NationStates Jolt Archive

A different forum I post on sometimes has more formal debates- two people take the positive and the negative position on an issues, then decide on the structure, and no one else is allowed to interfere. Anyone else interested in doing something like that here?

I woulsd like more debates but I like the open free from debates although they are a double sided blade

I woulsd like more debates but I like the open free from debates although they are a double sided blade

Oh, no you wouldn't...

I woulsd like more debates but I like the open free from debates although they are a double sided blade

Oh, no you wouldn't...

I wouldnt? Ok then I don't....I guess

I'd like more foral debates, but i've been told that i suck at them. I don't do much research, i just go with stuff off the top of my head. I would, though, be a good idea, since most of the people who try to argue with me are worse :wink: .

formality? structure?! but then how would i use my super ninja monkey flamethrower style debate tactics?

A different forum I post on sometimes has more formal debates- two people take the positive and the negative position on an issues, then decide on the structure, and no one else is allowed to interfere. Anyone else interested in doing something like that here?

Hey Mallberta.. :)

Actually my region "Role Play University" had talked about this very thing. We wanted to have a formal debate on the Iraq issue. However, we wanted to be selective about whom we choose to let in on it. We have all the against people we need. We were looking for some intelligent "For" people. One that certainly came to mind was "Redneck Geeks" and I believe "Wolfish" the other co-founder of my region was willing to argue the "For" side but it's hard to find a good rational argument from the FOR people who actually have a rational and sound argument. Sure, it would be easy to get one of the neo-cons from the forum.. but we want a thoughtful debate.. not one that is sorely out-matched and is just an exercise in making fools of the "For" side. So, if you know some people who are intelligent and back up their sources with credible sources and have intelligent well thought out arguments "For" the war in Iraq.. on all levels, legal, moral, etc..etc.. then please contact me. We have at least 5 or 6 people who are all great debaters for the "Against" side.. but we find ourselves at a huge deficit for people who have any sounds arguments that we couldn't tear apart in about five minutes for the "For" side.

An intelligent argument for the Iraq war.....that's a contradiction.......ok no flame wars here....good luck with that

I believe I could actually argue either side, and I'd be happy to argue for it in good faith, if you can't find anyone else.

Debates never seem to go anywhere on this forum. Instead of debating the practicallity of someones actual idea or suggestion, usually people just pick random particular parts of the post and dismantle it piece by piece. By the end of the debate, no one knows what they were talking about in the first place because they've gone off on too many tangents while trying to pick apart the other person's arguement.

There are only a few people who can stand to argue on these forums, because they live for the excitement of ruining other people's days. Thats why you see very few noobs on these forums, and why I personally only have 20-something posts.

Mallberta, I would love to join a good debate. Haven't had one in a long time. As for debating the topic of the Iran War goes. I would argue on the "For" side and shut up those "against" in seconds. However, I learned a long time ago that it is not a good idea to debate with mods. If and when you win you find yourself gone in a matter of days.

Then, what would we do with all the pointless spam in debate threads?

A different forum I post on sometimes has more formal debates- two people take the positive and the negative position on an issues, then decide on the structure, and no one else is allowed to interfere. Anyone else interested in doing something like that here?

Hey Mallberta.. :)

Actually my region "Role Play University" had talked about this very thing. We wanted to have a formal debate on the Iraq issue. However, we wanted to be selective about whom we choose to let in on it. We have all the against people we need. We were looking for some intelligent "For" people. One that certainly came to mind was "Redneck Geeks" and I believe "Wolfish" the other co-founder of my region was willing to argue the "For" side but it's hard to find a good rational argument from the FOR people who actually have a rational and sound argument. Sure, it would be easy to get one of the neo-cons from the forum.. but we want a thoughtful debate.. not one that is sorely out-matched and is just an exercise in making fools of the "For" side. So, if you know some people who are intelligent and back up their sources with credible sources and have intelligent well thought out arguments "For" the war in Iraq.. on all levels, legal, moral, etc..etc.. then please contact me. We have at least 5 or 6 people who are all great debaters for the "Against" side.. but we find ourselves at a huge deficit for people who have any sounds arguments that we couldn't tear apart in about five minutes for the "For" side.

