Oxford style debate format for STAR vs RCV vs Plurality
I propose that we use the Oxford style debate format for a debate between STAR, RCV, and Plurality voting.
An Oxford style debate consists as follows:
1) Opening remarks by a moderator who articulates the question up for debate. Such as, "Star Voting is superior to RCV or plurality voting" or, "Which is the best voting method, STAR, RCV, or Plurality?"
2) The audience votes before anyone makes their case, based on their pre-debate opinion. "Undecided" should be included as an option. The results of this vote are not shared until the end of the debate.
3) Each debater for each position, or for the affirmative and the negative, are given time to state their case for their position. This should be mostly positive about why their position is best or correct.
4) Each debater is then given time to rebut the other debaters' case(s). This is mostly about the flaws of the other alternatives.
5) Each debater is then allowed to ask questions of the other debaters. How many is up to the debate organizers and should be agreed upon in advance.
6) The audience is then allowed to ask questions to any of the debaters. How many is up to the organizers and moderator.
7) The debaters are then each given time to make their summary remarks to wrap up their case.
8 ) The audience then votes on the same question they voted on in the beginning before the debate. The results are revealed along with the results of the first vote. The winner of the debate is the one who increased their percentage of the vote the most, changing the most minds. Even if they are still not in the majority.
Example debate to watch:
Debate question: "There is little or no rigorous evidence that vegetarian/vegan diets are healthier than diets that include meat, eggs, and dairy."