NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's what I propose: A "Best NSG Debater" challenge, with an entry fee of $5 USD (or some number of Euros, or pounds, whatever works). Somebody can set up a paypal account, maybe one of the mods or a mutually agreed upon trustworthy person. I won't name names because many don't have the time for this kind of thing, but I'm sure we'll find a volunteer.

Either the winner gets half the combined fees and the rest goes to charity (I like St. Jude's Children's Hospital cancer research, but there are lot of good charities), or all of it goes to charity, but the winner gets to pick which one.

It might work like this. To enter, you send your $5 to the account and a mod (or agreed upon ref) puts you on a list of participants. Once we have enough participants to send, say, $100 (more if people get into it), we pair off and do the first round.

Each participant challenges somebody to a debate on a subject until somebody accepts their challenge, and they debate it in a thread where they each get, say 25, posts. Or for round one, maybe we limit the number of words, and leave the long debates for the semi-finals.

Victory can be judged in a couple ways. If both opponents can agree on a third party to decide, including any other nation here, and they can agree to abide by what that person decides, no matter what, then any two debaters can pick their own judge for this debate in that round. If they can't agree on a mutual ref, then after they have reached the end of their debate (limited by posts, word count, whatever), the thread is closed to them, but open to any other paying participants, who vote to decide that thread's winner.

Winners go on to the next round, and for maybe the last 2 rounds, the post/wordcount limits are increased.

Even if we only raise $100, which could go to breast cancer research, AIDS causes, relief packages to the mideast, it still would make an impact on the real world.

We could make the donation in the name of "Jennifer Government and [winner's nation]", and thus get some publicity for Max's book, too.

We put so much energy into this place. We're up late, crafting responses, running down data and links, chewing one another up, putting our time and minds into trying to demonstrate how astute we are.

Well, if we're all such formidable debaters, let's make it count for once, for somebody somewhere who needs it.

Also, if anybody has been waiting a loooong time to take on somebody else here, we could do grudge matches, $25 entry fee, two nations enter, one wins. Either the winner gets $30 and $20 goes to charity, or it all goes to the charity of of the winner's choosing.

Also, if this gets okayed and actually gets off the ground, I hereby vow to rhetorically pound Neo Art down into ground round, and if I don't, I'll pay an extra $5.

Judging will be a problem. I can't think of anyone, mod or poster, who I would trust to decide the winner between all match-ups.

Otherwise, nice idea. Not just for the charity aspect, but because the debates would be good.

In this economy?

In this economy?

I can't afford 5 dollars in my economy.

Judging will be a problem. I can't think of anyone, mod or poster, who I would trust to decide the winner between all match-ups.

Otherwise, nice idea. Not just for the charity aspect, but because the debates would be good.

One person wouldn't be deciding all matchs, or even necessarily any one match up unless both participants agreed.

Most matches would be decided by vote of the other paying participants. Its kind of fitting, since very often, by the end of the debates here, both sides don't really expect to convince the others, they're hoping that the other observers of the thread see their point. This just takes that to the next level.

Part of debate, of rhetoric, is to convince others. In this case, the point is to convince the other participants that your position should win out. There is risk it will devolve into a popularity contest, but part of rhetoric is to overcome the crowd's prejudices and preferences. This is a means to measure that.

In this economy?

There were overwhelming amounts of donations during the elections, despite the economy. There is still money out there.

I can't afford 5 dollars in my economy.

How much do we spend on movies? Or some music?

This could be just as entertaining, and more, you'll know how good you can be when the chips are down. You don't get that out of most $5 entertainment expenditures.

If I win, I'd donate to the ASPCA. I love the kittens.

There were overwhelming amounts of donations during the elections, despite the economy. There is still money out there.

Ruffy transmit his messages from a dystopian future timeline where Carter's hostage rescue attempt succeeded, and Reagan never became president.

In his time, the economy has collapsed to pre-industrial levels, due to the subsequent political mismanagement of Democrats.

Oh, and in 1994 a meteor struck the earth that sent up a cloud of dust that prevents almost anything from growing.

That said, we're all pretty tight in the budget these days. I don't think anybody will get stink eye for not participating, and I'll be thrilled if I can even get 20 takers.

what kind of debate wouldnt just end up being a copy/paste from the experts spamfest?

what kind of topics are you thinking of?