I'm up for it Steph.

I believe I could actually argue either side, and I'd be happy to argue for it in good faith, if you can't find anyone else.

I believe you could..you are one of the most intelligent thoughtful people on this forum.. (at least in my opinion) I would take you up on that.. well ok, that's three.. providing we can talk "Redneck Geeks" into it.. Wolfish is great to to have on your side.. we could also probably talk one of our against people into arguing "For".. most of us could argue either side. I have to be on the "Against" though.. Zeppistan is on our team.. and I know he could pwn me..lol :P

I'll let you know when we start it.. or at least keep you updated.. we might do it at RPU's off-site forum.. it looks exactly like NS..lol but that way we could control who took part and not have people hijack the thread.. and then just put a link on NS General and let people comment there if they wished. This was the structure we were thinking of any way.

I believe I could actually argue either side, and I'd be happy to argue for it in good faith, if you can't find anyone else.

I believe you could..you are one of the most intelligent thoughtful people on this forum.. (at least in my opinion) I would take you up on that.. well ok, that's three.. providing we can talk "Redneck Geeks" into it.. Wolfish is great to to have on your side.. we could also probably talk one of our against people into arguing "For".. most of us could argue either side. I have to be on the "Against" though.. Zeppistan is on our team.. and I know he could pwn me..lol :P

I'll let you know when we start it.. or at least keep you updated.. we might do it at RPU's off-site forum.. it looks exactly like NS..lol but that way we could control who took part and not have people hijack the thread.. and then just put a link on NS General and let people comment there if they wished. This was the structure we were thinking of any way.

That's what I was thinking too, given that it's open for viewing to outside parties.

Mallberta, I would love to join a good debate. Haven't had one in a long time. As for debating the topic of the Iran War goes. I would argue on the "For" side and shut up those "against" in seconds. However, I learned a long time ago that it is not a good idea to debate with mods. If and when you win you find yourself gone in a matter of days.

I assure you.. my modship will have nothing to do with this.. in fact the actual debate would probably take place on an off-site forum.. ok there I'm not a mod.. just the admin..lol.. seriously.. I'm not like that. I promise.. Provided you don't argue already discredited arguments.. you'd be fine..besides.. why would me being a mod matter? It's not like I would be upset if you disagreed with me.. that's the whole point! :P

We wanted to have a formal debate on the Iraq issue. However... it's hard to find a good rational argument from the FOR people who actually have a rational and sound argument. Sure, it would be easy to get one of the neo-cons from the forum.. but we want a thoughtful debate.. not one that is sorely out-matched and is just an exercise in making fools of the "For" side....we find ourselves at a huge deficit for people who have any sounds arguments that we couldn't tear apart in about five minutes for the "For" side.

It's always nice to see the political fairness of moderators, oh yes it is. Isn't this a lovely example of a moderator who is always willing to accept that the views of the other side have some credibility? *Okay*, enough of the irony.

Quite what would be the point in entering into a debate with anyone who is so closed-minded about the issue is beyond me. Surely all moderators, or at least all Canadians, aren't *quite* as biased as this?

Well, the bias of the jury would be no news for me :roll: If I had more time, I'd be up for the challenge, whatever issue you may choose- unless it is something so American that outsiders can't beign to understand the quirks of it.

The question is- just how do you prevent others from interfering? This debate would have to have a mod of its own, watching over the thread and deleting any remarks that are not from the two main debators.

Well, the bias of the jury would be no news for me :roll: If I had more time, I'd be up for the challenge, whatever issue you may choose- unless it is something so American that outsiders can't beign to understand the quirks of it.

The question is- just how do you prevent others from interfering? This debate would have to have a mod of its own, watching over the thread and deleting any remarks that are not from the two main debators.

Well, I don't think we would necessarily need a jury per se, we could just let people make up their own minds. As for keeping it free of outside posting, we could put it on a different, private forum that allows everyone to view, but only us to post.

