[the phantom]

Heh- I had an idea similar to this at one time, but I didn't (and still don't) have the time to do it.

In each round the topic of debate would be different, and teams/players would be assigned which side of the argument they would be on. Once, and once only, a player would be allowed to choose to argue for the other side (once the individual rounds had started).

At the end of each round, myself and a group of handpicked judges would select the winning team/player/players. (If I'm remembering correctly the members I jotted down to ask to be judges with me were SPM, Kuru, Esty, and Form.)

I think that I had the game starting with five teams of three, and each would debate head-to-head with the other four teams. At the end of each contest every judge would award a score out of five points to both teams. Naturally each judge would be weighing things in a slightly different manner, but things such as participation by all team members would be rewarded, as well as clever/logical use of quotes, effective use of examples or logical parallels, and the ability to keep things fun, entertaining, and civil.

At the end of team-play, the two teams with the lowest scores are eliminated, save for one of the six players. All the judges will vote to save one player from extermination- the player who was the most active, engaging, and showed great promise as a debater.

At that point we will have ten contestants left. Five will be assigned to argue one side of an argument against the other five, but they will not be on teams. It will be up to each individual to decide if his chances are greater functioning as a team or on his own. In other words, he will be free to cut down the arguments of those on his side without fear of being penalized for not being a team player. At the end, the audience at large votes for one person to advance. That player will then advance to matter what the decision of the judges is. The judges will each choose eight people to advance. The eight receiving the most votes advance.

The next round the process is repeated, only the judges will only take the top six plus whoever the audience chooses. (if the audience chooses someone who will advance anyway, no additional person advances)

The next round trims things to four. Then two.

Then one. In the final round, the vote of the audience would count as one judge vote.

Not all the topics would be completely serious. Some would be pointless topics with no clear answer, yet still topics that allow for the use of debating skills and Tolkien quotes.

When any sort of tie occurs, all of the tied advance if at least one of those tied would need to advance in order to fill the number for the next round. In other words, when cutting the field from 10 to 8, if 9 and 10 were tied, they would not advance, for the 8 are already accounted for. But if 8, 9, and 10 tie, all three advance, for at least one of them must.

I think I had some other rules and whatnot written up, but I can't remember it all. I think I even scribbled some topics down. I know I had some rules regarding civility. Something like the judges giving two warnings about being nice. The third time you are eliminated. And when it comes to antagonizing remarks from the audience during voting time, if a viewer is warned once and doesn't stop, their vote is no longer counted.

But like I said I have no time to do this. I just thought I'd mention it seeing as you brought up something similar.