I'd LOVE to participate, if only due to my liking for debating, but, alas, I don't even have the means to transfer these 5 bucks, let alone get the hypothetical award if I made it.

what kind of debate wouldnt just end up being a copy/paste from the experts spamfest?

what kind of topics are you thinking of?

Expert opinion or data links would certainly be useful, but it would be up to the users to interpret and apply that information, as well as illustrate reasons why a given set of data may not be as credible.

For grudge matches, the participants will probably already know what they want to argue about.

Some topics could be narrow, other's vague.

Anything, really. Middle East, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, abortion, evolution, Old Star Trek vs. New Star Trek, religion, guns, Star Wars Vs. New Battle Star Galacitica vs Just Battle Star Galatica, child rearing, Paul's role in Christianity, Prop 8, Paul's role in Catholicism, Appolo's role in Battle Star Galactica.

As for a copy past spam fest, the participant who does LESS of that and tries to make a cogent argument on their own could be rewarded with victory by the observers.

Anything, really. Middle East, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, abortion, evolution, Old Star Trek vs. New Star Trek, religion, guns, Star Wars Vs. New Battle Star Galacitica vs Just Battle Star Galatica, child rearing, Paul's role in Christianity, Prop 8, Paul's role in Catholicism, Appolo's role in Battle Star Galactica.

Marvel VS. DC? d:

Expert opinion or data links would certainly be useful, but it would be up to the users to interpret and apply that information, as well as illustrate reasons why a given set of data may not be as credible.

For grudge matches, the participants will probably already know what they want to argue about.

Some topics could be narrow, other's vague.

Anything, really. Middle East, Star Wars vs. Star Trek, abortion, evolution, Old Star Trek vs. New Star Trek, religion, guns, Star Wars Vs. New Battle Star Galacitica vs Just Battle Star Galatica, child rearing, Paul's role in Christianity, Prop 8, Paul's role in Catholicism, Appolo's role in Battle Star Galactica.

As for a copy past spam fest, the participant who does LESS of that and tries to make a cogent argument on their own could be rewarded with victory by the observers.
i guess id rather have a "surprise debate" where the secret judge (you unless you are a debater) declares a particularly contentious thread to be the sudden debate thread and that the already declared-to-be-willing-to-submit-to-this-humiliation participants have ....3.... posts back and forth to sum up the debate before you declare a winner.

It's a nifty idea, but finding an objective third-party would be difficult. The anonymity of the Internet is nice, but it also makes you wary of what people give as credentials.

Marvel VS. DC? d:

As long as people don't start posting Amalgam covers from the 90's, I don't see why not.

who would judge the debate? it should be someone not from NSG forums.

Perhaps I'm just not a very trusting person, but I would have a hard time trusting that my money would really go to a charity and not just into one individual's pockets. ):

That said, this sounds kind of fun.

i guess id rather have a "surprise debate" where the secret judge (you unless you are a debater) declares a particularly contentious thread to be the sudden debate thread and that the already declared-to-be-willing-to-submit-to-this-humiliation participants have ....3.... posts back and forth to sum up the debate before you declare a winner.

Heehee, that'd actually be cool...I wish two dozen more people felt exactly as you do.

If there were to be a Star Chamber Secret Judge Poobah, though, it should be somebody with some credibility.

There are posters here are that are respected enough to fill that role, but I lost that chance when I got caught on the Jumbotron staring at this underage Fort Collins girls thong while hosting "Steven Baldwin's Youth For Truth Extreme Motocross for the Messiah and Home-based Business Seminar for Christians" in Colorado last year.

who would judge the debate? it should be someone not from NSG forums.

As described in the post, either the participants of a given match would agree on a judge, or the other participants would vote. Debate is about swaying an audience; NSG is as reasonable an audience as any. Yes, I just said that.

As described in the post, either the participants of a given match would agree on a judge, or the other participants would vote. Debate is about swaying an audience; NSG is as reasonable an audience as any. Yes, I just said that.

:eek:

Heehee, that'd actually be cool...I wish two dozen more people felt exactly as you do.

If there were to be a Star Chamber Secret Judge Poobah, though, it should be somebody with some credibility.

There are posters here are that are respected enough to fill that role, but I lost that chance when I got caught on the Jumbotron staring at this underage Fort Collins girls thong while hosting "Steven Baldwin's Youth For Truth Extreme Motocross for the Messiah and Home-based Business Seminar for Christians" in Colorado last year.
it would have to be one of the senior moderators.

but it would have the benefit of improving everyone's debate style.

even mine

i very seldom debate but if i had to worry that i would face the sudden judgement of doom in one of the few times it get into it with someone, i might do i better job from the get-go.

