Scored v. Unscored

I'm a huge fan of this site, despite my lack of presence for the last few months. I've been curious on people's thoughts; I know that the debates on this site are generally designed to mimic formal, scored debates ala debate clubs. I find, however, that watching live, real debates is much more stimulating in most cases than these more formal systems. I think that the judges on the site should give advice both based on scoring in formal debates advice based on the idea of a non-scoring debate, where the arguments are had for the sake of debate AND for the sake of considering both viewpoints.

Any thoughts from others?

GuitarKirby: Can you give an example of what you mean?

Do you mean suggesting possible alternative arguments?

nzlockie: Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. I think that the best judgements and comments are the ones that almost resemble a coaching form. But I also think the focus should be on improving arguments for soundness or suggesting better arguments.

I'm sorry if I'm not being entirely clear - I'm having difficulty putting this concept into words.

GuitarKirby: I agree that awesome judgments should have a coaching component. It's almost like adding a layer of feed-forward to the feedback already asked for by the site.

I still think all debates should have a winner though. You learn from your losses.

admin: I should add, though, that we do have an "unrated" option already for casual debates, which doesn't affect your record.