The way I would picture it working would be a mutually agreed upon statement like:
"The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq is a Morally Justifiable Action"
We would then have to sides, one affirmative the other negative.
We would then proceed in order
Affirmative- Justification
Negative- Rebuttal
Affirmative- Restatement/Clarification
Negative- Rebuttal
Affirmative- Conclusion
Negative Conclusion

Though we could obviously add more or take away some of these steps.

You know what I think would be fun?

Have two people known for their staunch opinions, take EACH OTHER'S side, and defend it with the least ammount of satire and sarcasm.

It'd be a learning experience ;)

Well, I don't think we would necessarily need a jury per se, we could just let people make up their own minds. As for keeping it free of outside posting, we could put it on a different, private forum that allows everyone to view, but only us to post.
In this case, it could as well be simply an e-mail exchange, later posted on the board.


The way I would picture it working would be a mutually agreed upon statement like:
"The Invasion and Occupation of Iraq is a Morally Justifiable Action"
We would then have to sides, one affirmative the other negative.
We would then proceed in order
Affirmative- Justification
Negative- Rebuttal
Affirmative- Restatement/Clarification
Negative- Rebuttal
Affirmative- Conclusion
Negative Conclusion

Though we could obviously add more or take away some of these steps.
Well, I never took part in debates that are THAT formalized- they didn't do anything like that in my Russian school. Sounds like a trial or something. But I guess I could adopt to this quickly. I am fast enough a learner.

We wanted to have a formal debate on the Iraq issue. However... it's hard to find a good rational argument from the FOR people who actually have a rational and sound argument. Sure, it would be easy to get one of the neo-cons from the forum.. but we want a thoughtful debate.. not one that is sorely out-matched and is just an exercise in making fools of the "For" side....we find ourselves at a huge deficit for people who have any sounds arguments that we couldn't tear apart in about five minutes for the "For" side.

It's always nice to see the political fairness of moderators, oh yes it is. Isn't this a lovely example of a moderator who is always willing to accept that the views of the other side have some credibility? *Okay*, enough of the irony.

Quite what would be the point in entering into a debate with anyone who is so closed-minded about the issue is beyond me. Surely all moderators, or at least all Canadians, aren't *quite* as biased as this?

What exactly do my personal political opinions have to do with me as a moderator?

Yes, I'm against the war with good reason. I don't make the rules on NS, I only enforce them. My personal political opinions are my own.. they don't reflect on how I moderate the forums. As for being closed minded.. hardly.. We are talking about a formal debate.. For & Against.. I want to argue "against" how does that make me close minded? Close minded would be if I said " I don't need any debate.. I just know I'm right no matter what any one says" looking for intelligent people to argue "For" the war.. I think that kind of makes me quite open minded.. but think as you wish.

or at least all Canadians, aren't *quite* as biased as this?

Actually Canada doesn't support the war on Iraq.. we have offered no troops or help. We do however support the war on terrorism and have quite a few troops in Afghanistan. Two very different wars. I'm sure there might be some Canadians who support the war in Iraq, but they would be a minority in my country as they are in most every country in the world.

I woulsd like more debates but I like the open free from debates although they are a double sided blade

Oh, no you wouldn't...

Oh yes he would.

BTW, is this the five minute argument or the ten minute argument?

And no, you haven't told me already.

We wanted to have a formal debate on the Iraq issue. However... it's hard to find a good rational argument from the FOR people who actually have a rational and sound argument. Sure, it would be easy to get one of the neo-cons from the forum.. but we want a thoughtful debate.. not one that is sorely out-matched and is just an exercise in making fools of the "For" side....we find ourselves at a huge deficit for people who have any sounds arguments that we couldn't tear apart in about five minutes for the "For" side.

It's always nice to see the political fairness of moderators, oh yes it is. Isn't this a lovely example of a moderator who is always willing to accept that the views of the other side have some credibility? *Okay*, enough of the irony.

