maybe a debate on fully state funded medicare or a hybrid public/private system? I can't name any specific names since I only browse through that topic with limited interest but I'm somewhat sure there were some good debaters on both sides.

There's probably a lot of evidence for both ways so it should avoid being like the last debate where one was known without a doubt to be wrong from the start.

I agree with RedImperator. Candidate topics for future matches should, I think, be generally complicated and difficult to form a consensus on; for example, health care, or the speed of Iraq withdrawal, or privacy issues. The grey in the issues makes for much more interesting debates. More specifically, I seem to recall Broomstick and MoO going at it once or twice with respect to health care; would either of them be interested in rehashing the issue for good?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Maybe a debate on fully state funded medicare or a hybrid public/private system? I can't name any specific names since I only browse through that topic with limited interest but I'm somewhat sure there were some good debaters on both sides.

There's probably a lot of evidence for both ways so it should avoid being like the last debate where one was known without a doubt to be wrong from the start.

I agree with RedImperator. Candidate topics for future matches should, I think, be generally complicated and difficult to form a consensus on; for example, health care, or the speed of Iraq withdrawal, or privacy issues. The grey in the issues makes for much more interesting debates. More specifically, I seem to recall Broomstick and MoO going at it once or twice with respect to health care; would either of them be interested in rehashing the issue for good?

Hybrid public/private systems are the norm in most of the world--the doctors and hospitals and so on are independent contractors of the health agency, rather than employees, for the most part.

[Broomstick]

I seem to recall Broomstick and MoO going at it once or twice with respect to health care; would either of them be interested in rehashing the issue for good?

Um.. not really. It was one thing to debate the issue when my family and I had coverage and it was in many ways an academic question. Now, with no health insurance at all, I don't think I can retain the objectivity required to debate effectively since it a real and pressing matter for me and I do get quite worked up about it.

Ask me again when I have coverage, I don't have to beg for my husband's medication prices to be reduced, and we can afford to get the blood testing the is now 2 months overdue in getting done.

[K. A. Pital]

I'm open for Coliseum proposals. I have time on hands to debate until July. if anyone wants to debate me, feel free to propose the topic.

Healthcare debate could work. I recall quite a few people disagreeing with my utilitarian principle that basic healthcare for more people is better than advanced healthcare for rare and lethal diseases, but which few can actually afford.

[RedImperator]

I'm open for Coliseum proposals. I have time on hands to debate until July. if anyone wants to debate me, feel free to propose the topic.

Healthcare debate could work. I recall quite a few people disagreeing with my utilitarian principle that basic healthcare for more people is better than advanced healthcare for rare and lethal diseases, but which few can actually afford.

I like this idea because it encapsulates a lot of the issues surrounding health care, both practical and ethical.

Another idea I had was that we find someone who's really really good on one particular topic, and have him argue the other side. This would have to be limited to topics where there's a viable other side, of course--no asking Mike to take the rabid Trekkie position in SW v. ST, for example--but it could be a lot of fun to see with the right argument. It could be a valuable lesson, too, for people who think being on the right side of an argument is all it takes to win a debate.

[K. A. Pital]

Some proletarian masses have also told me they'd want to see "a match between CC and Stuart on ABMs. CC disputes what an expert, Stuart, says about ABMs, Nukes, and Missiles/Bombers. This would be a good technical debate and a famous thread when done".

Personally this is a technical issue, but anti-ballistic missile debates propped up here and there, so perhaps it's indeed a topic popular enough to warrant attention.

[phongn]

Stuart doesn't seem too keen on the idea of a formal debate in the Coliseum due to time constraints, alas.

[Chris OFarrell]

We could always go with a classic Mechs vs Tanks debate

Seriously though, I like the idea of a Healthcare debate, but I think we need to define it a little better, at least in the stances both sides have to take.

[Darth Wong]

Usually, in any health-care debate, socialized health-care advocates spend half of the time dispelling bullshit lies and misconceptions about how socialized health-care actually works. If the other participant didn't believe in all of those misconceptions, it would be easier, but then the debate would also be missing the rebuttals of all those widespread misconceptions.

As for contentious topics, one could always suspend the IvP moratorium for a single knock-down drag-out debate on the subject between two advocates.

[Coyote]

We could also just put up a list of all sorts of controversial issues and let people pick.

"Put your tags in the bucket and get ready to dance..." --Colonel Tigh.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder if some subjects are too small to qualify. Like the oft-repeated debate about homeschooling relative to social adjustment.

[CmdrWilkens]

I wonder if some subjects are too small to qualify. Like the oft-repeated debate about homeschooling relative to social adjustment.

I think with subjects like that it would also be hard to get two folks who really are both passionate and well informed. For as well read and versed as this board is I rather suspect smaller topics are, consequently, less likely to have two solid opponents here.

