NationStates Jolt Archive

Lately, I've noticed the debating in the General forum decline in quality, so I decided to post some links, and try to offer some advice to debating. One general rule that will help you debate is by using solid sources to back you up. If you make a statement such as, "OMG gay peopel suck and are going to give Everyone AIDS!!111", obviously you won't be taken seriously. Use some intelligence to back up what you think.

There are a few things that should be addressed in this thread. Firstly, one of the most important things about debating in the General forum is when you present your opinion, most general debaters look well on you if you provide links to the site that you may take sources from. If you state facts, mostly involving numbers without a site to back you up, most will assume you made it up, because you have nothing to back you up on.

Table of Contents
A. Abortion
B. Same Sex Marriage/Homosexuality
C. President Bush/America
D. Religion
E. Gun Control
F. Animal Rights
G. Racism


Abortion
Abortion is probably one of the most controversial debate topics that exists, especially in the United States in modern times, with the Presidents’ point of view of the subject. The main controversy is whether the fetus is alive during pregnancy, and when it begins to feel pain.

Good sources for Abortion Debates
Pro Choice
http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/generation/faq.cfm
http://www.prochoiceoregon.org/s07issues/200305142.shtml

Neutral (Mostly Factual for both sides)
http://www.aboutabortions.com/
http://www.abortionfacts.com/
http://www.garlikov.com/abortion.html
http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.htm

Pro-Life
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_news.htm
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abortion.htm
http://www.lifedynamics.com/Prolife/

Abortion Debates (off-site)
http://p214.ezboard.com/frosiesrealmfrm1
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t8611.html

Past Abortion Debates
I have something to say about Abortion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400914)
The author brings up an interesting point, and the debate continues
on quite well, except for a few people who try to change the subject.

Why is Artificial Contraception Wrong? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402709)
-This debate brought up some interesting points as to why the Catholic
Church dislikes contraception, however, sarcasm fills majority of the
thread, making this debate not so good.
-Perhaps some more hardcore facts could have been shown, as well as
different religions' points of view.

Radical Christians Target Abortion Clinics (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400842)
Starts off with pretty much everyone agreeing; however, this turns
into another "Abortion is wrong" debate.

Abortion, a sane opinion (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=390554)
The author provides a good opening to the debate on exactly why he feels the way that he does, although the thread begins to degenerate within the first three pages.

Correcting the record #1: Abortion is safe, there is no post-abortion syndrome (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437715)
Discussion on how there is no post-abortion syndrome, and how abortion could be safer than having a baby.

Same Sex Marriage/Homosexuality
In recent times, gay marriage has become a hot topic, with a few states in the U.S. banning gay marriage, and the President seeking to ban it as well. However, in Europe, most countries have legalized it, and some have even offered those seeking gay marriage the same benefits as straight couples.

Good Sources for Same Sex Marriage/Homosexuality Debates
Pro-Gay Marriage
http://www.samesexmarriage.ca/equality/faiths.html
http://gratefuldread.net/archives/cat/001016.html
http://www.glaad.org/media/resource_kit_detail.php?id=3457

Neutral
http://www.topix.net/news/gay
http://www.boston.com/news/specials/gay_marriage/
http://www.marriagedebate.com/mdblog.php

Anti-Gay Marriage
http://www.bible-prophecy.com/marriage.htm
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/136/story_13601_1.html

Gay Marriage Debates (off-site)
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t460.html

Past Same Sex Marriage/Homosexuality Debates
Question about Gay Marriage (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400738)
Starts off by asking those against same sex marriages why they are against it. Majority of the first posts are in agreeance (is that a word?) with the original poster. A few people use past historical eras to show why homosexuality is wrong.

No Gay Marriage! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=396076)
Starts off in a bad way with the original poster using a few sentences, with no good reasoning or evidence (besides the dictionary) to back his claims.

