Date:         Sun, 21 Dec 1997 23:39:46 EST
From: Alphabet Brand <mbarker@MIT.EDU>
Subject:      FILLER: Just Imagine...

Since we have irregular claims to be "debating" something....

Suppose we could do it up proper?  Say...something like...I'm thinking
at the keyboard here, so don't shoot me if I don't write it perfect...

Hector and Philea (and some others, at times) get into a wrangle about
something.

One of them (or someone watching) says "Why don't you hold a DEBATE?"

So we get a statement of the topic and dates...

First, get a "neutral" judge (or a small panel)

(does the judge restate the topic?)

Within two days (or something) declare sides (people mail short
position statements to the judges, who put together and post a
consolidated list of the participants and the sides).  (or maybe keep
them anonymous?)

Within...five? days - 1,000 word statements for each side.  One and
only one statement.  Again, route them through the judges, who post
to the list.

Within two days -- 500 word rebuttal statements.

Within one day -- 200 word summary/final statements

then take three days to vote?  let the judges collect and post the
totals?

Holding a formal debate on a list?  that sounds...(no, don't tell
me...)

what do you think?  could we do it?

[oh, drat...I forgot...Hector and Philea?  They both get a public
forum for their views, but expressed in a well-defined format that
allows them to disagree while still working together at making the
debate a success...]

thanks
tink