Quite what would be the point in entering into a debate with anyone who is so closed-minded about the issue is beyond me. Surely all moderators, or at least all Canadians, aren't *quite* as biased as this?

What exactly do my personal political opinions have to do with me as a moderator?

Yes, I'm against the war with good reason. I don't make the rules on NS, I only enforce them. My personal political opinions are my own.. they don't reflect on how I moderate the forums. As for being closed minded.. hardly.. We are talking about a formal debate.. For & Against.. I want to argue "against" how does that make me close minded? Close minded would be if I said " I don't need any debate.. I just know I'm right no matter what any one says" looking for intelligent people to argue "For" the war.. I think that kind of makes me quite open minded.. but think as you wish.
He does have a point, I'm afraid. You declare that you want to have a debate and you start off by questioning the intellectual ability of people whose views are opposite to yours? "We want a thoughtful debate.. not one that is sorely out-matched and is just an exercise in making fools of the "For" side...."? Do you even realise how arrogant, patronizing and narcissistic you make yourself sound?

We wanted to have a formal debate on the Iraq issue. However... it's hard to find a good rational argument from the FOR people who actually have a rational and sound argument. Sure, it would be easy to get one of the neo-cons from the forum.. but we want a thoughtful debate.. not one that is sorely out-matched and is just an exercise in making fools of the "For" side....we find ourselves at a huge deficit for people who have any sounds arguments that we couldn't tear apart in about five minutes for the "For" side.

It's always nice to see the political fairness of moderators, oh yes it is. Isn't this a lovely example of a moderator who is always willing to accept that the views of the other side have some credibility? *Okay*, enough of the irony.

Quite what would be the point in entering into a debate with anyone who is so closed-minded about the issue is beyond me. Surely all moderators, or at least all Canadians, aren't *quite* as biased as this?

What exactly do my personal political opinions have to do with me as a moderator?

Yes, I'm against the war with good reason. I don't make the rules on NS, I only enforce them. My personal political opinions are my own.. they don't reflect on how I moderate the forums. As for being closed minded.. hardly.. We are talking about a formal debate.. For & Against.. I want to argue "against" how does that make me close minded? Close minded would be if I said " I don't need any debate.. I just know I'm right no matter what any one says" looking for intelligent people to argue "For" the war.. I think that kind of makes me quite open minded.. but think as you wish.
He does have a point, I'm afraid. You declare that you want to have a debate and you start off by questioning the intellectual ability of people whose views are opposite to yours? "We want a thoughtful debate.. not one that is sorely out-matched and is just an exercise in making fools of the "For" side...."? Do you even realise how arrogant, patronizing and narcissistic you make yourself sound?

Well, I'm not alone in this opinion.. this is the opinion of every one in my region. See the people taking part in this exercise are political speech writers and political scientists in real life.. so, no we don't want some 15 year old kid taking a grade 10 civics class or hasn't discovered his own mind let alone the complexities of international law and history at the level we wish to debate. Does it make a university close minded to not invite a high school student to a debate? If it does, then I guess we agree to disagree.

Well, I'm not alone in this opinion.. this is the opinion of every one in my region. See the people taking part in this exercise are political speech writers and political scientists in real life.. so, no we don't want some 15 year old kid taking a grade 10 civics class or hasn't discovered his own mind let alone the complexities of international law and history at the level we wish to debate. Does it make a university close minded to not invite a high school student to a debate? If it does, then I guess we agree to disagree.
And yet again you assume that the opposing view can only originate from ignorance. If all the intellectuals you know think this way, it must be the right way? Are you saying that there are no "political scientists" (this sounds like such an oxymoron :wink: ), politicians and philosophers that would disagree with you on every step and yet have a solid ground for it? Are you sure that the kind of opinion that is somewhat of an "intellectual uniform" in your region is the only prism through which to look at things? Are you sure, after all, that "your" side is free from all the same flaws of which you accuse your opponents?

I'm up for a more formal debate.

