The issue is that the control of the debate would most likely be placed in the hands of a group of people who hold similar ideas. For example: I respect Moe and think he's incredibly thoughtful. Everyone should look to him when they want to know how to debate or just how to think. I also think he's a tool who refuses to seriously consider radically different points of view after he's made up his mind. Which is okay.
True. Then again, most here would be guilty of holding their ideas guardedly. That's disappointing because it would still be a problem even if debates weren't judged by a select few. However, making a conscious effort to be unbiased wouldn't be impossible. Also, as mentioned before, many of us will be playing DA. If the judges keep that in mind while overseeing the debates, it should help keep things objective.
So anyway, because I think it's important to pretend to be constructive, I few suggestions:
-Make debates more public. Carry them out on a forum thread, not comments. This will allow users to watch and discuss debates (consider a separate discussion thread). -Maybe remove winners and losers. This would do a lot to help the "moderators will push their political agendas whether they mean to or not" problem.
Pretend to be constructive, that made me giggle. (:
Good suggestions. Without winners or losers, merit-worthy arguments get rewarded regardless of the overall outcome of debates.
