Debate:Should the loser of debates be blocked?

!

THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia. Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions. New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting

Conservapedia has many debates, with intelligent discussion, however I think that there needs to be a rule like the 9/10 rule that says that if the original creator of a debate looses the debate, they will be blocked. Like the 9/10 rule, it is intended to keep Conservapedia from having endless discussion, and that the person who starts a debate page should think first before starting another useless debate. It will definitely cut down on the liberal troll debates that aren't really serious, but are made just to get a reaction out of people, and that is why I think this rule will succeed. Perhaps the person who starts and loses the debate shouldn't get blocked the first time, but maybe if they lose 2/3 or so of them, then they get blocked. --BriellaRollert 15:02, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

No

People who get blocked from this site are those that deliberately cause trouble, raise hate and discontent, commit vandalism, harassment, and so on. Losing a debate - as opposed to an endless debate for debate's sake - is not one of those reasons. I'd rather the price for losing a debate would be for the losing party to take their favorite lady out to dinner rather than a block. Karajou 15:11, 26 May 2011 (EDT)

OK, but what about people who repeatedly bring up debate topics purely to make people angry, rather than to actually debate something. The punishment for vandalism leaves a loophole in for debates, and don't you think we should keep people from taking advantage of that?--BriellaRollert 14:44, 29 May 2011 (EDT)

If those people are here only to do that, I have no problem showing them the door. Karajou 14:31, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

Discussions or "debates" appear in a number of forms -- on pages with a "Debate:" prefix and on article talk pages. If this proposal were adopted, users would stop creating "Debate:" pages and instead discuss issues on various talk pages. I don't see any benefit from that. Also, if a debate page is properly structured when it is created, the user creating it should state the issue fairly without taking sides. For example, please consider:

• Debate:How can we protect Conservapedia by distinguishing real conservative encyclopedia articles from satires written by liberals? - where most of the discussion centered on how the question was framed.
• Debate:Was world war inevitable? - The question was properly framed and there was no "winner" or "loser"
• Debate:Should the United States have entered World War II? - again no "winner" or "loser"

The problem with this proposal is who will "close" debate and who will pick the loser? If one side loses, will everyone who argued that side be blocked or just the first user to argue the losing side? Does Conservapedia have an excess of editors that they can afford to block them under this proposal? Thanks, Wschact 19:28, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

"Looser"?

Only adds to this site's reputation for illiteracy. CasparRH 11:30, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

This is the very best kind of Poking--Jpatt 14:25, 19 July 2012 (EDT)