Why is Gay Marriage such a hot issue? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401400)
The creator specifically requested that the thread not become a debate; however, that couldn’t be prevented, as the debate broke out soon after. Statistics of divorce rates are used, which could prove useful to either side. This thread is one of the longest lasting debate threads, without degenerating into a flame fest, so there are some good statistics in here, as well as different points of view.

MTV helps spread AIDS (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402725)
The author of this thread blames the media, specifically MTV as the source of all problems. Majority of the first few posts aren’t really contributing to the debate, but just mocking the original poster.

If your child was gay, how would you treat them? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=401552)
Starts off pretty clean, but turns into a gay bashing fest by a few specific posters.

Why Gays are a Negative Influence (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=383783)
This topic starts off in a bad fashion with someone stereotyping an entire group of people by what he saw in public one day.

President Bush
Obviously, the President of the United States is President Bush. This is one of the most debated topics in Nationstates. With approximately 50% of the population of Nationstates being American, and majority of the rest belonging to Europe, everyone has a different opinion of him. Some adore President Bush as the best President in some time, while some consider him to be a 'dictator', and one of the worst Presidents.

Good Sources for President Bush
Pro-Bush
http://www.probush.com/

Neutral

Anti-President Bush
http://www.wage-slave.org/scorecard.html
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/aboutbush.html

President Bush Debates (off-site)
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/simple/index.php/t8614.html

Past President Bush
What has President Bush done to you? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399136)
Basically becomes a Bush-bashing thread, not to the point of flamebaiting those who support Bush though. It stays somewhat professional, with most posts.

Why People on here attack America and Americans (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=402674)
Eutrusca starts it off with a very intelligent post on why some people attack America. A very good debate ensues on why specific people do not like America.

Bush Only Has a 38 Percent Approval Rating Over Iraq (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=436187)
Discussion about the failures of Iraq, according to the approval rating.

United States of America
Some proclaim America to be the best nation in the world, while others disagree, because of the choices that the US has made in the past and present.

Good Sources for USA Debates

Past USA Debates
Does America Rock? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437760)
Debate on whether America is a great country or not.

Religion
Religion will always be a consistent debate in Nationstates. This subject can relate to every single previous subject discussed.
Spiritual Debate Guidelines (http://www.able2know.com/forums/about2681.html)

Good Sources for Religion Debates
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p18.htm (Good debate on whether proof of God’s existence)
http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/mac-lkl5.htm
http://www.2think.org/hii/quotes.shtml (some very good quotes)


Past Religion Debates
Ultimate Proof that Christianity is a Crock (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403691)
A debate that starts off with the creator using dinosaurs as the reason why Christianity is wrong. Enough said.

Do You Believe in God? (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403620)
The author doesn't contribute anything to the actual topic, and just asks the question. Usually its a good thing to start a topic, offer your opinions and why you believe so, and let others state their opinions as well.

Gun Control
This topic isn't debated as often as the others, but nevertheless, it is still one of those controversial topics that comes around every now and then.


Good Sources for Gun Control Debates
Pro Gun Control
http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm
http://speakout.com/activism/guncontrol/
http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=20030218000128

Neutral
http://www.thenewamerican.com/focus/gun_control/index.htm
http://www.vpc.org/newsind.htm
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/gunlaw.htm
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/guns/index.htm
http://www.theinternetparty.org/commentary/c_s.php?section_type=com&td=20030718021536
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=19861
http://www.ncpa.org/bothside/crime.html

Anti Gun Control
http://pages.prodigy.net/krtq73aa/arms.htm
http://www.nra.org/

Gun Control Debates (off-site)
http://www.youdebate.com/DEBATES/guncontrol.HTM

Past Gun Control Debates
My thoughts on Gun Control (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=381148)
The author makes a very intelligent post in stating his position, and reasons for believing in it. The debate goes pretty smoothly as well.

The Gun Control Thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=378092)
The author does not use any statistics or proven knowledge to support his position, thus starting the thread off in a poor manner.

