Paranormal Debate - Topic Suggestions Please

GuanYin

Right, I thought about this ages ago but felt that at the time the forum was in a state that would probably lead me to ban half the people partaking in a debate.

Things are better these days so I think that this could possibly work.

Its not a done deal, I'll talk to T4TF and see what he thinks and I'll see what the feedback is like. Here is the jist of what I'm on about.

Firstly we'd set up a thread for topic suggestions. Anyone can post on that.
Mods will pick a topic for each debate and set up a thread with that topic.

Each week, we will have a team of three or four posters on pro and con side.
We may instate team captains, either permanently or on a rotational basis and then pick the rest of the team from interested users.

Once the debate starts, each team member gets to post 1 post in the alloted time. The thread is then open for discussion and teams may make 1 post counter arguments and normal users can direct questions at posts. After a set time (1 week maybe) the thread is closed and we'll get guest mods in to judge (along with T4TF and I). We'll pick a winning team and a best post and sticky a scoreboard.

If it works well, I'll request a sub-forum.

Its going to be work by the mods and its gonna require an interest from the users and it will be a very heavily and strictly moderated thread with its own set of rules.

But that aside it should be a nice way to allow open and intense discussion of paranormal issues while leaving the rest of the forum as is.

This is not a cert, only an idea.

Opinions? Suggestions?

6th

I think its a great idea, I for one dont just blindly believe all topics just coz i have experience with some. Its a good way too to give some of the more sceptical posters a chance to get their ideas across without being set upon. Posting within a certain amount of time may not work though as i know i for one get dragged away from the computer regularily. Posting in turns though sounds perfect.

Count me in, a sub-forum would be the best way to do it.

Sapien

Sounds interesting. I wouldn't mind being involved, though I share 6th's concerns about restrictions on time. But then again, what are the wee hours in the morning for...

GuanYin

By time restrictions I mean once we agree on a start time for the debate, the teams have a day to post their post.
Then perhaps they each have another 24 hours to post rebuttals.

Then it becomes a chance for posters to address specific points in the posts over 2-4 days at which point we lock the topic and pick winners.

monkeyfudge

There is a series of little used debate forums

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=364

I can't say I've ever seen them in action though.

stevenmu

Great idea, there's always going to be some *ahem* disagreements on the forum, why not organise them and shove them all in one thread/sub-forum. Some of them could be very educational too.

I'd share the concerns of the others about time limits. While some kind of time limit is obviously nessecary, some points may require a few hours of research to make properly, and between work and other commitments it may take people a while before they can sit down and put the time in.

edit: ah, I see the time issue was already dealt with

GuanYin

monkeyfudge wrote:

There is a series of little used debate forums

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=364

I can't say I've ever seen them in action though.

Yeah I saw them run - there were one or two debates (I was asked to be on a team for one, but was overrun in work). The concept is a good one and hopefully DeVore will get it running again.

GuanYin

My god, I expected more feedback on this.

Zillah? T4TF?

6th

psi wrote:

My god, I expected more feedback on this.

Zillah? T4TF?

Don't worry its just a bit quiet at the moment ... i even had to pull out the Yeti thread to get some interest!

Zillah

*giggles in hysterical glee*


Suffice to say, I like this idea

Oryx

What 6th, missing my sparkling repartee?;)

Never debated a thing in my life and I havent written an essay in 20 years... but this sounds interesting. But I may just stand aside and watch the first attempt to see how high brow this goes.

Darragh29

psi wrote:

Right, I thought about this ages ago but felt that at the time the forum was in a state that would probably lead me to ban half the people partaking in a debate.

Things are better these days so I think that this could possibly work.

Its not a done deal, I'll talk to T4TF and see what he thinks and I'll see what the feedback is like. Here is the jist of what I'm on about.

Firstly we'd set up a thread for topic suggestions. Anyone can post on that.
Mods will pick a topic for each debate and set up a thread with that topic.

Each week, we will have a team of three or four posters on pro and con side.
We may instate team captains, either permanently or on a rotational basis and then pick the rest of the team from interested users.

