I'm also curious what exactly you mean with civil discourse? I don't know which style you're referring to, but i've seen people who cared primarily about discourse being "polite", even if the most horrible ideas were being presented as valid.
I'm also curious what exactly you mean with civil discourse? I don't know which style you're referring to, but i've seen people who cared primarily about discourse being "polite", even if the most horrible ideas were being presented as valid.
1) all participants have equal access to present their views, usually uninterrupted for at least some portion of time
2) all participants have equal access to rebut their opponent's views, so neither side has an opportunity to present an uncontested idea
These are important norms to keep more powerful, obnoxious, or charismatic people from having (as much) undue advantage in the contest of ideas.
I see these formal characteristics as orthogonal to whether someone has horrible views. Without guarantees of this kind you may find yourself on the wrong side of a power imbalance, and then you have no right to challenge said ideas in a fair contest.
All debates are to a propesed motion.
Motion must make sense.
Time limits on speach for all participants.
Debaters must speak to the motion.
Pious motions normaly ruled out of order
No wreaking amendmenst are acepted.
No non relevent amendments.
There are debates at law schools (horrible exercise of corporatism favoritism, having attended to a few of them) though.