Five Reasons Why Gun Control will make my life better (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=380290)
The author starts the thread out to be humorous, but of course, the thread turns into an actual debate over gun control, with a few good points made, such as what to do when a burglar enters your house.

Here's what happens when you ban guns (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=403813)
Th author brings up a good article about comparisons between 'right-to-carry' states and others without such laws.

Animal Rights
Animal rights is also one of those topics that isn't brought up often, but when it does, it can create quite a stir. Some believe animals were made for us to control, while others believe animals should be treated as equals to humans.

Good Sources for Animal Rights Debates
http://www.theinternetparty.org/issues/index.php?section_type=iss&cat_name=Animal+Rights
http://www.animalscam.com/rights_vs_welfare.cfm
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/huntingethicsdebate.htm
http://www.animalsuffering.com/forum/index.php (a forum for animal rights)

Past Animal Rights Debates
Fox Hunting Ban (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=400081)
This started off as a thread that was just to see what everyone's opinions was of the fox hunting ban, though it turned into a debate on whether it was a good or bad thing to do. A good example that was brought up is if a fox was threatening your life.

Vegetarians...oh so enlightened and thoughtful (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=389980)
This thread is basically a debate on why vegetarians refuse to eat meat. There are a few bad examples used in here, such as the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian.

Racism
Racism still occurs throughout the world. It is still quite a hot topic, on exactly how to combat it.

Good Sources for Racism Debates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism
http://www.carf.demon.co.uk/
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/

Past Racism Debates
Racism (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=437767)
An interesting debate over racism and its impact in today's society.

Hey E-slav, why is it that some of the titles split over two lines?
These ones:
"I have something
to say about Abortion."
"Why is
artificial contraception wrong?"
"Radical
Christians Target Abortion Clinics"
and some others.

Is that on purpose?
:confused:

Yea, I noticed that, and tried to correct it, but nothing looks wrong. I'll check again.

How to fix general debates - free pizza

Someone's looking for a sticky...

Bolol's Personal Model of Good Debate

1. Short, sweet and to the point.
2. Heated but civil
3. Focused
4. Open
5. Opinions backed up

I think debates would be a hell of a lot better if everyone had a set of personal principles to go by.

.::BUMP::.

Thanks Euroslavia- your ever-well-crafted and interesting posts are allways appreciated. I think yours were some of the first ones I read on this forum.
Bolol's Personal Model of Good Debate

1. Short, sweet and to the point.
2. Heated but civil
3. Focused
4. Open
5. Opinions backed up

I agree with the statement about short posts. Nothing is worse poorly edited and eon-long descriptions when there is no unifying idea.

I think yours were some of the first ones I read on this forum.
Well I sure hope they helped you out! :)

For the most part, I agree, although, sometimes someone has to go into a deeper explanation into why they think the way they do. If the poster makes it one massive paragraph, then I'm most likely not going to read it, but if they organize their argument, and they are concise and to the point, while providing relevant statistics or hardcore facts to support them, I'm going to read the whole post.

Do you ever start debatet hreads Euroslavia?
You could do a model debate thread, on something like "Are good debating skills obsolete in our culture?"
Considering that most politicians are 100% scripted, spontinaeity is planned, and eloquence is almost extinct, our rolemodels for inteligent and beautifully crafted speech and discourse are diminishing.

Do you ever start debatet hreads Euroslavia?
You could do a model debate thread, on something like "Are good debating skills obsolete in our culture?"
Considering that most politicians are 100% scripted, spontinaeity is planned, and eloquence is almost extinct, our rolemodels for inteligent and beautifully crafted speech and discourse are diminishing.

I was actually considering forming a small 'official debate team' thing, with a few neutral judges.

For the most part, I steer clear of debate threads, ironically.