Once the debate starts, each team member gets to post 1 post in the alloted time. The thread is then open for discussion and teams may make 1 post counter arguments and normal users can direct questions at posts. After a set time (1 week maybe) the thread is closed and we'll get guest mods in to judge (along with T4TF and I). We'll pick a winning team and a best post and sticky a scoreboard.

If it works well, I'll request a sub-forum.

Its going to be work by the mods and its gonna require an interest from the users and it will be a very heavily and strictly moderated thread with its own set of rules.

But that aside it should be a nice way to allow open and intense discussion of paranormal issues while leaving the rest of the forum as is.

This is not a cert, only an idea.

Opinions? Suggestions?

Why not get a team together of even numbers, say 3 skeptics and 3 believers and give them an assignment, stay overnight in a haunted house and let them post their experiences up here???

6th

Darragh29 wrote:

Why not get a team together of even numbers, say 3 skeptics and 3 believers and give them an assignment, stay overnight in a haunted house and let them post their experiences up here???

Well we kind of have trips already and its a pain to organise. Besides we'd have debates on more than just "ghosts" i'm sure. Mixing sceptics and beleivers is a better idea as it will force people to think in a different way. Otherwise its just like banging your head off a wall.

6th

KatieK wrote:

What 6th, missing my sparkling repartee?;)

Never debated a thing in my life and I havent written an essay in 20 years... but this sounds interesting. But I may just stand aside and watch the first attempt to see how high brow this goes.

Ah KittyKat of course you're missed (hiding when you are online too is no fun!) good thing i can feel your presence!!

Oryx

6th wrote:

Ah KittyKat of course you're missed (hiding when you are online too is no fun!) good thing i can feel your presence!!

Oi, sir, keep your hands to yourself!

Zillah

6th wrote:

Well we kind of have trips already and its a pain to organise. Besides we'd have debates on more than just "ghosts" i'm sure. Mixing sceptics and beleivers is a better idea as it will force people to think in a different way. Otherwise its just like banging your head off a wall.

Second all of that.

stevenmu

6th wrote:

Mixing sceptics and beleivers is a better idea as it will force people to think in a different way. Otherwise its just like banging your head off a wall.

That'd just lead to to so much in-fighting in the teams they'd never get around to debating against each other. Besides what would there be to debate that isn't from a sceptics vs believers view ?

6th

The idea is to win the debate, not prove that something does or doesnt exist. We should all be familiar with the arguements for and against most of the topics on here. Only knowing one side is close minded and this idea will give us all a chance to growa bit.

Zillah

stevenmu wrote:

That'd just lead to to so much in-fighting in the teams they'd never get around to debating against each other. Besides what would there be to debate that isn't from a sceptics vs believers view ?

You've got it kind of backwards. We say Team A is going to argue X, and Team B is going to argue Y. If you don't feel like you can sincerely argue X, then don't join team A.

6th

its that or arm wrestling!

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

You've got it kind of backwards. We say Team A is going to argue X, and Team B is going to argue Y. If you don't feel like you can sincerely argue X, then don't join team A.

Naturally people would decide on a topic by topic basis whether they are for or against a particular view.

6th wrote:

The idea is to win the debate, not prove that something does or doesnt exist. We should all be familiar with the arguements for and against most of the topics on here. Only knowing one side is close minded and this idea will give us all a chance to growa bit.

As I understand, it the idea is, apart from the pure fun of it, to fully and completely explore both sides of a topic, to explain and validate each viewpoint as throughly as possible. This will surely be achieved much better by teams which are unified within themselves by a common belief in the viewpoint which they are trying to present. Each side can learn just as much from their opponents points, and researching those points to counter them, as they can from trying to make similar points themselves. In fact, the better each sides points are made, the more everybody can learn from them.

Meh, as long as I get to disagree with people I'm happy.

Kernel

Sounds like a promising idea. Depending on the topic, I would take part. The only issue I have, personally, is that on several paranormal issues I kind of sit on the fence - that is, I don't strongly believe or disbelieve.

Sapien

Should people begin to suggest topics? We could gauge in this thread how much of a reaction they will get, and who would be interested in participating.

SkepticOne

Sapien wrote:

Should people begin to suggest topics? We could gauge in this thread how much of a reaction they will get, and who would be interested in participating.

good idea imho

SkepticOne

Here's one I think may be of general interest:

"Are paranormal explanations really explanations?"