As described in the post, either the participants of a given match would agree on a judge, or the other participants would vote. Debate is about swaying an audience; NSG is as reasonable an audience as any. Yes, I just said that.
i see a potential problem with secret puppets. something would have to be done to guarantee one "man" one vote.

As described in the post, either the participants of a given match would agree on a judge, or the other participants would vote. Debate is about swaying an audience; NSG is as reasonable an audience as any. Yes, I just said that.

You need to put down the bottle and think about that last sentence. :p

Perhaps I'm just not a very trusting person, but I would have a hard time trusting that my money would really go to a charity and not just into one individual's pockets. ):

That said, this sounds kind of fun.

I'm open to any ideas for verification and assurances, and since this was my idea, I would guarantee the first $100 with my own money by funding the initial paypal (or whatever system) account to that amount, with control of the account in the hands of another poster, hopefully a volunteer with a long history here.

When its over, the money goes to the charity and a receipt or other document is received, which is posted. Some charities even have registries of donors, where somebody could just go look up the "Jennifer Government and [Winning Nation]" to confirm that. Once they've seen it, they send in their five bucks to replenish the account. Anybody who signed up but doesn't send the money goes on a poopy list and can't play anymore.

That way, the only money at risk is mine, at least to the first $100.

i see a potential problem with secret puppets. something would have to be done to guarantee one "man" one vote.

Good point, but remember, only paying participants can vote, so somebody would have to basically buy the election in order to cheat, but if the money goes to charity, it still serves the purpose.

On the other hand, it does ruin the concept, so we'd have to find some way to detect, deter, or devalue the use of puppets.

Ideas?

Good point, but remember, only paying participants can vote, so somebody would have to basically buy the election in order to cheat, but if the money goes to charity, it still serves the purpose.

On the other hand, it does ruin the concept, so we'd have to find some way to detect, deter, or devalue the use of puppets.

Ideas?
ohhhhh if only payers get to vote and someone is so vain that they want to buy the debate, i say let them.

ohhhhh if only payers get to vote and someone is so vain that they want to buy the debate, i say let them.

That works once, but then people won't participate because its rigged and we only get one little check for St. Jude's Childrens or whoever.

I'd love to grow this thing into heavy participation, people coming to nationstates, the Thunderdome of Internet Arguing, to make sure their charity gets a big check in the name of their nation (and Jennifer Government).

That works once, but then people won't participate because its rigged and we only get one little check for St. Jude's Childrens or whoever.

I'd love to grow this thing into heavy participation, people coming to nationstates, the Thunderdome of Internet Arguing, to make sure their charity gets a big check in the name of their nation (and Jennifer Government).
or it gets..... someone...labeled as an asshole and the next time the judge doesnt choose him as a debater.

I hate to drop a thunderstorm on your parade; however, most people in the United States cannot play your game. This amounts to online gambling and, even though the money is going to charity, still means a tax write-off for the winner, and a temporary possession of his or her winnings, even if he never actually possesses them. Ergo, can't do it. European laws however, are open to somebody else.

I hate to drop a thunderstorm on your parade; however, most people in the United States cannot play your game. This amounts to online gambling and, even though the money is going to charity, still means a tax write-off for the winner, and a temporary possession of his or her winnings, even if he never actually possesses them. Ergo, can't do it. European laws however, are open to somebody else.
its not gambling, its a contest.

its not gambling, its a contest.

Do the entrants have to ante up, and do they get a prize if they win?

It's gambling.

I think, if participants have to risk money up front -- pay to play -- then it's gambling, and that could run afoul of US law, even though it's for charity.

A lawyer needs to be consulted about this set up. I'm sure there must be some way to set up a US-legal online charity fundraising event.

Do the entrants have to ante up, and do they get a prize if they win?

It's gambling.
gambling has random results.

contests do not.

and the money will be on the conscience of the winner to put on their tax form or not.

as i understand this scheme most people dont even have the chance to win. i put up my $5 in order to have a vote on who wins. i very well might never be in the debate itself.

gambling has random results.

contests do not.

and the money will be on the conscience of the winner to put on their tax form or not.
Contests must be no-risk to participants. You know, along the lines of free entry, no purchase required to participate, etc. If you lay down money that you will not get back if the result does not go your way, then I think that makes it gambling.

