Discussion in 'Debates & Contests' started by E_Pluribus_Venom, Jul 9, 2011.
Can I call being in the Michigan vs Ohio State debate?
And I obviously call the Michigan side.
I'd love to debate one on one with people but I won't argue for government. I'm strictly an Anarchist so I would be more than willing to debate a socialist or statist of any kind.
Good, there are plenty of them around here.
I think the Q should take an official position on this issue based on the internal votes of its members.
I am a statist socialist, and am more than willing to debate any kind of libertarian, anarchist, hipster doofus etc.
Is that you Mr. President?
how did you guess?
Post it on the Q thread, then, okay?
Your self reference to being a statist socialist was a dead giveaway. Your use of the term "hipster doofus" tells us that you've watched too much Seinfeld.
Believe it or not I did not first hear the term hipster doofus on Seinfeld. Though Seinfeld is one of the best shows ever created.
Well this entire sub-forum died a month ago.
You need two people to debate- that is- only two users can post to the thread.
An incentive is needed- points. Those points we all have... propose a debate and throw say, 1000 points to the winner. Find someone willing to take you up and they throw in 1000 points. Your OP would be "Taxation is theft- 1000 points to winner".
Let them debate until a moderator steps in and ends it. Then you start a poll thread to see who won the popular vote. The winner gets the points.
Problem I see here is that everything is turning into threads with one person's assertions and 20 people coming at him against him- that's not how a debate works.
In my observation, there are posters that prefer debating with themselves only. So my suggestion is to rephrase the question in the following fashion. Will you debate with a 3rd party even if they are not identical to permutations of yourself?
What is a point? How do you get 1,000 of them? What side of the debate would you take? I imagine I could take either side of the debate. I am in, though it would be better to wait until monday to start it, as that is when my final exams end, and I will have more time to commit to such a debate.
That was quite droll, I thought.
I am a lesser version of you. Upgrade me.
Would you just accept a Rep instead...
If there is one thing I have learned from posting these past 7 years on various boards , it is that there is no such thing as a debate on an internet forum.
There is only idle chat, and pissing contests.
I think the best solution would be to simply allow mods to judge a debate. They are more likely to be non-partisan and unbiased then a general user.
Please don't set it up like DDO.
I would love to do this
lol sorry, I'm no longer a moderator here. I doubt one would be able to help you... this idea wasn't very popular.
The problem is that in my experience, very few online actually "Debate", they "Argue".
A debate is based upon facts and verifyable data. An argument is based primarily personal belief.
One of the best skills I learned in a debate class is to participate in a debate, taking a stance that is 100% against your own personal beliefs. Against abortion? Debate from a Pro-Abortion stance. A strong believer in Capitolism and free markets? Well, then debate taking a stance in complete support of Socialism and tight Government controls.
Quite often in here I have made posts that are actually 180 degrees apart from my own personal beliefs. But I have made them simply because that is what the facts of the case required. To me, posts are almost never personal, and facts are more important then personal beliefs or feelings.
And that is why 98% of the time I avoid the political areas of boards like this.
One thing about my posts in here, probably 95%+ of them are in topics relating to the military, science, and history. Where personal beliefs actually matter very little. "Fighter A is better then Fighter B" and "Such and such an empire was stronger then this and that empire" are generally quantifyable and one stance or another can be validated.
But most of the political coprolite thrown around is little more then personal opinion and attacks. And I have no interest in participating in such threads.
Mods endure enough criticism without forcing them to pick a winner
For which task they will certainly wind up the guaranteed losers
The nature of debate is ascertain the rhetorical skill of the participants
Who may deploy their skills on either side of the question
The matter of ultimate right or wrong is not determined... Simply who is more skillful
But around here, people are very concerned about Being RIGHT
I doubt that many people would want to take a different political position to argue
So deciding a winner, and loser
Becomes doubly fraught
I would like to do a debate, but I don't know how lol. I'm not sure how to call fallacies or the appropriate way to engage.
I do enjoy reading a well put together back and forths though .
Separate names with a comma.