GuanYin

Please keep the topic suggestions for a later date. I'll open that thread when I see how much interest there is.

Basically I want to know that it won't be the same 4-5 people at each others throats and there will actually be rational and interesting and above all else, open minded debate.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Just bacause you do not believe in a particular phenomenon does not mean that you should not be able to argue for/against it. I know that we are not all debaters here but generally you are given a topic and you do not get to choose which side you are on. I think that if this is taken up then the extra work would be worth it as it would increase the usage and visibility of the paranormal forum and maybe make people think a little differently, if only for a few minutes.

Zombrex

Er, I am of course all for it (as skeptic of course), but doesn't this whole idea kinda go against the whole spirit of the charter (which, despite what some may believe, I actually think is a good charter)

6th

i agree i dont think people should have a choice as to which corner they fight from. I for one would like to see how i put forward a case for, lets say, ghosts not existing?!

SkepticOne

Wicknight wrote:

Er, I am of course all for it (as skeptic of course), but doesn't this idea kinda go against the whole spirit of the charter (which, despite what some may believe, I actually think is a good charter)

Although perhaps prematurely, the reason I proposed it was to get to the core of paranormal belief (or lack thereof). Is it just a series of unexplained but otherwise unrelated phenomena (or alledged phenomena) or is there some common factor. Why do sceptics favour one form of explanation over another? The topic would invol ve self examination on both sides of the question.

I believe that the differences between, for want of a better word, sceptics and believers are fairly deep and only by discussing these in a general way can we understand them.

The alternative, say, along the lines of "do ghosts exist?"...well you can more or less predict how the debate would precede. I think most people (believers and sceptics alike) sense that there is a difference in philosophical outlook, but what is it exactly?

stevenmu

T4TF wrote:

Just bacause you do not believe in a particular phenomenon does not mean that you should not be able to argue for/against it. I know that we are not all debaters here but generally you are given a topic and you do not get to choose which side you are on. I think that if this is taken up then the extra work would be worth it as it would increase the usage and visibility of the paranormal forum and maybe make people think a little differently, if only for a few minutes.

I still think it's better to let people choose a side. Like you say it's a great chance to increase the usage and visibility of the forum, it'll almost be like a summary of the best bits of the paranormal forum, or the forum highlights. It'll also possibly make for good reference material when the topics inevitably get revisited. The best way to make it the best possible summary/reference is to have people presenting points that they believe in and are familiar with. 'Believers' in a topic are more likely to be familiar with the ins and outs of the various idea and theories behind them, aswell as more likely to be familiar with various resources (mainly websites I suppose) needed to form a basis for their points. The same is true for sceptics of a particular topic.

I suppose it comes down to whether the point is to have the best 'debate' possible, where the topic is largely irrelevant and pure debating skill is what is important, or the best 'paranormal debate' possible, where the topic is at least as important as the debating prowess displayed.

If the former is the case then may I suggest the topic "Should the national speed limit be lowered from 60mph to 55mph" ?

Sure it'll save a few lives but millions will be late

Zombrex

SkepticOne wrote:

the reason I proposed it was to get to the core of paranormal belief (or lack thereof). Is it just a series of unexplained but otherwise unrelated phenomena (or alledged phenomena) or is there some common factor.

Well I'm talking about the original debate idea proposed by Psi, rather than specifically your idea of debating why people are drawn to paranormal explinations as explinations.

But surely that would definitly break the forum charter, trying to explain to "believers" that actually they believe this because of factor a,b and c rather than because it is actually real and happening.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Another quick one, I think that posts on that threads should be pre-moderated, to ensure no muppetry or repitition etc.

themadchef

Fantastic idea, count me in:)

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Well I'm talking about the original debate idea proposed by Psi, rather than specifically your idea of debating why people are drawn to paranormal explinations as explinations.

But surely that would definitly break the forum charter, trying to explain to "believers" that actually they believe this because of factor a,b and c rather than because it is actually real and happening.

The charter and spirit of the charter have always allowed alternative explanation and debate (since I've gotten my hands on it anyway) so long as it is in the context of the thread and is reasonably presented.

