"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
And so you rightfully address that as a form of improper decorum within a debate setting. Why are we relying on a third party to make the arguments on behalf of the debaters? If the debaters cannot handle themselves, that is a failure of the debaters.
Also, weren't you the one that suggested the idea of rigid time limits which is far more susceptible to the abuse of Gish Galloping?
I also conceited that rigid time limits are not perfect, just better than what was presented.
As far as life fact check goes, there is a difference between arguing a point and making a false assertion. A proper and truly neutral live fact check would shut down false assertions, allowing the debaters to focus purely on arguing points.
This level of naive idealism is entirely pointless. It will NEVER happen. The establishment might not allow an unmoderated debate, but at least that's feasible debate. Having a mythical "truly neutral moderator" is wishful thinking.
Stop imagining systems and structures that are built around having a central authority figure. Those roles will NEVER be filled by those pure people you want to imagine into existence. It's an impractical fantasy.
"Fact checking" is explicitly antithetical to the nature of a debate though. The whole point is that both sides are meant to argue for their points and against their opponents. That isn't the role of the moderator, it's the role of the people debating.
There's no kind way of sugar-coating it: stop conceding ground.
without a live fact check, the winning strategy in a debate is Gish Gallop.
And so you rightfully address that as a form of improper decorum within a debate setting. Why are we relying on a third party to make the arguments on behalf of the debaters? If the debaters cannot handle themselves, that is a failure of the debaters.
Also, weren't you the one that suggested the idea of rigid time limits which is far more susceptible to the abuse of Gish Galloping?
I also conceited that rigid time limits are not perfect, just better than what was presented.
As far as life fact check goes, there is a difference between arguing a point and making a false assertion. A proper and truly neutral live fact check would shut down false assertions, allowing the debaters to focus purely on arguing points.
This level of naive idealism is entirely pointless. It will NEVER happen. The establishment might not allow an unmoderated debate, but at least that's feasible debate. Having a mythical "truly neutral moderator" is wishful thinking.
Stop imagining systems and structures that are built around having a central authority figure. Those roles will NEVER be filled by those pure people you want to imagine into existence. It's an impractical fantasy.