[Surlethe]

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of debate over just how much control over the economy the government should exert. It seems we have sentiment on the board from relatively libertarian (not lolbertarian) to relatively socialist; it would be interesting and informative to see the two extremes butt heads.

There's also a question of federalism in the US. How much power should the federal government have, as opposed to the states? Tied into this, we could debate the Roe v. Wade decision, if anybody wants to criticise the court's ruling.

[Frank Hipper]

I'd like to see bitter opponents hash out long-standing feuds in The Coliseum in order to settle matters once and for all; focus not so much on an actual topic, but lay the emphasis on great gushing gouts of gore between two seasoned Flamewarriors yearning for the abject humiliation of each other for entertainment's sake.

If it were meant for for well metered, restrained discussion, would it be named The Coliseum?

Members should challenge one another via PM, and if the challenge is accepted, they then apply for admission to Mike.

There should be grave consequences for failure, though; not only to limit the potential for spam in Mike's inbox, but to restrict this to only the most serious, and rabid, combatants.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of debate over just how much control over the economy the government should exert. It seems we have sentiment on the board from relatively libertarian (not lolbertarian) to relatively socialist; it would be interesting and informative to see the two extremes butt heads.

There's also a question of federalism in the US. How much power should the federal government have, as opposed to the states? Tied into this, we could debate the Roe v. Wade decision, if anybody wants to criticise the court's ruling.

Part of the problem is that a lot of these issues are not nearly so black and white, primarily politics. People tend to like to put things into a spectrum, but but they're really not. Having proponents of socialist and free-market economic policies debate is useful, but can't be said to be a debate over how much control over the economy the government should have; rightwing supporters of dirigisme or at the more extreme, Integralism, would provide completely different arguments leading to a different result.

Personally I'd be both in favour of Hipper's proposal, and also think that in terms of more civil, planned debates, we should wait for the topics to present themselves.

[Surlethe]

I'd be interested in seeing some sort of debate over just how much control over the economy the government should exert. It seems we have sentiment on the board from relatively libertarian (not lolbertarian) to relatively socialist; it would be interesting and informative to see the two extremes butt heads.

There's also a question of federalism in the US. How much power should the federal government have, as opposed to the states? Tied into this, we could debate the Roe v. Wade decision, if anybody wants to criticise the court's ruling.

Part of the problem is that a lot of these issues are not nearly so black and white, primarily politics. People tend to like to put things into a spectrum, but but they're really not. Having proponents of socialist and free-market economic policies debate is useful, but can't be said to be a debate over how much control over the economy the government should have; rightwing supporters of dirigisme or at the more extreme, Integralism, would provide completely different arguments leading to a different result.

The fact that these issues are not nearly so black and white is what I find so appealing. Any debate about them will not neatly resolve, but it will almost certainly shed light on the underlying philosophies, which I see as quite useful enough to warrant inclusion in the Coliseum's repertoire.

Your point about more than one dimension of philosophies on any given issue is well taken. This could be resolved by posing a series of debates, or even trying a three-way debate in one thread.

Personally I'd be both in favour of Hipper's proposal, and also think that in terms of more civil, planned debates, we should wait for the topics to present themselves.

I also favor Hipper's proposal. Shall we set up the grand Shep vs. Elfdart debate, then?

[Simplicius]

SirNitram's thread on corruption in the DHS reminds me that US immigration policy has proved to be a contentious topic in the past, and one which has members supporting a variety of positions on the issue.

If we ever need a ready-made debate topic, that might do.

[Coyote]

I also favor Hipper's proposal. Shall we set up the grand Shep vs. Elfdart debate, then?

GETTIN' READY TO FIGHT!


I think more & more we should just post the subjects under contention and then invite motivated champions to sign on as they see fit.

[Surlethe]

Seeing the Duchess' signature reminded me that Master of Ossus was, at one point, preparing arguments against peak oil catastrophism. I'm curious if he'd like to test those in the Coliseum against any one of the PO alarm-ringers (J, Valdemar, IP, and Her Grace come to mind).

[Surlethe]

If I may resurrect this thread, I've had an inquiry from a constituent:

Hello,

Has anything been bouncing around among the senators and elite about whether we are going to be having another Coliseum match at some point? I PM'ed you because you brought the issue up in the Senate.

It'd be too bad if it just withered away from lack of use. I would really like to see, for example, a sanctioned Israeli-Palestine debate, or a debate on some other topic.

Thank you,

Guardsman Bass

Has anyone else had any thoughts on the next Coliseum match? Guardsman Bass is right: it would be a shame for it to wither away and continue unused.

[Patrick Degan]

We just might have a possible match-up in the works in this thread. A senator and a plebe participating have already made a public suggestion.

[Master of Ossus]

Forgive my ignorance, but how does this work? Is there a limit like, "The debate ends after five posts each or mutual consensus?" Are there any other rules governing the participants?