Seeing as debate will be in the context of the thread and hopefully, by definition, reasonably presented, then Id on't see a problem.

This thread, which as Thanx 4 the Fish says will probably be pre-moderated, will be of interest to both sides.

As everyone is quick to point out, an open mind works both ways, the charter isn't here to stop that, it is to make sure that discussion isn't stifled or stopped altogether - that is, discussion of paranormal topic remain about paranormal topics and not about science or skepticism or psychology or whatever.

In a normal thread, these things can kill it off quite easily, in a structured debate, they encourage the discussion (I hope).

fabcat

I think it's a great idea, put me on the believers team!

Zombrex

psi wrote:

The charter and spirit of the charter have always allowed alternative explanation and debate (since I've gotten my hands on it anyway) so long as it is in the context of the thread and is reasonably presented.

Seeing as debate will be in the context of the thread and hopefully, by definition, reasonably presented, then Id on't see a problem.

This thread, which as Thanx 4 the Fish says will probably be pre-moderated, will be of interest to both sides.

As everyone is quick to point out, an open mind works both ways, the charter isn't here to stop that, it is to make sure that discussion isn't stifled or stopped altogether - that is, discussion of paranormal topic remain about paranormal topics and not about science or skepticism or psychology or whatever.

In a normal thread, these things can kill it off quite easily, in a structured debate, they encourage the discussion (I hope).

Ok, well I don't really agree with that, but if both you and Thanxs are in agreement, its your forum! Count me in!

<begins sharpening skeptical knifes>


Ground rules will of course have to be established before hand, eg what is an acceptable level of skepticism or what is considered insulting skepticism

IPI

Personally, I have little or no interest in debating my beliefs or lack thereof in such a general and popularist manner. The arguments have been long established pro and con, and on each side there are those who take salacious delight in ridiculing the other's paradigms. I don't see what can be achieved by subscribers to this forum, who are almost by definition believers in something that others find incredible, inventing counter-arguments to their convictions.

Yes, this is a po-faced response to a light-hearted suggestion, and yes I am completely without humour or any sense of fun, but I don't see the benefits in rehashing, possibly incompletely and inaccurately, the arguments we have all heard and weighed the merits of for ourselves before we arrived at our own conclusions, however fragile and delicately held those conclusions might be.

If I'm wrong about how this is likely to turn out, then I expect I'll see a few more hits in the "Yes, I'd want to be on the "skeptic" team" bar of the bar chart poll and will serve myself with an appropriately measured portion of humble pie.

6th

IPI wrote:

Personally, I have little or no interest in debating my beliefs or lack thereof in such a general and popularist manner. The arguments have been long established pro and con, and on each side there are those who take salacious delight in ridiculing the other's paradigms. I don't see what can be achieved by subscribers to this forum, who are almost by definition believers in something that others find incredible, inventing counter-arguments to their convictions.

Yes, this is a po-faced response to a light-hearted suggestion, and yes I am completely without humour or any sense of fun, but I don't see the benefits in rehashing, possibly incompletely and inaccurately, the arguments we have all heard and weighed the merits of for ourselves before we arrived at our own conclusions, however fragile and delicately held those conclusions might be.

If I'm wrong about how this is likely to turn out, then I expect I'll see a few more hits in the "Yes, I'd want to be on the "skeptic" team" bar of the bar chart poll and will serve myself with an appropriately measured portion of humble pie.

Ok fair enough you dont want to be involved but can i just say that when it come to the paranormal very little is set in stone (far from it). So places like this forum are very important, people come here to trash out ideas and discuss their experiences. So i believe that it people like us who may eventually find answers. Science wont even spend much time looking at alot of what is possibly going on as there is very little funding and potentially no money to be fund in results.

Ok so you cant see what can be achieved, thats fine sit back in your comfy chair and let everyone else the question

Zombrex

6th wrote:

Science wont even spend much time looking at alot of what is possibly going on as there is very little funding and potentially no money to be fund in results.

Science kinda looks at everything. Because it hasn't found anything doesn't mean it isn't looking. Which is why I'm a little skeptical (no pun intended) that this idea of a skeptic vs non-skeptic debate can actually function as a debate within the framework of what this forum is supposed to be about.

