In an attempt to liven this board up a bit, and hopefully get members to have some fun while participating....I have a proposal. Many moons ago, having watched another area in another forum begin its slip into disuse I instigated a new concept which was quite popular and entertaining. Participants were chosen based on interactions seen between them throughout the forum that were shown to be good debate technique yet reached no true conclusion in topic. These members were asked to completely switch sides and return to debate on the topic using their proven abilities to play the part of the opposition. In a few cases this actually led to amazing debate and new understanding from the players. I request opinion from you all on the viability of this concept here.
That's actually how I come to my political and philosophical conclusions. I argue with myself and whichever argument wins I go with. Obviously there are some arguments that cannot be argued on facts alone as they might be about something that is ethical or moral or some other grey area but for most things it seems to work for me.
I can play a socialist. I am trained in the art of deception, avoidance and nanny stating. I am game. Why don't you tell me about the wonders of vouchers and I will argue for more government monopolization.
Sounds fun, but I can't fathom a rational argument for most conservative positions. Does the opinionated baseless ranting and insulting we see from most conservatives here count as debate under your rules? How about making up facts?
I'm convinced that some of our gentle posters are doing that already. I simply cannot credit that people capable of learning to type or spell could hold such outrageous opinions. Then I see a Dragon commercial.
I am tempted to ask OKGrannie to debate American Nationalist in this format for the first of these....both could pull off the Idea based on my perception of intellect.
So I found this thread coincidentally. I'm game, I can do alot more than the Abortion theory. I could try to debate the merits of Republicanism(Neo-Con Hawkism or Tea Partyism) As well as being a former Liberal, Liberalism(though I'll never lean to the Left again.). I was for Civil Unions only, but I can also debate the pros of including Gays in marriage, etc .