Considering that most politicians are 100% scripted, spontinaeity is planned, and eloquence is almost extinct, our rolemodels for inteligent and beautifully crafted speech and discourse are diminishing.
Speaking of spontaneity, you know what I found helped me in debate?
Oddly enough, doing improv acting classes in high school.
I had thought they would be useless mostly, but for some people, it can really help them think in different ways and allow them to make connections between things they previously wouldn't.
The spontaniety seems to be less important on a online medium like this, but when debating someone fac-to-face, it's practically a must unless you have planned out for almost every contingency.

Speaking of spontaneity, you know what I found helped me in debate?
Oddly enough, doing improv acting classes in high school.
I had thought they would be useless mostly, but for some people, it can really help them think in different ways and allow them to make connections between things they previously wouldn't.
The spontaniety seems to be less important on a online medium like this, but when debating someone face-to-face, it's practically a must unless you have planned out for almost every contingency.
Yes, I always admired the people on the improv team, if not for their doubious comic prowess, than just for their bravery and pluckiness. The concept of improv had allways terrified me, though I enjoy a good lively debate if I know what I'm talking about. Debates here or on MSN are good that way, though. With a bit more time and planning, wit, and judgement is better, and more interesting points are raised.
I really think that rolemodels for speech are gone though. Compare Churchill with say, Paul Martin and you've got a glaring antithesis.

A debating team seems like an interesting idea !

added Official Debate Team links.

.::BUMP::.

.::BUMP::.

why dont we just pick the best thread from the archives on each topic, have the mods delete the troll, flame and spam posts, then just close up shop?

You could have someone act as a moderator, and ask questions to the two sides. The questions could come from a seperate thread.

If each of the side were made to respond to questions and follow up questions, it might keep the debate on topic and moving.

How to fix general debates - free pizza

Definitely.

re-organized links, added a bunch more informational links, and am going to add more categories soon.

Edit: Split coming for Bush/America category.

.::BUMP::.

I was planning to follow the official debate team threads religiously, but either I completely missed them, or it never got off the ground. Whatever happened?

I was planning to follow the official debate team threads religiously, but either I completely missed them, or it never got off the ground. Whatever happened?

They never really got on their feet. Maybe I'll start them up again sometime.

If we have debates, can we have it so that each side CAN flame the other? But they can only have a specifically designated flamer to do it, and only a set amount of flamers per side. I think that would help things enormously, make it more entertaining too, and add some pressure to the debate to make it more exhilerating. :)

They never really got on their feet. Maybe I'll start them up again sometime.Please do. I know I saw a thread with the first topic and debators. Make them come back!

Santa, do you really think a flame quota is appropriate or necessary!??

Please do. I know I saw a thread with the first topic and debators. Make them come back!

Santa, do you really think a flame quota is appropriate or necessary!??

Of course! There's one now: officially, zero is the limit. This would just be an increase of the limit for this particular case. And we could draft rules on the use of flame weaponry. Perhaps you could only flame the opposing flamers and not the debaters. It reminds me of how royal courts would have jesters. There's a point to it, I think, and I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

Plus, if VoteEarly or Jesussaves posts in a thread, everyone reads it. Whereas otherwise people are scared of ultra-serious, controlled debate threads.

Of course! There's one now: officially, zero is the limit. This would just be an increase of the limit for this particular case. And we could draft rules on the use of flame weaponry. Perhaps you could only flame the opposing flamers and not the debaters. It reminds me of how royal courts would have jesters. There's a point to it, I think, and I'd certainly be willing to give it a try.

Plus, if VoteEarly or Jesussaves posts in a thread, everyone reads it. Whereas otherwise people are scared of ultra-serious, controlled debate threads.I think the format that was agreed upon was a thread restricted to the official debators themselves in a regimented debate format, ie: intro, argument, rebutal, etc., and another debate commentary thread open to the generalites at large to speculate, and engage in the topic themselves.
I doubt that the m0ds would allow flameing in the commentary thread, and I'm sure the debators won't find it necessary. Interesting idea though. Maybe you can recruit a couple...erm...eccentric folks to take part, at their own risk, of course.

-added racism, split America and President Bush.