nroberts
03-21-2008, 10:04 PM
Just run this by people, see what you think, who might want to be involved, etc...
The objective of this website would be to encourage the development of rational rhetoric and scholarly discourse by providing an arena for argumentative battles of whit using essays. There would be a forum for discussion, but arguments would be required to be entered in essay format.
It's not even a rough draft of an idea yet, but I can imagine a couple different ways in which this might happen.
Simply posting essays and allow comments. However, in order to discourage arguing, and to encourage essays to be as thorough as possible, there would be no replying to comments. What this means is that the comments would be mostly for constructive critique, not refuting. To refute someone's essay you write your own and paste it as a response...something like youtube responses maybe. It is also instinctive to want to clarify things that you think people got wrong about your essay...if it wasn't clear, do it better next time! That's how it works in the published world, and this is meant to be a sort of practice for that.
Another thing that would probably be of interest is official essay debates. Basically I imagine that the participants would work out the rules ahead of time, set about writing their position pieces, and then responses. I imagine some word limits in these cases, etc... All debates would require a panel of judges composed of at least one person. I imagine judging to be based on use of logic, effective presentation, adherence to rules, and cited support when applicable...probably spelling and grammar too.
I see a lot of stuff in youtube, a lot of back and forth, that really ends up boiling down to people just rambling on about something they've written. For a while I was concerned that reading and writing might become a thing of the past, and I do not think video presentation is adequate to replace it as a form of communicating complex ideas.
Writing could be about any and all subjects. I would hope it wouldn't just get overrun by religion vs. non-religion "debates" but those too would be allowable. I would even go as far as allowing purely theological debates to take place. It might really work to point out how science and theology differ. Basically, I don't want ANY subject to be off limits. The KKK or NAMBLA could post there and you'd be required to refute them just like anyone else (which isn't really hard anyway).
So anyway, those are just some ideas. If others wanted to get involved I'm not hardened about how to do it. I do think the goal is important and I wouldn't really want to break away too far from that, but besides that I'm pretty open. At one time I conversed with my boss about setting up a server of my own on the line we have. It may be possible. If not I would be willing to put up at least some of the money to get one hosted. I could probably write much of the necessary software as well.
thoughts?
The objective of this website would be to encourage the development of rational rhetoric and scholarly discourse by providing an arena for argumentative battles of whit using essays. There would be a forum for discussion, but arguments would be required to be entered in essay format.
It's not even a rough draft of an idea yet, but I can imagine a couple different ways in which this might happen.
Simply posting essays and allow comments. However, in order to discourage arguing, and to encourage essays to be as thorough as possible, there would be no replying to comments. What this means is that the comments would be mostly for constructive critique, not refuting. To refute someone's essay you write your own and paste it as a response...something like youtube responses maybe. It is also instinctive to want to clarify things that you think people got wrong about your essay...if it wasn't clear, do it better next time! That's how it works in the published world, and this is meant to be a sort of practice for that.
Another thing that would probably be of interest is official essay debates. Basically I imagine that the participants would work out the rules ahead of time, set about writing their position pieces, and then responses. I imagine some word limits in these cases, etc... All debates would require a panel of judges composed of at least one person. I imagine judging to be based on use of logic, effective presentation, adherence to rules, and cited support when applicable...probably spelling and grammar too.
I see a lot of stuff in youtube, a lot of back and forth, that really ends up boiling down to people just rambling on about something they've written. For a while I was concerned that reading and writing might become a thing of the past, and I do not think video presentation is adequate to replace it as a form of communicating complex ideas.
Writing could be about any and all subjects. I would hope it wouldn't just get overrun by religion vs. non-religion "debates" but those too would be allowable. I would even go as far as allowing purely theological debates to take place. It might really work to point out how science and theology differ. Basically, I don't want ANY subject to be off limits. The KKK or NAMBLA could post there and you'd be required to refute them just like anyone else (which isn't really hard anyway).
So anyway, those are just some ideas. If others wanted to get involved I'm not hardened about how to do it. I do think the goal is important and I wouldn't really want to break away too far from that, but besides that I'm pretty open. At one time I conversed with my boss about setting up a server of my own on the line we have. It may be possible. If not I would be willing to put up at least some of the money to get one hosted. I could probably write much of the necessary software as well.
thoughts?