Contests must be no-risk to participants. You know, along the lines of free entry, no purchase required to participate, etc. If you lay down money that you will not get back if the result does not go your way, then I think that makes it gambling.
game of skill vs game of chance

not that i care. its not like the feds are gonna show up at my door and take me away.

as i understand this scheme most people dont even have the chance to win. i put up my $5 in order to have a vote on who wins. i very well might never be in the debate itself.
I don't know how that specific kind of set-up would be classified. That's why I think a lawyer should be consulted.

If debate participants pay to play in order to win a prize (the gate going to their charity), then it would be gambling.

If votes work like bets placed by the audience on which debater will win, then it would be gambling.

If the debate was only a kind of show-match of debaters and its purpose was to promote donations to charities, which the audience would have the option to give to or not, then it would be totally safe.

For instance, if two to four charities were chose, and each debater represented one of them, then whoever won the debate, that charity would get however much money the audience had chosen to pledge via paypal/etc. But the donations then would be strictly voluntary and not dependent on the outcome of the debate.

game of skill vs game of chance

not that i care. its not like the feds are gonna show up at my door and take me away.
No, but they could shut down the forum, maybe, at least in the States.

or it gets..... someone...labeled as an asshole and the next time the judge doesnt choose him as a debater.

I'm worried about putting that kind of power into one person's hands. We all have people we think of as "assholes", but I want it to be as fair as possible.

Internet gambling provisions

Title VIII of the Act is also known as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 (or UIGEA). This title (found at 31 U.S.C. § 5361–5367[dead link]) prohibits the transfer of funds from a financial institution to an Internet gambling site, with the notable exceptions of fantasy sports, online lotteries, and horse/harness racing.

[edit] Legislative history

The Act was passed at midnight on the day Congress adjourned for the 2006 elections. Though a bill with the gambling wording was previously debated and passed by the House of Representatives,[4][5][6] the SAFE Port Act (H.R. 4954) as passed by the House on May 4th (by a vote of 421-2) and the United States Senate on September 14th (98-0),[7] bore no traces of the Unlawful Internet Gambling and Enforcement Act that was included in the SAFE Port Act signed into law by George W. Bush on October 13th, 2006.[8] The UIGEA was added in Conference Report 109-711 (submitted at 9:29pm on September 29, 2006), which was passed by the House of Representatives by a vote of 409-2 and by the Senate by unanimous consent on September 30, 2006. Due to H. Res. 1064, the reading of this conference report was waived.

Among the more prominent Congressional supporters of the Act were Jim Leach, a former chairman of the House Banking Committee and Rep. Robert Goodlatte [R-VA], who co-authored H.R. 4411 (the Internet Gambling Prohibition and Enforcement Act). Bill Frist, former majority leader of the Senate, and Jon Kyl are both credited with expediting the UIGEA's passage through the Senate. Though the SAFE Port Act's provisions related to Internet gambling were drawn exclusively from H.R. 4411, significant portions were removed, including text relating to the Federal Wire Act.[9]

A prior version of the gambling part of the bill passed the House in 1999 but failed in the Senate in part due to the influence of lobbyist Jack Abramoff.[10

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE_Port_Act#Internet_gambling_provisions

As far as I can tell online gambling isn't actually illegal, financial institutes are just barred from transferring money to some online gambling sites.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAFE_Port_Act#Internet_gambling_provisions

As far as I can tell online gambling isn't actually illegal, financial institutes are just barred from transferring money to some online gambling sites.
the bush administration recently put in some rules based on that law but i dont recall what the details were.

leaving it up to the banks is so abysmally stupid that i cant imagine anyone in the federal government trying to enforce the rules. but we have a new administration coming in and who knows what new and interesting stupid things they might do, eh?

Good legal advice is always helpful. Unfortunately, 20 minutes of legal advice is probably more expensive then what we'll get for the charity...

I know a few lawyers, I'll see if I can get some information on how it could be structured to not upset the Powers That Be.

Wow, this turned ridiculously and unnecessarily serious rather fast. I think a good deal of the fun was sucked out of the whole idea. But the charity aspect is still a grand one, if you can actually find a way around these worries of "illegal gambling" being brought up by various people.

Wow, this turned ridiculously and unnecessarily serious rather fast. I think a good deal of the fun was sucked out of the whole idea. But the charity aspect is still a grand one, if you can actually find a way around these worries of "illegal gambling" being brought up by various people.

