That's an interesting idea. Imagine a wikipedia-like site that aimed to be the definitive guide to known flamewars. I'm just trying to comprehend the carnage that such a system would cause between the people who cared about the site for what it represented vs the people who just cared about their varying legs of the debate.

feuerkrieg.com is available.

It would be great if, instead of posting the same arguments over and over, people were editing and strengthening a canonical version of that argument. At least you'd get higher-level flamewars.

The difficulty would be preventing people from deliberately weakening the other side's argument.

Prejudiced users could vote their way into threads in order to support the particular details and rebuttals to which they subscribed.

Then you could use the data from the results to morph it into a dating site. Particularly twisted members could opt for the 'opposites' option. Or you could make it random. You don't know until you turn up for coffee - mwuhahahah!

People said that the internet would make the human race more open and tolerant. I have other ideas.

I've had this idea several times, because there are a lot of discussions (not just flamewars) that end up being repetitive from iteration to iteration, forum to forum, including the classic online beer discussion (a combination of making-fun-of-American-beer, the counterargument that America has several good microbrews, and a friendly discussion about which microbrews and imports people like.)

We should get together and have a hateful and vitriolic exchange about how to put it together.