I generally feel like oral debates tend to lack nuance, be unconcise, and even worse, allow for many half-facts without proper sources.

Typed, email-like debates where experts can go back and forth in short, typed paragraphs allow time for quality cross-referencing and give the ability to present a more nuanced point of view.

Are there any sources that allow for overseeing typed debates like this?

  • 2
    Are you talking about debates in general (for example in a school debate club). Or is this about debates in a national parliament (which one?) or are you taking about debates between candidates in the US presidential elections? What are you asking for "source that allow for overseeing" Do you mean "resources for chairing a typed debate" – James K Aug 1 '19 at 23:43
  • I mean more so debates on particular issues, so I can be better informed on both sides. Examples could be: should x be legalized, how should people respond to y, does it make sense to do z. When I state I want a source for oversight, I mean I want a site where I wouldn't be the person debating, but rather, I can see previously held debates between skilled members of both sides. – andrewgazelka Aug 2 '19 at 4:06
  • 2
    I don't think such a thing exists. There are web forums, comment threads and so on. The evidence is that when people respond in text and not speech, they are ruder, more random, more ad hominem, than when face to face. If nobody makes a better answer, this'll become one. – James K Aug 2 '19 at 6:59

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .