Debate section.

[Miguel]

It appears we are debating about a debate section in here :l WHERE ARE YOU CITATIONS PEOPLE HUR HUR!!!

Debate zone seems fitting for serious topics, mostly because those silly "Best pokemon" and "Pepsi vs Coke" aren't anything more than simple opinions without much fact to prove why one is superior to the other. If you took into account health, studies involving intelligence based on such things, etc then that's a different story, but I'm almost sure there have been no studies involving such things.

I do like the idea of the "non-serious debate" forum though, but General Discussion is suitable for these topics right now imo

[Harry Potter]

Everything doesn't belong in the spam pile and I dont think it should go in general chat. People like to talk about different things and they should have the option to do it.

I think the sub forum is a good idea, I will talk to joe about it.

[Steve]

Thanks Sherri!

[Harry Potter]

No problem, an intellectual debate is nice once in a while and there are times when you just dont feel like thinking much lol

[Cara]

Thanks Sherri !! A sub forum or something is better than filling the general section with small debates ;P

[Miguel]

We can't thank me too for saying it was a good idea? ;-;

[Cara]

^ thank youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[Inq]

Not all debates have to be "serious", as such. Sure, the two topics there right now may be a little morbid, but there will be other discussions open at a later date. I have an idea or two myself that may change the pace a little. I'll write them up after the holidays.

However, if you want something completely different in structure to what Ben has laid out - something more along the lines of the debate section of the previous forum, as I'm guessing you're thinking of - then the answer lies in creating a new place for that, rather than trying to change something that already fills a needed role.

Tl;dr version: Don't piss in my pool.

[IndigoSunset]

On a related issue so didn't want to start a new thread- Can there be some flexibility in the application of the minimum sentence rules? For example, my latest in the death penalty debate thread is only 3 sentences, but they are substantial, make points and raise issues to help develop the debate. Moreover, if every post is huge then it discourages others from participating, whereas if there is more of a variety then it encourages participation. I'm not suggesting we remove the rule on no spam and a suggested minimum post length, merely that it is not enforced strictly but rather in context.

[Ben]

On a related issue so didn't want to start a new thread- Can there be some flexibility in the application of the minimum sentence rules? For example, my latest in the death penalty debate thread is only 3 sentences, but they are substantial, make points and raise issues to help develop the debate. Moreover, if every post is huge then it discourages others from participating, whereas if there is more of a variety then it encourages participation. I'm not suggesting we remove the rule on no spam and a suggested minimum post length, merely that it is not enforced strictly but rather in context.

I was thinking of 3-5 sentences instead of 5 for replies. Initial posts should still have a 5 sentence argument at least..