Well, I'm not alone in this opinion.. this is the opinion of every one in my region. See the people taking part in this exercise are political speech writers and political scientists in real life.. so, no we don't want some 15 year old kid taking a grade 10 civics class or hasn't discovered his own mind let alone the complexities of international law and history at the level we wish to debate. Does it make a university close minded to not invite a high school student to a debate? If it does, then I guess we agree to disagree.
And yet again you assume that the opposing view can only originate from ignorance. If all the intellectuals you know think this way, it must be the right way? Are you saying that there are no "political scientists" (this sounds like such an oxymoron :wink: ), politicians and philosophers that would disagree with you on every step and yet have a solid ground for it? Are you sure that the kind of opinion that is somewhat of an "intellectual uniform" in your region is the only prism through which to look at things? Are you sure, after all, that "your" side is free from all the same flaws of which you accuse your opponents?

No, you assume quite a bit. Wolfish (speech writer in real life and a conservative) who also happened to co-found Role Play University with me.. is arguing "For" the war.. GEC who is also in my region and a defense major and poli-sci minor is also going to be debating "For" the war. The point I was trying to make is that we have yet to find what "we" consider to be intelligent people (in our opinions) who are "For" the war as much as it has been easier to find university educated people "against" the war. Look.. we don't want people like Snubis or Chesterjay or Raysia is what we are basically saying.. if I must be so blunt. They don't back their arguments up with fact.. that is what we want.. a real debate. As Mallberta described... many on this forum seem unable to do that. Why even you yesterday copy/pasted two articles. One of them you didn't even add the link.. nor did you provide any meaningful comment on your own.. you just copy/pasted. This is what we don't want! We want people who can think for themselves and make a argument based on fact.. not heated emotion about "well it was the right thing to do, cause Saddam was bad" cause that's not a valid legal argument..

Listen, I don't have to explain myself to you. It's our debate, we may invite and not invite who we wish.. just because you either don't meet what we are looking for or don't like what we are looking for is quite irrelevant.. don't take part.. which is simple because we don't need a copy/paster to argue either side.

Thanks for your comments.

I'd love to be involved, however, I do this from work and things are too busy right now for me to commit myself to popping in and out of a forum.
Doing it via email would be the only way I could do it.

I'd love to be involved, however, I do this from work and things are too busy right now for me to commit myself to popping in and out of a forum.
Doing it via email would be the only way I could do it.

Yeah, you were one of the first people I brought up.. don't you just hate it when the liberals like you? You must be doing some thing wrong.. LMAO!

Seriously though.. we didn't plan on every one having to be on at once.. we were going to follow debating rules.. we haven't all agreed on style yet. However, we were going to leave time frame out of it.. for the obvious reasons.. we don't all live in the same places or even time zones.. so, it would be rather flexible as far as response time.. provided you didn't make us wait a week for it..lol

Oh and the RPU board does notify you when you have a new msg on the board.. (when some one has responded to your post) we are still in the "planning" stage.. but we would really like you to join, we have some really good people (smart, educated people) who will be debating for the war.. Wolfish & GEC are two of the smartest people I know. Don't tell them though.. wouldn't want to ruin my rep as a conservative basher..lol :P

Peace,
Steph!

Well, I'm not alone in this opinion.. this is the opinion of every one in my region. See the people taking part in this exercise are political speech writers and political scientists in real life.. so, no we don't want some 15 year old kid taking a grade 10 civics class or hasn't discovered his own mind let alone the complexities of international law and history at the level we wish to debate. Does it make a university close minded to not invite a high school student to a debate? If it does, then I guess we agree to disagree.
And yet again you assume that the opposing view can only originate from ignorance. If all the intellectuals you know think this way, it must be the right way? Are you saying that there are no "political scientists" (this sounds like such an oxymoron :wink: ), politicians and philosophers that would disagree with you on every step and yet have a solid ground for it? Are you sure that the kind of opinion that is somewhat of an "intellectual uniform" in your region is the only prism through which to look at things? Are you sure, after all, that "your" side is free from all the same flaws of which you accuse your opponents?

