Welcome to the Crucible

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Dear all,

I would like to introduce you to a new section opening in the Square called the Crucible - so named, because it is where ideas and opinions on a range of issues will be forged in the white heat of debate.

I have already explained briefly the procedure for initiating and maintaining debate here:

http://www.nigeriavillagesquare.com/...-proposal.html

However, for the avoidance of confusion, I will list the rules here again:

1. The Debate opens when a villager (who I will refer to now on as the Proponent) creates a thread whose title will contain a description of the issue he wishes to debate.

2. In the first post on this thread, the Proponent will state his position in a single sentence. He will then call for villagers who wish to debate against this position to do so. He should keep the issue simple (i.e. not to try to cram too many issues into the debate) otherwise the debate can easily be led off-track.

Optionally, the Proponent can explain why he holds this position - he doesn't have to do this, but it will speed up the debate and encourage responses if he does.

Only timeless issues will be debated, not news stories. This means that a topic like "It is right for Ribadu to be redeployed" is not acceptable; however, a topic like "Government officials should have fixed terms of service that can only altered by a clear presidential statement" is.

Also, any position that a Debater holds in a debate should not be deemed to be a position they hold outside the debate, and as such any argument made within the debate such not be referenced elsewhere.

3. Any villager wishing to debate against the Proponent will then signify their intention by making posts on the newly created thread stating their positions also in a single sentence. They may (optionally) state why they hold their positions.

4. The Proponent must then clearly indicate who (of all the respondents) he wishes to debate with. (I will refer to this selected villager as the Opponent, and to both of them together as the Debaters.)

5. Once the Opponent has been selected, a Moderator needs to be chosen. The role of the Moderator will be:

- to keep the debate focused by reminding the Debaters to stay on-topic;

- to weed out off-topic posts by alerting a board moderator to these so that they can either be moved to another thread or deleted entirely (see point 10);

- to end the Debate if one of the Debaters fails to respond in good time (see point 8) or if she feels the debate has gone on for too long (see point 12);

- to summarise the points made by the Debaters at the end of the thread (see point 13).

The Moderator can either be chosen by the Proponent and/or Opponent issuing a call on the thread for a Moderator and then picking from the list of volunteers, or by approaching specific villagers and asking them to moderate.

6. The Debaters may choose not to debate with a Moderator is one isn't available. However, they have to then trust that they will not stray off-topic, and they will have to fully take on the role of policing the thread for off-topic or insulting posts by alerting a board moderator to these. Lastly, they themselves will need to produce a fair summary of their positions at the end of the debate.

7. Once a Moderator has been chosen, the debate may start. The Proponent will start by responding to the first post made by the Opponent in which he stated his position; after this, the Opponent will respond to this new post by the Proponent, and so on.

8. A Debater must respond to a post within 36 hours, otherwise the Moderator may declare the Debater as absent and may choose to end the debate. If a Debater knows that they will not be available in the next 36 hours, they should make a post on the debate thread informing everyone of the next possible date they will be able to make a post. If the absent Debater fails to make a post before or on the date they have set, then the Moderator may choose to end the debate.

9. No other villager may participate in the debate - only the Proponent, Opponent and Moderator may make posts on the debate thread. If a villager wishes to make a comment or ask a question, he should create a new thread (preferably with a similar title to the debate thread) - but he should do this only if a thread like this does not exist already. Then he can make his post there. Such a thread will not be moderated, so the thread will just be like any other thread on the board.

10. If a villager other than the Debaters and Moderator makes a post on the debate thread, the Moderator will cause a new thread to be created and cause the villager's post to be moved to that thread. He may also cause insulting posts to be deleted in their entirety.

11. If a Debater feels he has been insulted in a post, he can ask his fellow Debater to amend the offending post or to delete it entirely. The fellow Debater may comply, or he may insist that his post should stand and give his reasons. The offended Debater has two options - he may accept the reason given, or he may choose not to debate any further, in which case the debate ends.

12. The debate ends when:

- Either of the Debaters calls for it to end because they have made all the points they can make on the issue;

- The Moderator ends the debate because it has run on for too long, say over a month (this is not hard and fast, though);

- The Moderator ends the debate because one of the Debaters has been absent for longer than the stipulated period (see point 8);

- Either of the Debaters calls for it to end because they have been insulted by their fellow Debater and don't wish to continue debating with him (see point 11).