For example, how can the skeptical argument win the debate, since there is always this idea that we just haven't found the evidence for paranormal effect A yet (and claims that this is because science isn't look, as you made above), rather than the claim that it hasn't been found because it isn't there.

And if the skeptical argument can actually win out surely that is going to break the charter by suggesting to future posters and readers that the paranormal phenomona they believe the experiences isn't actually paranormal at all.

I'm having trouble visualising how this debate will actually work.

6th

Wicknight wrote:

Science kinda looks at everything. Because it hasn't found anything doesn't mean it isn't looking.

I'm not coming at this as a stern believer thinking "we'll if science hasnt found ghosts well then science aint lookin hard enough".

I think its pretty safe to say that its not an area that gets alot of funding, its usually up to a passionate few to do the research. Of course i'm saying this as a layman but i dont see a research facility set up to study whether birds cause bad luck? I know on the grand scale of things its not incredibly important to the masses, aids research could do with a bit more cash and is uncomparably more important but to say that the paranormal gets a fair amount of attention just isnt the case.

However if we debate things here maybe we can make things alittle clearer for ourselves?

Cactus Col

I think this is a great idea, while I have absolutley no intention or inclination to take part on either team, I think I would enjoy reading the different sides points of view.

Zombrex

6th wrote:

I think its pretty safe to say that its not an area that gets alot of funding, its usually up to a passionate few to do the research.

Well the skeptic would say that the area of modern biology and physics is the area, in an indirect manner, and that by studing the laws of the universe we can see what is and what is not possible

But I see your point, there is not much direct research into paranormal claims.

6th wrote:

However if we debate things here maybe we can make things alittle clearer for ourselves?

Maybe.

It looks like it has got enough attention so it probably will go ahead, so we will see. I would just think it would be a shame if someone was put off posting in the forum because of the success of a skeptical side in one of the debates. It is after all not really the point of the forum, to disprove paranormal phenomona as being paranormal

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Science kinda looks at everything. Because it hasn't found anything doesn't mean it isn't looking.

Obviously you've never applied for a research grant so.

Which is why I'm a little skeptical (no pun intended) that this idea of a skeptic vs non-skeptic debate can actually function as a debate within the framework of what this forum is supposed to be about.

Erm do you understand the concept of a debate?

For example, how can the skeptical argument win the debate, since there is always this idea that we just haven't found the evidence for paranormal effect A yet (and claims that this is because science isn't look, as you made above), rather than the claim that it hasn't been found because it isn't there.

Ok, I think you are falling into the trap of many posters on boards.ie. Winning a debate isn't about arguing so if thats what you're after please, go somewhere else.

Debating is putting forth your argument for something and reviewing it in light of the the opposing sides argument. That is, your argument stands on its own, not on your attempts to attack the other side. Winning isn't a case of "Ha ha ha you can't answer". It is putting forward a convincing argument yourself that stands up to scrutiny.

And if the skeptical argument can actually win out surely that is going to break the charter by suggesting to future posters and readers that the paranormal phenomona they believe the experiences isn't actually paranormal at all.

Again, this isn't what a debate is. This is what the politics forum is.

I'm having trouble visualising how this debate will actually work.

I'm not sure if you have been to many actual debates or not. I think you have misconceptions over what is involved.

6th

i know that elements of it fit into biology and physics and it would be crazy not to think thats the case but theres a big difference between studying something directly and just applying the same rules that have been found to work for something else.

As for the debate possibly putting people off, a good sticky at the top of the sub-forum should take care of that. Most on here know i'm a stronge believer but i didnt get that way be putting my fingers in my ears and ignoring everyone who thinks differently. I for one welcome this openly!

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

Well the skeptic would say that the area of modern biology and physics is the area, in an indirect manner, and that by studing the laws of the universe we can see what is and what is not possible

Thats a nice dream but not how science research works (or indeed is funded).

It looks like it has got enough attention so it probably will go ahead, so we will see. I would just think it would be a shame if someone was put off posting in the forum because of the success of a skeptical side in one of the debates. It is after all not really the point of the forum, to disprove paranormal phenomona as being paranormal

Actually, I'm still undecided, I'll see what the views and posts are when the poll closes. Until then, we'll try not get sidetracked on this issue at hand everyone (not specifically you wicknight).

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Obviously you've never applied for a research grant so.

Touche

psi wrote:

Erm do you understand the concept of a debate?

Yes, two sides put forward an argument for or against an intial proposition. Eg "Do Ghosts Exists, Discuss"

The format normally follows - coin toss, side A's (the winner) argument for/against proposition. Side B's argument for/against proposition. Side B's reply (normally, why they won the debate), side A's reply.

psi wrote:

Debating is putting forth your argument for something and reviewing it in light of the the opposing sides argument. That is, your argument stands on its own, not on your attempts to attack the other side.

I don't think I mentioned "attacking" the other side. I've never heard of a debate format where you are actually allowed attack the other side.

My point still stands that if the skeptical argument is particularly convincing, much more so than the non-skeptical argument, does this not go against the whole idea of the charter, ie not to put undue doubt or skepticism into the forum in case it discourages future posters from being comfortable to post.

psi wrote:

Winning isn't a case of "Ha ha ha you can't answer". It is putting forward a convincing argument yourself that stands up to scrutiny.

I know. I'm not sure I suggested it was

psi wrote:

Again, this isn't what a debate is. This is what the politics forum is.

If I put forward a convincing argument that ghosts don't exist, that stands up to scrutiny (who's I'm not sure), could that not cause future posters to doubt their own experiences and not post them on this forum?

Is that not the whole point of the forum charter, to avoid the forum invalidating peoples views.

psi wrote:

I'm not sure if you have been to many actual debates or not. I think you have misconceptions over what is involved.

I have, and I don't

Zombrex

theres a big difference between studying something directly and just applying the same rules that have been found to work for something else.

True, but that is kinda how most of science works. The laws of physics and chemistry don't appear to be localised, they seem universal, so they often are generalised out a bit.

This generalistion is sometimes used as argument against science by people like Young Earth Creationists, that you can't actually be sure that the universe works the same everywhere, so light might be different outside the solar system, which is why the universe can be only 6,000 years old, as explained in the Bible

Though funnyly enough, I was reading in New Scientists about a new theory that the universe is kinda like a super-liquid, in which certain behaviour of matter and energy is different at certain extremes, such as around a black hole.

Food for thought I suppose (just don't tell Creationists )

Anyway, this is probably a topic for another thread ...

6th wrote:

As for the debate possibly putting people off, a good sticky at the top of the sub-forum should take care of that.

Thats is a possibility, a kind of SPOILERS for the Paranormal forum, don't read if you are not interested in hearing quite skeptical view points on certain paranormal phenomona (got to learn that word), that kinda thing.

Good thinking 6th, not just a pretty face ...

stevenmu

Wicknight wrote:

I would just think it would be a shame if someone was put off posting in the forum because of the success of a skeptical side in one of the debates. It is after all not really the point of the forum, to disprove paranormal phenomona as being paranormal

I do appreciate the intention of what you're saying here, but I don't think people will take any debates *that* seriously, at least I'd hope not. I don't think anything will be conclusively settled by any of our debates here, if past experience is anything to go by this'll certainly be the case. I see it as just an oppertunity for everyone to see both sides of the argument layed out in a clear, concise and structured manner. Who wins or loses is really a side issue, and the only consequence of it really will be some minor bragging rights.

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Thats a nice dream but not how science research works

Dream?? .. I assure you I don't dream about science research funding

psi wrote:

Actually, I'm still undecided, I'll see what the views and posts are when the poll closes. Until then, we'll try not get sidetracked on this issue at hand everyone (not specifically you wicknight).

Agreed.

I'm coming around to the idea with the SPOILER type alert at the top of the thread titles, and maybe a bit in the charter explaining that skeptical arguments are being put forward in the thread so posters are aware of what they are getting themselves into.

If the person reads something upsetting in the debate after that they only have themselves to blame.

6th

Wicknight wrote:

Good thinking 6th, not just a pretty face ...

Thats what my mum says

Anyway lets let the poll run its course as i'm sure this will get the green light.