PF Debates: Will You Participate?

But I don't understand... How can you debate illegitimate points? You would literally be debating between right and wrong, or legitimacy and illegitimacy. Yea, lets all "debate" all the good we will do with all that stolen money from the bank robbery...

 

John

Do you think the cons here are capable of formal reasoned debate here?

If so, whats to stop them winning one? Do you really think they cannot win here?

 

That wont happen, it is not what the few want. It would seem to me if time is being put into something ''for a change'' it would be aimed at what people are most interested in, not what most are not interested in. That would fit the description of a Group, correct? Has it even entered their mind that the number is so huge of people not interested that it is far from just the people from the right. However in order to save face and admit it's not a popular idea [they goofed] they rather disregard that fact and blame the people from the right. Use us as an escape goat for a very unpopular idea. Why is the number so Low for interest? Why are there not a lot more people from the left interested?
Hell if you take out the people that voted who had something to do with this, what would you be left with? five people? That's crazy, why is this being ''forced'' is a better question.

People do not want to be Excluded just because they do not want to be involved in a competition, they want the site to remain inclusive of everyone like it has always been. The Mods want to break that at any cost,,why? because THEY want it? Since when is that their job excluding people from a thread? Especially on a site known for it's openness to all, that's why people came here, it is open posting to all. Perhaps I have this all wrong, and it's the Mods site, and if they do not want this run as a open posting site then it wont. Exclusion is a Group thing, not a forum thing, not here.
Why again exactly are posters being excluded from that thread? I thought it was the Mods job to throw anybody out that cause's trouble on a thread, are they now incapable? is that what they are saying?

I heard somebody mention they want to ''Make Believe'' it's a real Presidential debate [Golly Gee] Are not real people at a real Presidential debate? Wouldn't it be more realistic if there were people? and as far as I know no real winner is announced, that's the presses job, their opinion. So why would there be a need for that here? it's not warranted or wanted by the majority,,once again...it's not about what the actual people of the site want it's about what the Mods want.
I thought we were the participants of the site, since when do the cops run a town...Ahho,,,I know when.....

 

Many people may have voted no because they simply do not want to put in the effort or have the time to seriously debating an issue.

The question is 'Will you participate?'

Not: 'Do you think it's a good idea?'

 

What's to debate?

Leftists are on the wrong side of economic liberty....

rendering social 'liberty' moot.

 

Wouldn't it have been a lot simpler for the mods to announce one-on-one debates are encouraged and posters who want to participate can 'reserve' a thread in the debate section for their exclusive use? Why do we need 'judges?' Those who are interested can read it and decide for themself who 'won', those who'd rather watch paint dry can skip it.

Too much structure trying to be invoked here. Too much us against them. Good grief, the longer this debate over debates goes on, the more liberals are sounding like Barack Obama. "If only those mean ole Republicans would go along with the program, everything would be fine!"

As goes DC, so goes politicalforum.com.

 

Took a while to make an Obama comparison, next up the fool's comparison to Hitler!

 

Some how you putting on a dress and making like Palin wont cut it.....I think a compromise might get you more action. That's my opinion...but if you feel wingnuts, obnoxious, stupid, elevates discussion I would believe you to be wrong.

 

There's no reason to assume people misunderstood the question.

 

Debate is about presenting a position and backing it up with arguments and evidence. When two people do that you can usually tell who did a better job of it. The problem in the forum in general is that there are a ton of posters who just blurt out their conclusions without backing them up with anything at all, so I can see why looking around you'd think it would just be a matter of picking between two conclusions, but that isn't how debate is supposed to work. Somebody who did that in a judged debate would obviously lose.

 

If somebody is so scared to debate or opposes the general idea of presenting evidence and arguments to back up their position or is so riddled with conspiracy theories that they can't even participate in a full little activity with the people they spend all day with on the forum here, I don't really see how they could have anything to add to a debate.

Just do the debates and whoever wants to participate can participate. No need to try to design a type of debate that every wingnut on here would want to participate in. That would be impossible.

 

....I (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, I did not mean to vote yes on this issue. So I rescind my vote and wish to change my vote to a solid and vocal NO and stand with my conservative brethren.

Now you libs may not like it or accept it, but frankly I don't give a dam Scarlet.

 

Why even participate when you have already picked a winner?


Oh and I'm sure if you and your cronies are judging, the winner will be the one who makes the longest post. Won't matter what is in the post, as long as it's a novel.

 

I love how something like a forum debate is a now a left-right issue.

One side is simply afraid.

 

Trolling and baiting won't change my mind. Have your cage debates. Don't care.

 

Emphasis is on voluntary. That doesn't mean that those who wish NOT to participate are scared wingnuts.
Its an insult directed at people who do not agree, for whatever reason.
Why not just say "take it or leave it", and be done with it?

 

By all means, feel free not to

 

Reported, but would you engage in a debate with me; topic of your choice, in the debate section?

 

Sadly so.

Some like to participate more than others. I don't see afraid in there, anywhere, just a bit of a superiority complex now and then.

 

I mean, somebody who comes to a political forum and thinks the idea of debating politics is crazy... They're just openly admitting that they are here exclusively to troll? And worse than that, they're worried that substantive discussion might distract from their trolling? I mean, come on.

Not participating is fine of course. Protesting against the idea... That's just moronic.

 

Because he is demonstrating proper posting......

 

One side of the political spectrum is overwhelmingly opposed; their own mouthpieces have stated they were afraid of the consequences.

In truth, they know that a one-on-one on a specific topic means that they will have to fight against the likes of Teamosil or Reiver. And we know both are essentially undefeated in their respective fields.

 

Yep. It's the conservatives fault. Always is. I'm surprised you haven't blamed bush for this yet.

Anyways, why would anyone with an opposing viewpoint even want to debate against you with your attitude?

Get off your high horse, you aren't better than everyone else. It's comical that you are already ensuing that you are an elitist because of your viewpoint on this op/idea. Why do you think your viewpoint on a hypothetical situation makes you smarter or more intellectual than someone?

 

I think the only way this could be judged fairly is if participants had to defend both sides. (as mentioned before). That way there really wouldn't be much bias from the judges and people could judge strictly on debating skills.

 

That makes the false assumption that both sides can be properly defended. Not every issue has the two sides that people pretend it does.