3 Rules of Civil Debate

Every definition of truth requires facts.

Facts are indisputable.

Just like a court of law, both the prosecution and defense must agree on the facts.

If you and your opponent disagree about a fact, you must immediately stop the debate and negotiate the point of disputed fact.

Just like a boxing champion, you are only as good as your opponent.

Ridicule is below the belt.

Use logic.

Your identity cannot qualify or disqualify sound logic.

When your opponent makes a valid objection, you have the option to award them a point.

Valid objections strengthen your argument.

Help your opponent strengthen their position by presenting a steel man.

The best debates are the ones that force you to learn something new.

I've sketched out a brief idea of having 3 rules of civil debate -

1 - Establish common ground

2 - Never disqualify your opponent

3 - Only your opponent can grant or deduct points - scores can never go below zero

As a practical matter, only rule 3 needs to be enforced.  I'd also like to see if generosity (in rewarding points) can be rewarded in the ranking system, even though a particular debate may technically be counted as a loss.

I'd also like to add some upper limit to the points you can award your opponent.

Perhaps 6 points per round would be good, and it would be nice to be able to quote your opponent to show why each point was given or taken away.

The points could be awarded per round, or at the end of the debate if that is easier to implement.

I just wouldn't want someone awarding their opponent something like 20,0000 points in order to game the ranking system.

The whole idea is to incentivize open mindedness and encourage logical critique instead of simple bullheadedness and insults/burns/slams/nitpicking.

I also thought it might be worth considering making a self moderated tie count as a win for both parties.

In summary, this is the main lesson (glimmering gem) I learned in the process of this debate -

PRO says, (pr3.1) I'd say that "existence" is probably not the best word to describe noumenon (mainly because the definition of "exists" requires empirical verifiability).  I believe it is a mistake to imagine noumenon as some sort of "thing" when it is merely an amorphous concept that acts as a place-holder for both "what we don't currently know" (Mysterium Invisus) and "what may be fundamentally unknowable" (Magnum Mysterium).  For example, noumenon might be eleventy-trillion layers of sci-fi multiverse, noumenon might be an elaborate alien computer simulation, noumenon might be Brahma's dream, noumenon might be a single super-intelligent (but not omniscient) demiurge that we humans are merely appendages of.  In all likelihood, it is conceptually, literally, ultimately and completely beyond our ability to comprehend.  All of this makes it very very very difficult for me to believe that we can consider (with any degree of confidence whatsoever) that noumenon is itself comprised of 100% pure, uncut, "objective reality".  I mean since noumenon may involve a great many (likely) possibly subjective layers (simulation/dream/multiverse) below our primitive perceptions, although we can deduce with the confidence afforded us by our logic, that there must be, at some level, "real" and "true" and "objective" "reality", we cannot have any confidence that what we are able to perceive has anything-at-all to do with the-hypothetical-objective-essence directly.  It's like the old story of the princess and the pea.  Clearly there is "something" under the bed, but what are the chances that a normal person would be able to detect it through ninety-nine high-quality mattresses(?).

I'm not sure ridicule is generally very good at convincing your debate partner, it plays great with crowds and even with judges, but in one-on-one conversations with your friends and or family members it generally either shuts the other person up or makes them lash out in anger - both of these stifle the free exchange of ideas and as such, I would say that ridicule is a tactic to derail the debate.

I believe the Civil Debate framework is superior (to traditional forms) because it promotes mutual understanding, consensus building and respect.

I also believe it is superior when considering administration.  There is no reason to review votes (saves mods time and user backlash).  There are fewer (probably zero) debates that go unvoted on (which is incredibly frustrating when both parties have dedicated a lot of time and energy to produce a quality debate).