No, you assume quite a bit. Wolfish (speech writer in real life and a conservative) who also happened to co-found Role Play University with me.. is arguing "For" the war.. GEC who is also in my region and a defense major and poli-sci minor is also going to be debating "For" the war. The point I was trying to make is that we have yet to find what "we" consider to be intelligent people (in our opinions) who are "For" the war as much as it has been easier to find university educated people "against" the war. Look.. we don't want people like Snubis or Chesterjay or Raysia is what we are basically saying.. if I must be so blunt. They don't back their arguments up with fact.. that is what we want.. a real debate. As Mallberta described... many on this forum seem unable to do that.
Well, if you put your point this way from the start, there could be much less disagreement between us. Surely you must see how your original statements could come across as arrogant and offensive.


Why even you yesterday copy/pasted two articles. One of them you didn't even add the link.. nor did you provide any meaningful comment on your own.. you just copy/pasted. This is what we don't want!
Oh please. One of my yesterday's posts- the interview with Sharon- was of a purely informative value, which was explained in the introduction I wrote. And if I forgot to post the link in another, its only because we wombles are forgetful species. Still, I usually start each of my posts from a copy-pasting variety by specifying the source- so even if I forget to post the link, the text is easily traceable.
You, of all people, should know by now that I am perfectly capable of defending my position :wink:


We want people who can think for themselves and make a argument based on fact.. not heated emotion about "well it was the right thing to do, cause Saddam was bad" cause that's not a valid legal argument..
Well, in this case, why the need to target one side? The "Bush is bad because Bush is a religious Texan" kind of posts are also way too common here, are they not?


Listen, I don't have to explain myself to you. It's our debate, we may invite and not invite who we wish.. just because you either don't meet what we are looking for or don't like what we are looking for is quite irrelevant.. don't take part.. which is simple because we don't need a copy/paster to argue either side.

Thanks for your comments.
I didn't realize that the debate was already claimed. I was under the impression that rules, ways and places for the debate were up for discussion here.

Either way, formal or not, I want to declare that I am open for debating, formal or otherwise, at any time. If anyone wants to discuss anything with me, just send a telegram to Womblingdon. I'd post my e-mail address here too, but I get enough spam and hate mail as it is.

I'd love to be involved, however, I do this from work and things are too busy right now for me to commit myself to popping in and out of a forum.
Doing it via email would be the only way I could do it.

Yeah, you were one of the first people I brought up.. don't you just hate it when the liberals like you? You must be doing some thing wrong.. LMAO!

Seriously though.. we didn't plan on every one having to be on at once.. we were going to follow debating rules.. we haven't all agreed on style yet. However, we were going to leave time frame out of it.. for the obvious reasons.. we don't all live in the same places or even time zones.. so, it would be rather flexible as far as response time.. provided you didn't make us wait a week for it..lol

Oh and the RPU board does notify you when you have a new msg on the board.. (when some one has responded to your post) we are still in the "planning" stage.. but we would really like you to join, we have some really good people (smart, educated people) who will be debating for the war.. Wolfish & GEC are two of the smartest people I know. Don't tell them though.. wouldn't want to ruin my rep as a conservative basher..lol :P

Peace,
Steph!

Ugghh... I can't have any whiney liberals liking me. I feel so dirty! :wink:

Count me in!

Not to be rude, I just can't figure it out...
Who is GEC?

I would like to be involved in a formal debate, however from Steph's posts it seems my brain - unused to university - is not worthy.

Either way, formal or not, I want to declare that I am open for debating, formal or otherwise, at any time. If anyone wants to discuss anything with me, just send a telegram to Womblingdon. I'd post my e-mail address here too, but I get enough spam and hate mail as it is.

