I think that 7 days is quite sufficient. We are agreed, then.Thanatos wrote:I'll have to take that as an affirmative.As stated above, I am willing to debate you on an individual basis.
The format needs to get knocked out first before any scenario. I acquiesce to the point about delays in posting and instead propose that it be done in open ended rounds with a maximum delay of 7 days between emailed responses.
I am ready to start the debate now.This gives leeway for personal engagements and research while keeping it to a maximum schedule. I also proposed a delayed start after all details are finalized to give each side research time. I prefer a 5-10 round limit.
From prior experience, I would suggest that we go to the low end of that range. After having already argued over the topic for a number of posts, we should be able to hash over matters fairly completely in an exchange of ten posts total (5 each).
I would also like to propose a limit of 2500 words, with word counts not including quotes of each other or source material, per post.
That would mean that the reply to material would be delayed by up to two weeks. I think one week is adequate time to respond.Given the more open ended schedule, I would then propose that the posting of responses be delayed by two rounds.
I would rather go first myself and be shorted the final reply than try to manage a "simultaneous" e-mail exchange debate.For format, I prefer the format of simultaneous answer with the first part of each response being a rebuttal to the arguments made in the previous round and the second part being a new argument. Each person tells the other when they have completed theres and when both are done, they are exchanged.
This keeps the debate on even footing rather than the person who responds first being put on the defensive.
I am willing to hear a counter proposal on rules to see if we can come to a consensus.
If you are of the opinion that going first is a disadvantage, then if we're to try to be fair, we should outline some mutually willing compromise.
I do not consider going first a disadvantage, although I consider going last to be a minor advantage. Since you didn't mention that, I am quite willing to make both a brief (<1000 word) first post (putting me "on the defensive," as you put it, for the remainder of the argument) and close with a brief (<1000 word) final rebuttal. I, of course, think that gives me an advantage; if you think it gives you an advantage, we should go with that.
We could also pick randomly who goes first, but if you will not agree to sequential posting any other way, I am quite willing to take the relatively minor structural disadvantage of posting first and allowing you the final post in turn. It is not very important IMO.