13. At the end of the Debate, the Moderator will produce a summary of the points made by both Debaters. This will be helpful to those who revisit the debate at a future date and who may not have the time to go through every single post made to determine the positions of both Debaters.



[I have deleted the examples I gave, as we now have real world examples of how a debate may proceed.]



To get things off to a smooth start, I'll offer my services as debate moderator for the first three debates unconditionally. After that... well, we'll see.

So - if you are interested in debating an issue with someone else, open a new thread, issue a call for debaters and get going!

[WallaceBobo]

May I suggest a topic of debate based on comments from Abati's recent depressing article "Will Nigeria ever make it?". Abati, mentioned in that article that he believed the solutions to Naija's problems lies with its leaders. I think it was Wayfarer, in the comments section that disagreed, saying he believed citizens (not leaders) should be the catalyst of change.

To be honest I'm not quite sure which side of these two arguments I'm on as I've not really thought it through, but I'd sure like to see a debate on it to help make up my mind.
So are there villagers out there who're convinced of where the catalyst for change in naija lies and are willing to debate it?

[lizmoses]

May I suggest a topic of debate based on comments from Abati's recent depressing article "Will Nigeria ever make it?". Abati, mentioned in that article that he believed the solutions to Naija's problems lies with its leaders. I think it was Wayfarer, in the comments section that disagreed, saying he believed citizens (not leaders) should be the catalyst of change.

To be honest I'm not quite sure which side of these two arguments I'm on as I've not really thought it through, but I'd sure like to see a debate on it to help make up my mind.
So are there villagers out there who're convinced of where the catalyst for change in naija lies and are willing to debate it?

WallaceBobo,

I commend your wisdom in suggesting this topic as a first in its category.

Wheareas you are not quite sure on which side of the fence you wish to sit considering Abati's argument, I think I am positive I will like to join those who will argue against Abati.

But first and foremost, I think the article needs to be retitled to reflect whether it is a problem of leadership or the citizens. Admin please?

Except of course, you consider it better to argue for or against the topic as it is which I think may be too generalised and also influenced by personal opinion for instance I am very optimistic that Nigeria will make it but that's just my personal feeling.

If we then say, Is Nigeria able to make it? it sounds better because we then need to support our answers with what we think Nigeria do/do not possess to make/not make it.

Thank you.

[wolvrine]

"During the debate, it is possible that Nkolo will make a post as follows:

Nkala, can you explain again how the government will raise the money to finance the scheme?

Nkala may choose to respond if he wishes - in other words, he is not bound by the 36 hour time limit rule for this question. However, if Nkolo asks Nkulu to ask the question and Nkulu asks it, then Nkala must respond"

Am I the only one feeling confused by all this?

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Wolvrine,

I've amended the part of the post you refer to in order to make it clearer.



WallaceBobo,

If you don't want to debate the matter yourself, you'll have to wait for someone who does.

[Kenn]

Shoko & All,


>>>Since independence, the government has neglected its duty of supplying its citizens safe drinking water. This has led to many avoidable deaths from illnesses like cholera and typhoid. I move the motion that the government holds as its top priority the nationwide installation of a network of pipes to supply every citizen drinking water. I also call on anyone who opposes this motion and wishes to debate the issue with me should signify their intention on this thread.<<<



I do not think this is a very good example. It’s a truism and nobody debates truisms. I mean, there can be no argument that government ought to provide safe-drinking water. Any motion to the effect that government should install a network of pipes to supply every citizen drinking water is a non-argument. There is nothing viable to argue in the alternative. It would be a different t thing if the motion is presented like this: “I move the motion that the government’s top priority should be the supply of safe pipe-borne water to all citizens rather than electricity” or “Government’s top priority should be the supply of safe pipe-borne water to all citizens rather than electricity” . In other words, which is more important for Nigeria right now – water or electricity? Of course, both are important. If we were discussing this in normal discussion threads outside The Crucible, we will all be saying things like both are important and government should strive to meet both needs and so on. But in a debate of the nature we’re initiating here, we have to make some assumptions. The fun is that people are debating from two opposite sides – two ‘extremes’, if you like. It's not about consensus. The whole idea is to see how far people can go to defend a position, how much facts they can muster, how good they are at public speaking or convincing people that their view wins the day. It’s not about this view being true or false – it’s about the art of debate, the art of using words and indeed emotions to swing views.