Well, I'm sorry if it came across that way. It wasn't intended. Also, to your article that you posted yesterday.. it would be better if you don't mind in the future to just copy a little bit of the article to give people a flavour for it and then a "read more" link.. I have had to crack down on Red Arrow to the point of issuing a warning because that is all he use to do, I'm sure you may recall, copy/paste copy/paste..lol it did get rather annoying.. many people did complain about it. So, if I'm not allowing him to do it .. it's kind of hard for me to let any one else or it would look like a bias against Red Arrow.. and it really isn't.. it's just if people want to read the news, they will.. that's not really what this forum is suppose to be.. Although.. remind me again what General is suppose to be for? LOL..;)

At any rate, I didn't mean to come at you like a bear. Also, yes, I have seen you defend your argument quite well many times. I'm not sure our Iraq debate would really be for you though, maybe you're too close to the situation? I don't know.. I'm just asking. So please don't take that as an accusation.. hehe I'm just asking is all. I do consider you one of the intelligent debaters on the forum, you just got all argumentative with me..

That is the other thing, we really don't want people to take part if they're going to take it all personally.. we just want a clean debate based on facts. Might be boring for some..lol

I would like to be involved in a formal debate, however from Steph's posts it seems my brain - unused to university - is not worthy.

Well to be honest for the debate I'm trying to put together we did want people who have a grasp and understanding of international law and quite a bit of knowledge about politics and the history behind the situation. To be honest, I am not really familiar with your posting.. I have seen you around.. but I can't think of any thing of yours I've read.. *shrug*

Just to hopefully end any one else taking this the wrong way.. This is Mallberta's thread.. I am only talking about one debate that Role Play University (region in NS) have been playing with for a couple of weeks.. and when I seen this thread I decided to mention it because we did need a few more people before we could do it. I didn't mean to insult any one.. and nothing is stopping people from having their own debates and putting some thing together of their own as well. It's not like this is the only debate in town..lol So please, feel free to add any ideas you have and you may feel free to not include me.. :P

Count me in!

Not to be rude, I just can't figure it out...
Who is GEC?

Excellent! One of the main nations taking part is away till Sunday.. so we will probably not start till next week.. should be lots of time for every one to brush up on what they believe they'd need to know.. :P

As for GEC.. you can search him under "Guinness Extra Cold" he's in Cuba right now but that is only because Role Play University helped secure the region for the natives after they had been greifed.. He is part of RPU..

Well, did I miss any one? :shock:

Well, I'm sorry if it came across that way. It wasn't intended. Also, to your article that you posted yesterday.. it would be better if you don't mind in the future to just copy a little bit of the article to give people a flavour for it and then a "read more" link.. I have had to crack down on Red Arrow to the point of issuing a warning because that is all he use to do, I'm sure you may recall, copy/paste copy/paste..lol it did get rather annoying.. many people did complain about it. So, if I'm not allowing him to do it .. it's kind of hard for me to let any one else or it would look like a bias against Red Arrow..
Alright. I get it now, will try to abide by the rules :)


remind me again what General is suppose to be for?
Generalizing? :wink:


That is the other thing, we really don't want people to take part if they're going to take it all personally.. we just want a clean debate based on facts. Might be boring for some..lol

Well that would rule you out as well. You seem to be getting way too emotional in your own posts :wink:

But why, pray tell, is personal involvement a bad thing for debate? As long as the person is not basing their arguments on pure emotions and prejudice- who cares? After all, it doesn't take personal involvement to take things personally. I've known quite a lot of people who have never been to Israel or the territories, but who were MUCH more hostile towards me for being Israeli than most Palestinians I know.

Ok, i have a few suggestions-

No more than 2 or 3 people to a side, otherwise it will be very difficult to coordinate and plan.

Clear topic. I think something like 'The invasion and occupation of Iraq is morally justifiable' would be good.

All arguments should be reasonable; that is to say, no appealing to a comprehensive moral doctrine, like Christianity for example, as an argument should not be allowed.

edited

I'm interested as well, but it seems you have enough people for your Iraq debate. In that case, anyone wanting to "discuss" anarchy, send me a telegram and we can set it up.

Stephistan- You're Canadian too, eh?

Taggles. I can think of at least one RL friend of mine who plays NS and might be able to give the For position on the Iraq War a good go. I'll see if he is up for it.

The Iraq War isn't really a topic I'm competent on. Gun control, gay marriage, sociocultural dynamics, language trends, and theology are more my speed.