My suggestion is to let both participants
1 Post for their take on character (in detail)
1 post for argument on other players take (in detail , they should summer up all points they want to make)
1 post for counter argument (summer up everything they wants to counter)
1 post for second counter to first counter .
1 post for conclusion (here they will accept and decline , if they have changed view will mention that. Their summary about this debate)
So total 5 posts from each player. Keep it simple and short. Otherwise these arguments will never end due to possible ego problem and pre determined views.
Add function to give stars (like was in gallery section) for that argument.
Other players will give stars for that argument and will give their feedback . One member can give only 1 feedback.
[automerge]1641024370[/automerge]
Overall I liked debate concept over power scaling. Where majority over powered others and have pre determined views on other characters
2nd and 5th points that you mention are pretty unnecessary.
The counters would include what they think about the other person's presented fact.
As for the 5th, no one will accept what the other says in a debate. Also don't think people would want to make this post, it's just additional work that will become a chore for debaters.
One starter and 2 or 3 posts for counters depending on how much debaters want to go for.
I agree with mostly everything else. 4 posts for each participant is more than enough.
Also, I don't agree with the star system, judges' votes should be the only thing, the number of starts would sway people's opinions and can demotivate one of the participants. So I don't think that should be a thing. But I am open to hearing more arguments
for it
