For the Sake of Argument

[Three_Haligonians]

Having frequented these boards, I got to thinking about argument (not to be confused with fighting) and forums in the original sense of the words. That is to say, the original Greek forums where people came together to...well...argue certain points in order to come to a community understanding. Of course, I began thinking about these forums in regard to roleplay and I thought to myself "wouldn't it be awesome to run a traditional forum in a game some time?".

Players participating in the forum would most likely be arguing a point central to the storyline. Challange Rating could be based (through some formula) on the intellegence score of your opponent, succeeding on an intellegence check could provide the character with a point, suplied by the DM, charisma checks could be made to win over the audience, etc.

Problem is, I know very little about the original rules for an open forum and debate. Were time limits imposed, as with our current political debates? I know about the fallacy ad hominum (probably spelled wrong), but were there other general fallacys I'm not aware of? Was there a decided "winner" at the end of the debate?

How would you run this sort of thing?
Thanks in advance, folks!

T from Three Haligonians

 

[Dakkareth]

I know about the fallacy ad hominum

I'm no expert, but I don't think anything was forbidden in that regard, though crude insults would get you nowhere. If you're a master of rhethorics, though, ridiculing your opponent is about as good a tactic as it gets - remember, it's all very personal, people know, that it's that weird neighbour, who's taking a metaphorical beating.

As for time limits - in 'court' hearings, time was allotted to the contrahent by use of a water clock, that's what I remember. It makes sense to extend that mechanic to general debates - though if you're a good speaker and the people gathered on the forum want you to continue, it will of course be ignored.

Diplomacy or perform: speech would be mechanics well suited to the task - opposed checks most likely.

That said I'm ashamed, that after several years of learning classical greek my knowledge isn't as exact or broad as I'd like

 

[Mystery Man]

"No it isn't"

 

[Terwox]

Here's a list of fallacies in arguments:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
(There's 42 there, and all of those use English titles instead of the typical Latin.)
Also... I couldn't find the rules for debate quickly, but, I can't say relegating it to mechanics would be terribly entertaining for me, and I imagine it wouldn't be much fun for most people.
It might be fun as a simple contested roll, but an extended set of rolls to determine where to attack each other's arguments... nah. In my opinion.
But if you like it, have at it!

 

[reanjr]

"No it isn't"

"Yes it is"

 

[Rel]

"Yes it is"

"This isn't an argument! It's just contradiction!"

 

[Queen_Dopplepopolis]

"This isn't an argument! It's just contradiction!"

"No it isn't."

 

[Turanil]

Players participating in the forum would most likely be arguing a point central to the storyline. Challenge Rating could be based (through some formula) on the intellegence score of your opponent, succeeding on an intellegence check could provide the character with a point, suplied by the DM, charisma checks could be made to win over the audience, etc.

I must point out that Medieval Player's Manual has an excellent set of rules (game mechanics) for running such kind of debates. If you could get a look at it in your FLGS it is really good.