To be honest, I'm grateful somebody brought it up. I'd hate to see an otherwise sound idea derailed by regulatory entanglements, and if we first conduct due diligence and structure it properly, it has a better chance of gestating into something more than just a fun idea.

Wow, this turned ridiculously and unnecessarily serious rather fast. I think a good deal of the fun was sucked out of the whole idea. But the charity aspect is still a grand one, if you can actually find a way around these worries of "illegal gambling" being brought up by various people.

I do that.

No offense but this sounds ridiculous, never mind legality.

No offense but this sounds ridiculous, never mind legality.

Is there something about it in particular that seems ridiculous? Is it the feasibility, or the premise itself? Something else?

Wow, this turned ridiculously and unnecessarily serious rather fast. I think a good deal of the fun was sucked out of the whole idea. But the charity aspect is still a grand one, if you can actually find a way around these worries of "illegal gambling" being brought up by various people.

Most fun ideas require a stupid amount of thought and planning to get them off the ground. The amount of planning usually decides whether they're a success or not.

Most fun ideas require a stupid amount of thought and planning to get them off the ground. The amount of planning usually decides whether they're a success or not.
and thinking it through and making it all very clear can avoid hurt feeling (and lawsuits) later on.

Is there something about it in particular that seems ridiculous? Is it the feasibility, or the premise itself? Something else?

The premise itself, all it boils down to is a popularity contest, a pageant. It's not true competition. Not that I care what others want to do. It goes without saying that it's my opinion.

Why does it have to be one judge? It could be a group of like 3-5 people... an odd number. And also I could be a judge, I have no real connections to anyone here and could manage to be impartial and have no life so I could be here alot!

The premise itself, all it boils down to is a popularity contest, a pageant. It's not true competition. Not that I care what others want to do. It goes without saying that it's my opinion.
doesnt that depend on how its structured?


look at chunky's suggestion. that might help to mitigate the popularity thing.

The premise itself, all it boils down to is a popularity contest, a pageant. It's not true competition. Not that I care what others want to do. It goes without saying that it's my opinion.

Well, if the competition is to persuade people to vote for you, ostensibly by dint of your debating skills, the resulting popularity is, in a sense, a measurable assessment of the outcome.

Its definitely a risk that people will vote for those they like and ignore the debates.

Maybe a narrower panel of judges isn't a bad idea.

doesnt that depend on how its structured?


look at chunky's suggestion. that might help to mitigate the popularity thing.

I don't think it can happen, the very nature of judging something like debating skills is subjective, which is how I understand it would be. Or are we talking about judging who is actually correct?

Like if I were to say climate change is man made while an opponent saying there's not enough proof of it, what would win? The opponent's words tickling the fancy of the judges, or me pointing out my stance by simply saying "it's real, you asshat"?

Well, if the competition is to persuade people to vote for you, ostensibly by dint of your debating skills, the resulting popularity is, in a sense, a measurable assessment of the outcome.

Its definitely a risk that people will vote for those they like and ignore the debates.

Maybe a narrower panel of judges isn't a bad idea.

I'd be less concerned with people voting for people they like than with people voting for their own beliefs regardless of the quality of debate.

Impartial judges would be hard to find around these parts.

I don't think it can happen, the very nature of judging something like debating skills is subjective, which is how I understand it would be. Or are we talking about judging who is actually correct?

Like if I were to say climate change is man made while an opponent saying there's not enough proof of it, what would win? The opponent's words tickling the fancy of the judges, or me pointing out my stance by simply saying "it's real, you asshat"?

I would think it would principally be debating skills, that is to say, how effectively and persuasively you made your point. Still, you make a good point that this is subjective, and those entering would have to be okay with that.

I would like to think that a major part of it would be, how original is your argument, and your approach. If its just degenerating into people trading the same arguments, the way to distinguish yourself, to get votes, might be to try a new approach, render the central ideas in a more clear or concise way, do something that reaches people.

I don't think it can happen, the very nature of judging something like debating skills is subjective, which is how I understand it would be. Or are we talking about judging who is actually correct?

Like if I were to say climate change is man made while an opponent saying there's not enough proof of it, what would win? The opponent's words tickling the fancy of the judges, or me pointing out my stance by simply saying "it's real, you asshat"?
that is why i hesitate to endorse the idea (apart from the notion of collecting a bit of money for charity and having a fun way of deciding where it goes).

most of the debate topics are either personal opinion -- dc vs marvel-- or so already decided here that no brilliance of posting is going to get a majority to vote the "wrong" side the winner--legal abortion, gay marriage.

that is why i hesitate to endorse the idea (apart from the notion of collecting a bit of money for charity and having a fun way of deciding where it goes).

most of the debate topics are either personal opinion -- dc vs marvel-- or so already decided here that no brilliance of posting is going to get a majority to vote the "wrong" side the winner--legal abortion, gay marriage.

