PF Debates: Will You Participate?

That is a swell idea.

What they could also do is just start an invite only group. The stated purpose of that group would be to support other liberals in debate. They can go and post links to threads they started, they can welcome each other to the group, and they can pm each other for support when they are wrong on a topic. The main interest would be in forwarding one particular ideology, regardless if it is right or wrong on a particular topic.

Sound like a good idea?

 

As said before, this will be what people make of it... and I doubt we're to measure the ability & will of every interested member here by the actions of a such a limited party.

 

Time to feed the little one. See you all later on.

 

Your post is filled with incorrect statements, EPV.

I did not claim that mods can't do something. I claimed that under the terms of service they shouldn't do something. It seems they, or at least a portion of them have decided the terms of service don't apply to them and they can do what they want.

You have not yet pointed out the flaw in my premise. The fact that you think you did does not translate into actually doing so.

The fact that we need another layer in Political Forum in order to allow one on one debates has been proven false by the fact that just such one on one debates are presently going on in the debates section. Catch and Serfin are having a civil debate, uninterupted by others as we post. I read their debate, and in keeping with their wishes did not interject any comments but instead sent them to Serfin in a private message.

Why are you so intent on reinventing the wheel?

 

Real debates are done in person where things like appearance,
gestures, eye contact and body language are all part of it.

 

Has anyone ever actually judged a debate? What measures will be adopted to ensure consistent quality of judging? I've judged debates, and it is not as easy as one might think.

 

Not sure what that little slap was about but I can assure you everything that happens in the Quorum is viewable by you and everybody else on this forum. Same as a private debate between two people would be -- and as has been pointed out numerous times, is exactly where it belongs.

Is that what this whole thing is really about? Are you trying to come up with something that can compete with the Quorum so the libs don't feel left out?

Thx for clearing that up... many of us were wondering why you seem so determined to divide us up even further? Looks like you mods could come up with something to bring our community together if you really tried. Shame that's not the objective.

 

The far right doesn't have the intellectual behemoths that the left does, in certain subjects they know that they'd be slaughtered; and those topics outweigh their hubris.

All the same old people will claim that it's just typical 'liberal elitism', but they know they don't have the same beasts like Reiver or myself.

 

I'm sure we'd all like to see your General Equivalency Diploma; please do post that.

 

Problem is, it seems every liberal considers himself an intellectual behemoth while a good many of them are intellectual pygmy shrews.

 

Perhaps many liberals are such 'shrews', but you know those wouldn't likely be the ones debating. You're not going to be debating economic issues with HDtv, you're going to see Reiver and his obsession with the firm's market distortions that few here, on either side, would/could argue against.

And the thought of doing that is rather frightening to those knowing they'd be put out there to fight him.

 

Funny how many of our intellectual behemoths frequent the "Last one to post wins" threads, isn't it? Must be resting their gigantic brains.

 

In all honesty, you know your limitations in terms of those you would be able to debate. To pretend to be able to argue otherwise is just humiliating yourself.

 

Yes, but I believe that is already being done in some of the the social groups.

 

At least you admit it.

 

LMAO! That is choice.

 

There used to be a rather strong Austrian speaker to represent the free-market masses; don't know whatever happened to him. Then someone with the same avatar and ideology popped up, unfortunately he knew how to do little more than quote Hayek like the Bible; I was disappointed.

 

Reiver would never win a debate that I judge. How are you going to get around the problem of bias?

 

No idea. I don't really get the purpose of judging, as it's just going to be partisan. Let the debate speak for itself. If it goes to completion, one poster loses.

 

Please re-find the topic. Thanks.

 

One poster wins and the other loses? Debate tactics can be used to prevent that level of clarity. That's why having a judge is useful.

 

It's 40 pages long... it hasn't been on topic for dozens of pages now..

I think in most aspects, it wouldn't be that hard; as any topic debated would be common enough to encircle someone.

There is no impartial judge..

 

You are missing the point!, what they have in common is both these groups would rather have their own thread for obvious reasons, the subject matter matters little. Just as your debate would regardless of subject, both ideas are discussed unfettered.
Their range can be as wide as they want, you are looking to exclude by telling me that the range is larger?, must we examine each topic for range? You are grasping, that is no reason to exclude others how does your range make a difference? it does not..Subject is subject, actually by having only two people yours is more limited.
Also, as we have seen it can work very easily with others..so what's the Beef?

 

Well its never to late to give it a go!

 

errrr, ask the left they had a group like that first......