OfA – Open for Arguments – is a cooperative debate challenge. Points are awarded if the participants succeed in persuading each other to change their position. OfA is conducted in the format of an online text chat.
Problems and purpose
OfA – Open for Arguments – is a cooperative debate challenge. OfA serves
- to conduct a structured controversy in a protected space
- identifying those points where there is real disagreement in a debate
- the identification of points of agreement or which, although potentially controversial, are not addressed at all
- to provide information on controversial topics
Unlike most other debate formats, Ofa isn't about convincing a jury with well-thought-out arguments and brilliant rhetoric, but rather about persuading each other to change their position. Changing positions doesn't mean abandoning one's own opinions and beliefs. It's sufficient to adapt, expand, or otherwise modify a (preliminarily) formulated point of view in certain aspects. OfA is conducted in the format of an online text chat. The discussion takes place on a set date and lasts two hours.
Origins and development
OfA is based on the successful English-language online format "Change my View." Change my View is a community on the social media platform Reddit and has existed since 2013. Compared to the original, OfA operates with simplified rules. A debate analysis has also been added as an additional feature.
Participant recruitment and selection
An "Open for Arguments" event requires 10 to 50 participants. Ideally, participants are personally recruited in advance.
How it works: Process, interaction and decision making
OfA is conducted in the format of an online text chat. The discussion takes place on a set date and lasts two hours. Players attempt to use their text contributions to persuade the defense to change their position. There are two roles: defense and discussion participant.
Defense : You are logged into our discussion platform and are entering the debate with a thesis. This thesis should be deliberately concise—precisely so that you have the opportunity to go into detail and modify it as the discussion progresses. When the debate begins at a set time, the discussion participants will send text messages with questions and objections related to their thesis. As a defender, you have two tasks. First, you respond substantively to the incoming messages. Second, whenever an objection causes you to change your initial thesis in any way, you must explicitly state and demonstrate this.
Discussion participants : You are logged into our discussion platform and are trying to persuade the defense to change its position with your written contributions. You know that if you simply present the (mostly well-known) counterarguments on the matter, the defense will only respond with the (also mostly well-known) answers. Therefore, feel invited to instead address points that may not be as clear-cut as they appear in the brevity of the initial thesis. Clarifying inaccuracies and discussing detailed questions opens up opportunities for compromise and can create a common understanding. Either way: In your contributions, you refer specifically to the defense's thesis and address it. Feel free to write a separate text contribution for each idea and argument – this makes it easier for the other discussion participants to refer to it. Finally: What you write does not have to reflect your personal opinion. Feel free to play the devil's advocate! (Please feel free to mention this in your post if it is important to you to keep your own opinion clear) The common goal of the debaters and the defense is to explore the arguments in as many directions as possible within a democratic discourse.
Your goal is to gain argument points for convincing the defense to change its initial position. The moderator will monitor the discussions and, in appropriate situations, will point them out and award argument points together with the defense.
Example :
Moderation: “Mr. X, in your initial thesis you have particularly advocated for regionally produced hydrogenff. In the discussion (e.g., here [link]), however, you also showed yourself open to other options and favored an import model. Wouldn't that be an opportunity to signal to the discussants that you would be willing to modify your original thesis? In that case, we would award one argument point. Okay?"
Defense: “Okay!”
Moderator: “An ARGUMENT POINT for the forum contributions that led the defense to admit the weaknesses of regionally produced hydrogen in Saxony!
The moderators accompany the online discussion with questions, provide links to other posts and focus the discussion if necessary.
Game elements
persons
- Someone who takes on the role of defense
- Participants
- Moderators
material
- A chat forum. The simplest solution is an open messenger group (e.g., on Signal). More sophisticated, but also richer in features, are commercial platforms like discourse.org, www.rocket.chat , or discord.com.
- An initial thesis
organization
- Appointment scheduling
- Implementation and moderation
- Evaluation
Moderation guidelines
The moderator asks participants to adhere to the rules and netiquette. When it comes to netiquette, the moderator closely follows the usual rules. The goal is to avoid harming anyone and prevent gross misuse of the debate forum. With regard to the rules, the moderator acts more generously. Here, it's more about following the spirit than the letter of the original rules. These include the following characteristics:
Promote open-mindedness:
OfA is intended to strengthen the willingness to question and change one’s own opinions
OfA is intended to foster a spirit of intellectual humility. Changing one's own perspectives/opinions should signal strength, not weakness:
Constructive dialogue as an attitude:
OfA is not about winning a debate, but about exploring the rationale behind different perspectives
Politeness, discussion in good faith and argumentative approach instead of personal attacks or “point wins” are part of good manners at OfA
Improve argumentation quality
Contributions should be well thought out, clearly reasoned and supported by evidence.
The format rewards substantive arguments instead of rhetorical tricks or purely emotional appeals.
Promote a change of perspective
By engaging with well-structured counterarguments, participants gain a better understanding of alternative perspectives.
Even if they don't completely change their minds, they ideally leave the discussion with a more nuanced perspective.
Analysis and lessons learned
The project team will subsequently evaluate the debate. The key findings are:
- On which points within a topic are there really different opinions?
- Where are approaches possible?
- Which arguments succeed in moving the other side and which do not?
The results of the evaluation will be made publicly available.
External links
https://offen-fuer-argumente.de
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/
https://www.bbc.co
