Best debate rules?

If you could organize a debate where the debaters had to follow the rules, what rules would you make?

I think the best rules would be: 1 - Define all terms 2 - Answer all questions 3 - Standardized arguments (prose optional)

Standardizing means numbering the statements, writing them out in clear, simple language, and putting them in a logical order - premises before conclusion.

Thoughts?

Sounds good to me.  Now that we can create groups, someone who is willing to moderate could create a "Debate Group" or a "Fight Club" (), which would be easier than having the debate on the main forums.

I would add: 4 - begin with a relevant premise in common.

I have only one: admit that I'm right. It'll save a lot of time.

-Jon

Jon Irenicus:

I have only one: admit that I'm right. It'll save a lot of time.

-Jon

lol

Morty:

I would add: 4 - begin with a relevant premise in common.

This, and: 5 - Require further definitions of terms upon request.

I highly recommend throwing in Carl Sagan's baloney detection kit. It's essentially a list of logical fallacies and errors to look for.

Thanks!  I'll put that link in the group.

Where do people learn these latin words to describe arguments?

solos:

Where do people learn these latin words to describe arguments?

They are most likely quoting from their handbooks on logic. Don't know, if they do really understand what they are talking about.

Anyway. First thing in a debate one should decide on the mode. Is it a constructive debate or is it a polemical debate? Differents sets of rules may apply.

What should be avoided is stuff like malicious deconstructing and people should at least try to understand what the other party wants to say,

delete

I don't know about others, but I learn them from philosophy books I read, and occassionally economics ones. And I do know how to use them.

-Jon