Now, I understand Shoko’s attempt to initiate the debate in a way acceptable to every party; but that approach is simply too cumbersome. Debates of this nature, as I pointed out above, is not to establish truth. It is simply to show skill at making convincing arguments in support of a narrowed down proposition or against it. So, really, all we need to begin the debate are first the Proposer and then Opposer. The Proposer would be the person who formally raises the motion and the Opposer would be the first person to oppose the motion. Once the Proposer and Opposer have been established, both can then use the PM to consult with each other and make a choice of Moderator. Once they’ve done so, they communicate their intention to the fellow, who, if he agrees, then comes to the thread to introduce himself/herself as the Moderator while the debate then goes on. Of course, Shoko has offered to moderate the first three debates; the approach I’m proposing here can therefore begin with the fourth debate.

So, if we take Shoko’s example above, all Nkala has to do is open a thread with the following proposition: “The Nigerian government should make the provision of pipe-borne water to every citizen an urgent and immediate priority rather than the provision of electricity”. Nkala in that opening post will then make his opening submission to support the proposition. So, his proposition and initial thesis in support comes at once. At this point, the only other post to follow this must be from an Opposer. If anyone feels like supporting Nkala, but there isn’t an Opposer yet, that supporter must hold his/her post until an Opposer posts and the debate formally begins. Indeed, the person must hold their post until after the third post which must be from the Moderator, introducing himself and telling us the debate is formally on. We don’t need the Nkilis of this world – once a post like that comes into the thread, it should be deleted immediately from the thread and Nkili should be banned from that particular debate. People must simply debate, not insult others. If the insult is coming from the Proposer or Opposer, we can follow Shoko’s guidelines.

On WallaceBobo’s suggestion for debate topic, let me say as much as we can take inspiration from articles written by others, they cannot be the basis of the debate. For instance, we cannot be debating such a thing as whether or not Nigeria will ever make it. Apart from it not being a viable debating topic, Abati is not a Proposer here, so his topic or all it stands for need not be an issue. But a good proposition inspired by the article could be framed like this: “Nigeria’s problem lies with the leaders, not the citizens/followers”. A Proposer will start this as a topic and an Opposer will follow and then they get the Moderator, etc.



CHEERS!

[katampe]

Ken says :

The whole idea is to see how far people can go to defend a position, how much facts they can muster, how good they are at public speaking or convincing people that their view wins the day. It’s not about this view being true or false – it’s about the art of debate, the art of using words and indeed emotions to swing views.

Katampe adds:

It shouldn't be about defending a position , rather it should be about developing the art of effective reasoning. I believe this enables us to learn something new from the debate that could be the basis for policy (decision) , a new idea, or a new way of looking at things.

Pushing it further, it should be about preponderance of evidence that shows that the probability of your proposition is higher. I would wish to take emotion out of it because when we move into the province of emotion (it raises dubious arguments), and we are ultimately entering the province of rhetoric that we argue for arguing sake.

It is what I was against in my earlier critique of setting up the crucible.This should be about the exploration of an idea and devleopment of substantive arguments for that idea.

Finally, Ken you put forward a concrete suggestion of setting up the debate proposition.SLB has done well so far , I hope as it evolves it continues to be fine tuned.

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Kenn,

Just so that I understand you correctly, are you suggesting that the Proposer must debate the first person that makes a post opposing his motion?

If this is so, then what if the proposer doesn't want to debate with such a person? I'm very big on people doing things out of free will rather than coercion, so I don't know if this is a good idea. But let's see how my idea flies; even before the fourth debate, if it's obvious that it's cumbersome, then we can switch to your proposal.

Yes, you are correct that Nkala (the Proposer) should not just make a proposition, but a defence of that proposition (just as the Opposer will make his proposition and his defence of it). I will amend the guidelines appropriately.

(This paragraph is also directed to Katampe): I'm hesitant to propose that the debate should be about reasoning to a common ground or about holding one's position to the end. I would say that the debate should flow according to the temperament and passion of the debaters; some debaters seek to explore positions and ideas; some seek to propagate their beliefs. So I don't want to insist on the debate taking a particular course, since both styles of debate are equally informative and entertaining.

OK, everyone else - the floor is open. If you wish to debate, open a thread, state your position and let the words begin to flow!

[WallaceBobo]

Kenn said:

On WallaceBobo’s suggestion for debate topic, let me say as much as we can take inspiration from articles written by others, they cannot be the basis of the debate. For instance, we cannot be debating such a thing as whether or not Nigeria will ever make it.

