If you watch American presidential debate news coverage, then a yes seems incoming. ETA: I think Lemex has a good idea, especially since I'm sure that I'd be guilty of re-hashing a thread, if I'm not already. I also agree with the disagreement with the tally-system, though that has already been abandoned.
A list to avoid re-hash, actually ANYTHING to avoid re-hash, would tickle me to the point of giggling, but I just don't see it happening. Review the existing threads and count how many are variations on "Homosexuality: Is it a choice/evil/going to kill America, etc." Debates give birth to other very similar debates for various reasons. Sometimes when a train of argumentation is going to clearly go in a sharp tangent, sometimes in huffy "You guys over in that thread are doodoo heads and only the good people can come over here to my thread", sometimes, literally, as a passive aggressive attack on someone stemming from a conversation in a different thread. The line between re-hash and tangent and all the rest of the crap that populates that subforum would become something we have to deal with and dealing with that area is already a complete and total faff. Have I mentioned how much I "love" that subforum?
I do. An all consuming crush. I can think of nothing but the Debate Room... cut up into pieces... hidden in the crawlspaces of my attic. Yeah. That.
I like debates. I'm good at debating. We haven't had the big debate on male circumcision yet. It's on my list with abortion of things not to debate. And we didn't get into it over the Michael Brown shooting yet, wait until that corrupt prosecutor claims he didn't lead the Grand Jury into not indicting Wilson. Did we debate the Zimmerman murder of Trayvon? It all blurs for me into false memories over the the where and when.
I'm not sure how a thread that lists debates would be any different from scrolling through the debate room.
I don't really have a problem with the "re-hashing" of issues -- that is, of say, a new abortion thread coming up every so often. I don't think anyone *really* thinks they're going to "win" or that there are going to be any new points made that have never been heard before. I think that people enjoy exercising their mental skills and sharpening their arguments, and that's really the point of engaging in these discussions. Sometimes, when I see them, I'm not in the mood to go through the same old arguments. But occasionally, I like to trot out my reasons for holding whatever stance I have. Every once in a while, some nuance will come out that allows me to shape my thinking a little more -- not change, but sometimes think about some scenario that's not typical, and why I would still have my same position in that scenario.
Like @ChickenFreak's point about not requiring fathers to donate vital organs (thus giving up life) to save the life of their child was a new argument to me.
I've made and seen that argument before, but sometimes it needs to be said more than once -- people sometimes gloss over it, or miss it or, for whatever reason it doesn't sink in. I think that is a common experience, and yes, one of the reasons for a new debate thread on the same topic, even if the same things are said.