Looking for a team vs. team debate on gun control

I would like a little bit of practice on debating on this site. I think a three vs. three liberal vs. conservative debate would be fun, i'll be on the liberal side, any takers?

 

Do you want a proper debate, or do you want to see/be a part of a faithed debate?

I can argue either side faithfully, but I faith one side, as such it will be my impression of ultimate truths, though my mind is clay... and the wrong impressions may have left their mark.

 

I guess a proper debate would be fun, so let's go with that.

 

You will need to select an arbiter if you intend to participate. You do not get to pick your side... and throwing the debate is the most egregious crime. The intent is to further your own understanding of a topic, and form a solid argument, while attacking the opposition. If you land where you believe, bully for you.

 

Sounds good. I'm not quite sure how to get an arbiter, so if you could do that it would be great.

 

Also needed is a mutual agreement by each 'side' over what constitutes legitimate sources, and whether it's limited to Constitutional issues, i.e. states' rights, original intent, etc., and the number of replies; otherwise, it's just another 'I Touched You Last!!! NYAH NYAH!' thread, like all the other threads at the top of the forum.

And of course, which country we're talking about here ...

 

How about each team get's a total of twenty posts, including a opening and closing statement. As for sources, I have no idea on that one. And America is the country.

 

Basically it means both sides list sources, so all sides can review them; this avoids the tactics of some posters to spam threads with multiple link-o-ramas and then pretending the other side must go and read a zillion sites and refute them one by one, sort of the innernetz equivalent of fallacies of composition, among other annoying silliness; i.e. it keeps the arguments along logical lines and avoids ad homs claiming 'ignorance' against the other side and the arguments on track using logic and argument on central issues as opposed to spamming and bombarding with bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and side-tracking.

Twenty posts is a little long; fewer posts, with more content per post, would be much better, imho.

 

How about fifteen posts for each team, with a minimum of twenty words per post. Also, I like your sources idea.

 

I 'm posting this link-o-rama in another thread, so I might as well post it here, too; plenty of 'ammo' for both sides of the issues at this site.Also some for other discussions re American history as well.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/primary.html

 

Is this truly a non-biased, accurate site?

 

Doesn't matter whether the site is or not re the list of sources and court cases and the like, Cramer himself is biased, which is why his articles and editorials and the like are on another page. For instance, if you read somebody on Democratic Underground claiming 2+2=4, would that then mean arithmetic would have a liberal bias and the claim is suspect? Many of the sources could be interpreted more than one way; it's just a handy collection in one place.

 

I see your point, however, many people from both sides of the political spectrum have been known to, well, make up statistics.

 

Then feel free to verify or refute them, then. I believe the page I linked to is his list of primary sources and case law, so they would be easy to verify.

 

Looks good to me

 

What would be the topic of the country in the debate? And what would be considered victory for the team? Also, would the debate be based upon anything that is subject to moral relativism? Because we could argue which 'god' is real and waste precious time I could spend breathing and watch paint dry.

Also, does it have to be conservative vs. democrat or is the libertarian side welcome too?

Otherwise it seems like a good time. If there is room.

 

I think this has been gone over already. I also don't think ones personal affiliation matters. Should be open to everyone who wants to participate.

I would like to start. Who are the 4 people?

In my opinion, we need someone to serve as a moderator. Preferably a moderator. This person will also assign the side of the argument the 4 will take. A coin flip will be fine. Heads in the affirmative (for gun control), tails the negative (against gun control).

I would like to be one of the four. Clearly the OP is as well... OP should choose the four. The four should all be willing and able to debate either side without bias.

 

Well I'll throw my hat in the interested pile. If welcome that is. If there is a preference I can still happily be a spectator. As for moderator, I might suggest Megadethfan. He is a fairly soulless and ruthless individual in a sort of charming way. I think he'd do good at it. He's pretty good at not taking sides from what I have seen. But he could easily be one of the four as well.

Just let me know either way who's in which camp and who the mod is. It ought to be interesting for sure.

 

Sounds like we have three of the four. Also, could you contact him Gemini, since you seem to have communicated with him before?

And also, the debate is going to be less democrat vs. republican and more for vs. against, so yes, the libertarian side is available.

- - - Updated - - -

Are both Strasser and Ctrl willing to be in on this, if so, we have all four, and just need a moderator.

 

My free time is probably too limited for me to participate, unless the time frames are fairly long, and the anti-gun control position is weak to non-existent, really, . The 'pro' side has a lot of weak arguments, those made from ideology or fashion, but the sound arguments crush the best of the anti-gun control fallacies, so you can count me out, most likely. I don't care for arguing positions I don't believe in or are unsupportable.

 

Sent MegaDethFan a PM, we'll see what happens eh?

 

Thank you very much, however, still need that fourth person..

 

This may be pointing out the obvious, but all sides should agree that spammers and kibitzers and the like be barred from posting in the debate thread itself.

 

I posted a request in feedback/questions. Shangrila was kind enough to answer and ask clarification of sides and debaters. This was my reply.

 

Strasser is not participating