Did you actually read my post? I wasn't asking for a debate on whether Naija can make it or not.

By all means let the debates begin!! I'm rubbing my hands with glee waiting with bated breath.

Dear villagers, don't disaapoint me!

[mulan]

Shoko,

I'll be grateful if you could list out the rules so people like me can get this correctly. For instance,

1. The proposer opens the thread with his/ her topic and scant clarifications OR must it be with thesis?

2. The opposer(s) follow on with expression of interest OR just one opposer follows on with thesis?

etc...

[Big-K]

SLB,

Should topics that are subject of ongoing debates be brought here as well? I think that will simply splinter the board further.

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Mulan,

I've edited my first post in response to your request.



Big K,

Please no. It will create too much confusion.

[Big-K]

In that case, why are we having two debates on Gbenga's divorce?

I think the crucible should focus on timeless topics and not on current events.

[WallaceBobo]

Big-K

or you could try just letting people debate what they want?

Cheers!

[Big-K]

Originally Posted by WallaceBobo

Big-K

or you could try just letting people debate what they want?

Cheers!

No doubt about that and I'm for free-flowing debates. But having three ongoing debates on the same topic defeats the purpose of setting up the crucible. Doesn't it? I mean we have an ongoing debate on the Main Square. Why bring the exact same topic here? I probably just don't get it...

[Shoko Loko Bangoshe]

Big K,

This is true. But I think that most people will not be interested in being a debater or moderator on a topic when there is already a debate on that topic going on. And even if people do want to debate a topic in multiple debates, if that's what the people want, then that should be what the people get - democracy at its best.

[Big-K]

SLB,

We'll probably have to disagree on this. We've always been against multiplicity of topics. My understanding of the idea behind the crucible is that this will be a place to discuss positions, and not events. The main Square is there for ongoing news and events; the comments area is there to react and discuss articles, and this section is here to debate topics and positions that are not ongoing events and articles. If we simply allow any topic to come here in the name of democracy, the purpose is defeated, and we should just allow other duplicate topics to flourish - its democracy at its best.

Anyway, we'll see how things evolve

[Eja]

I agree that rather than allow a situation to develop whereby the Crucible becomes the location of formalised debates around current events, it may be better to recommend that debaters seek to engage with those pervasive ethics, principles and perspectives whose adherence to (or denial of) bring about outcomes that influence the lives of most of us.

By so doing, it is possible that in time, this location will grow to become the first choice resource for ones seeking discussions that are purely ideas based.

For example, SLB in his first post used as an example of a debatable topic, the issue of water supply....well, instead of specifically picking on water supply as an issue, why not make the subject the pros and cons of government involvement in the provision of public utilities? That way, the arguments that are presented can be extended not only to cover water supply issues, but also other matters like power generation/supply and the construction/maintenance of transportation networks.

So, it is my opinion that while Villagers may be inspired to initiate a debate by something that was recently in the news, the best (and most rewarding) debates will be the ones that are based on challenging (or defending) the ideas/principles that are represented by the event itself.

Therefore, prospective initiators of debates may find it more useful to avoid titles that refer to specific current events and, to avoid an over reliance on one specific event when presenting their initial arguments.

Reason : Should it later turn out that the first accounts of the event in question were flawed, the arguments presented in the course of the debate will still be relevant - since the now fictional event will still be valid (much in the same way that the hypothetical situation that is used to initiate a successful thought experiment retains its validity).

[WaleAkin]

Big K, Eja,

The current debate on the crucible page is about our fast eroding traditional beliefs that borders on mutual respect, family values, good upbringing and parental heritage etc.

Now because i have been opportuned to speak with you guys on numerous occassions, i conclude that you both are embedded with such good values.

Thanks

[Mirinda]

Originally Posted by Big-K

The main Square is there for ongoing news and events; the comments area is there to react and discuss articles, and this section is here to debate topics and positions that are not ongoing events and articles. If we simply allow any topic to come here in the name of democracy, the purpose is defeated, and we should just allow other duplicate topics to flourish - its democracy at its best.

I agree with Big_K here. If a topic is being discussed elsewhere on the board, issues surrounding the topic may be better off brought here. We are already discussing Gbenga Obasanjo's saga. Maybe if Wale's thread is focused more on one issue; Should children disrespect their parents regardless of the offence, it'd be better. Debating what happened when we don't even have the true picture yet, is taking away from the initial post in the Main Square.

My 1 cedi