How about more non-sensical debates? Which is better, Phobos or Deimos?

Make it more about the style and skill of debate rather than a hot button issue with clear pre-existing sides.

that is why i hesitate to endorse the idea (apart from the notion of collecting a bit of money for charity and having a fun way of deciding where it goes).

most of the debate topics are either personal opinion -- dc vs marvel-- or so already decided here that no brilliance of posting is going to get a majority to vote the "wrong" side the winner--legal abortion, gay marriage.

There are still people who do a horrible job of supporting the "right" side, and people who do more a elegant and capable job of presenting the "wrong" side.

We could also see if can develop some kind of topic management, things that are more "in play" as it were. Ideas where reasonable minds can differ, as they say.

How about more non-sensical debates? Which is better, Phobos or Deimos?

Make it more about the style and skill of debate rather than a hot button issue with clear pre-existing sides.
Ewww... rhetoric.

How about more non-sensical debates? Which is better, Phobos or Deimos?

Make it more about the style and skill of debate rather than a hot button issue with clear pre-existing sides.

That's kind of an interesting idea...it would make it more about flair and (sort of) logic skills.

Let's have a debate about which method of judging the debate we'll use. First we have to find a way to judge the winner of this debate though.

Yeah, well there's the problem I see. It is both subjective and contradictory of substance, which would be needed to have any significant debate. The topics are going to be few and far between, if you're looking for something of substance which is also not widely known to be settled (or have the stigma of a certain opinion, in case you happen to disagree with it). Unless all participants are going to debate the same topic, like abortion, it's going to get a little silly, perhaps even then.

I think we're all familiar with both sides of the abortion issue. How could somebody be more original? Debate in poems, latin, post youtubes in film noir style? And if instead it's about marvel vs dc, coke vs pepsi, itchy vs scratchy? Forget about it. I can't see it being too interesting, sorry.

Let's have a debate about which method of judging the debate we'll use. First we have to find a way to judge the winner of this debate though.

Is this one of those recursive iterations where it takes a Bulgarian man in suspenders to develop a solution algorithm?

The problem with this is whether we would want this to be an actually judgment of debate rather than a judgement the merits of eavh argument.

For example, if we got a good cross-section of the posters here, almost anyone taking up the scientific position would defeat creationism in a vote. We'd want to encourage a vote based on the quality of the argument, not whether we agree with it.

Yeah, well there's the problem I see. It is both subjective and contradictory of substance, which would be needed to have any significant debate. The topics are going to be few and far between, if you're looking for something of substance which is also not widely known to be settled (or have the stigma of a certain opinion, in case you happen to disagree with it). Unless all participants are going to debate the same topic, like abortion, it's going to get a little silly, perhaps even then.

I think we're all familiar with both sides of the abortion issue. How could somebody be more original? Debate in poems, latin, post youtubes in film noir style? And if instead it's about marvel vs dc, come vs pepsi, itchy vs scratchy? Forget about it. I can't see it being too interesting, sorry.

Well, Latin is pretty played out, but film noir youtube vids, I'd totally watch a debate on Evolution done that way.

Well, few things have universal appeal, I suppose. I'll still be happy if I can get 20 people to go for it.

Wait...did you say "come vs pepsi"?

Wait...did you say "come vs pepsi"?

A popular discussion round our way.

Pepsi is fucking disgusting.

There are still people who do a horrible job of supporting the "right" side, and people who do more a elegant and capable job of presenting the "wrong" side.

We could also see if can develop some kind of topic management, things that are more "in play" as it were. Ideas where reasonable minds can differ, as they say.

I think we'd do better to select a group of judges that is agreed upon by the group of potential participants. I think the judges should be selected before money is collected since some will not want to participate if certain people are judging.

The problem with this is whether we would want this to be an actually judgment of debate rather than a judgement the merits of eavh argument.

For example, if we got a good cross-section of the posters here, almost anyone taking up the scientific position would defeat creationism in a vote. We'd want to encourage a vote based on the quality of the argument, not whether we agree with it.

