- We must decide on the form of the debate. If the form is to be based in logic or in rhetoric or in chaos/humour then it should only take one form, not mixed.
- Logic drives towards proving a truth
- Rhetoric drives at persuasion by values
- Chaos/ humour is an exercise in entertainment
- A subject should be agreed upon and tangents must be mutually agreed.
- Each proponent must exercise patience and good nature.
- Listening to your opponent creates value in the argument.
- Each proponent must suppose that his opponent has a world view that is different from his own and therefore will see all facts from that perspective.
- Argument is allowed to be persuasive.
- The goal is to understand your opponent’s viewpoint, not necessarily agree with it.
- Each proponent speaks for his side and it is the listeners who must decide which one they agree with.
- Speaking over the other proponent or interrupting cheapens the debate.
- If one speaker goes too long the other one has a right to call time. Time should be mutually agreed.
- Debate can be verbal, or by writing, through whatever media is agreed upon.
- The debate may be limited by the proponents to the two beginners or they may allow others comment by initial agreement.
Please tell me what you think…
craigmanderson 
This is quite interesting Craig.
I have been thinking recently on what the Bible says about discord and contention (say, for example Proverbs 13:10) and have been wondering if this could be applied to any sort discussion that uses opposition or argument. Is there any sort of of debate that does not source itself from pride, whether well-intentioned or otherwise?
We could consider that verses such as the above apply only where discussion becomes heated (which you provide a great framework above to avoid), but does the ability to conduct ourselves gracefully change our core motivation?
I am wondering also if argument is ever really that successful anyway. From observation, it seems much more likely to win someone over, when the other party is receptive. In a debate situation, or as soon as any conversation becomes adversarial, it appears to me that the opponent is switched to a mode where they are actively rejecting your ideas rather than thoughtfully considering them (or if considering them, only so to counter them).
I am humbled as I say this (externally sourced humility, that is – i.e. humiliated) because I personally can be quite adversarial
Your observations are so true Matt. In many cases the opponents are adversarial and so much energy is wasted trying to convert your opponent who isnt listening. These assummptions call to a better motive to understand and be understood, which is empowering and I guess limited to those who are at least a somewhat mature in character. So the goal isnt to ocnvert but to understand. I would like to debate some deeper issues with others just to stimulate my thinking and clarify my beliefs and see a bigger world.
Very good Craig. “Understand rather than convert” – I can see how that can work to completely change both your motives and how you discuss them.