Well, I think it would have to be about debate prowess, for much the reason you describe.

Its just that, we can encourage a vote based on quality of the argument, but how can we structure this to motivate it?

We'd want to encourage a vote based on the quality of the argument, not whether we agree with it.

Which is why it's silly. You can't have one without the other, in my opinion. You can have an opinion, but how exactly do you judge "quality of argument"? Proficient use of grammar or thesaurus?

I think we'd do better to select a group of judges that is agreed upon by the group of potential participants. I think the judges should be selected before money is collected since some will not want to participate if certain people are judging.

I think you're completely correct there. If there were to be a panel of judges, they would have to be chosen before anybody put in their dough.

Which is why it's silly. You can't have one without the other, in my opinion. You can have an opinion, but how exactly do you judge "quality of argument"? Proficient use of grammar or thesaurus?

I don't think it has to as pedantic as that.

Are there not stylistic and logical acumens that are evident to readers? Can we not begrudgingly acknowledge rhetoric capability, even in the opposition?

Seriously, he totally said "come and pepsi".

Wait...did you say "come vs pepsi"?

typo

Which is why it's silly. You can't have one without the other, in my opinion. You can have an opinion, but how exactly do you judge "quality of argument"? Proficient use of grammar or thesaurus?

Debate. If you don't know what that is, you'd probably not want to judge it. However, what you're saying is like saying that because I prefer high-flying gymnastics that I couldn't ref if I didn't ref based on my preferences. Debate and gymnastics both have rules as well as some room for flare. Judging them according to the rules is the point.

If one guy is relying on insults and various other nonsense and the other is structuring a sound argument, it's not too difficult to see the difference.

typo

Ah, fair enough.

Too bad though, I totally would have made that the debate for the final round.

Debate. If you don't know what that is, you'd probably not want to judge it. However, what you're saying is like saying that because I prefer high-flying gymnastics that I couldn't ref if I didn't ref based on my preferences. Debate and gymnastics both have rules as well as some room for flare. Judging them according to the rules is the point.

If one guy is relying on insults and various other nonsense and the other is structuring a sound argument, it's not too difficult to see the difference.

We have to figure out what to do when they aren't so far apart on the spectrum. It could be a game of inches (those are like big centimeters, for you citizens of Not America).

I don't think it has to as pedantic as that.

Are there not stylistic and logical acumens that are evident to readers? Can we not begrudgingly acknowledge rhetoric capability, even in the opposition?

Seriously, he totally said "come and pepsi".

Depends on whose it is. (referring to your last sentence)

As far as debate, this is a solved problem. It doesn't have to be as strict as an actual debate competition, but the groundwork is done. There is very little trouble with that and they often debate very contentious topics.

I don't think it has to as pedantic as that.

Are there not stylistic and logical acumens that are evident to readers?

In non-creative writing, not to me, but then again, I'm not a writer. If it's going to be judged on creativity, that's far from being debate if you ask me.

Sorry, but this is a silly idea. Everyone should just donate $5 to charity instead.

EDIT: As a veteran of high school and college debate competitions and various courtrooms, it's my opinion that you have to have a lot of rules, judging criteria, etc., to even come close to a fair contest. And I don't think the personalities here on NSG are well-suited to having any contest that is just friendly and casual.

In non-creative writing, not to me, but then again, I'm not a writer. If it's going to be judged on creativity, that's far from being debate if you ask me.

How about taking a complex idea and expressing it in a way that can easily be understood by a layman?

Depends on whose it is. (referring to your last sentence)

As far as debate, this is a solved problem. It doesn't have to be as strict as an actual debate competition, but the groundwork is done. There is very little trouble with that and they often debate very contentious topics.

You're not going to start in with that "Eat pineapples, it makes it taste better and she won't complain as much" shit that you started that time in Cambodia and we got thrown out of that Mormon mission and had to find somewhere else to sleep off a two day bender because you kept saying "Its an entheogenic and she's a high priestess" even though the only thing holy in that place were the condoms coming out of the bathroom vending machine, are you?

Debate. If you don't know what that is, you'd probably not want to judge it. However, what you're saying is like saying that because I prefer high-flying gymnastics that I couldn't ref if I didn't ref based on my preferences. Debate and gymnastics both have rules as well as some room for flare. Judging them according to the rules is the point.


If one guy is relying on insults and various other nonsense and the other is structuring a sound argument, it's not too difficult to see the difference.

Rules are invented, and the nature it is going to be pure preference. That's my point. Obviously, stark contrasts between somebody who makes some literal sense and a somebody replying "PENIS, PENIS, PENIS" would be an easy decision, but not so much if both make literal sense.

Sorry, but this is a silly idea. Everyone should just donate $5 to charity instead.

Goddamit, Cat, quit making reasonable suggestions that would accomplish essentially equivalent good without unnecessary problems.

People don't give to charity unless you make some sort of hokey game out of it, like a Fun Run, or a Dunking Booth, or last year's Montana Militia Muzzleloading Musket Squirrel Shoot and Faith Based Barbecue.

And don't bother posting a big link to how many people gave to charity without gimmick, because I have no interest in your facts and logic. This is about debate.

Seriously, though, if I posted a thread that said "Hey, lets all give $5 each to charity", how many would respond?

I'm trying to make it fun and make good use of people's desire to be "the best debater on NSG". Maybe there are some that would pay a few bucks for that chance, who wouldn't just give it otherwise.

You just don't like the idea because everybody will want you to be judge.

Rules are invented, and the nature it is going to be pure preference. That's my point. Obviously, stark contrasts between somebody who makes some literal sense and a somebody replying "PENIS, PENIS, PENIS" would be an easy decision, but not so much if both make literal sense.

The rules are ALREADY invented. Debate and rhetoric are not new art forms. We're not creating a new competition nor a new medium for that competition. Pretending like it's an insurmountable problem, or even a very significant problem is not helping anything.

The problem would be selecting judges who actually know about debate and rhetoric. However, as TCT just mentioned, some of us have already done this before.

You just don't like the idea because everybody will want you to be judge.

Actually, I am clearly the best debater. Please forward your $5 to me and I will see that it goes to good use. :D

Actually, I am clearly the best debater. Please forward your $5 to me and I will see that it goes to good use. :D

What's your paypal account address?

Actually, I am clearly the best debater. Please forward your $5 to me and I will see that it goes to good use. :D

What's your paypal account address?

Never mind Paypal, what's you bank acount number...and home address...and social security number?

I have to make sure I've sent it to the right person and would never, ever steal your identity. :)

Actually, I am clearly the best debater. Please forward your $5 to me and I will see that it goes to good use. :D

would that make you a master debator?

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.

It seems to me that if the winning debater can't be seen to get any personal benefit from winning, this can't be seen as a lottery no matter how arbitrary or corrupt the judging turns out to be.

Now, I don't think that getting to pick the charity which receives the money really counts as a personal reward. But in case it is seen that way in law, how about this: on paying their five bucks, each contestant nominates one charity.

At the end of the contest, the winnings are given to one of the charities in the list, picked at random. If two people nominated the same charity, obviously that charity would have twice the chance of getting the money.

Eliminating any trace of a prize for winning might seem silly, but really it's the paying-in step which is really important. People tend to value what they pay for more than what they get for free.

NSG isn't going to turn into a great centre of high-minded debate from this scheme. But any improvement would be welcome.

The rules are ALREADY invented.

So what are these universal rules of debating that you seem to say are common knowledge and synonymous with the word "debate"?

Sorry, but this is a silly idea. Everyone should just donate $5 to charity instead.

EDIT: As a veteran of high school and college debate competitions and various courtrooms, it's my opinion that you have to have a lot of rules, judging criteria, etc., to even come close to a fair contest. And I don't think the personalities here on NSG are well-suited to having any contest that is just friendly and casual.
To be honest, though I like the idea in principle, I wouldn't participate for 3 reasons: (1) I don't care who the best debater is; (2) when I want to give to charity, I just cut a check; and (3) even NSGers who know what debate is seldom follow the formal rules. This is a pretty lax club in terms of what people can get away with debating-wise, and I don't see the resident egos taking the decisions of judges very well, even if they did approve the judging panel themselves beforehand.

I still think the least headed-for-disaster way to do this would be to set up a formal-rules debate contest for the title of Master Debater, and use that entertainment as a means to encourage the audience to donate to one of however-many selected charities. Each competitor represents one charity. Donations go into a paypal account or something. Whoever wins the debate according to the judges, that charity gets the money.

It's not as exciting, and you might not get as much money as if you set it up so that people might think they could influence the outcome by their vote/donations, but I think it would be the easiest to set up and the least full of headaches later on.


You just don't like the idea because everybody will want you to be judge.
I want TCT to judge because I want to see his head explode. :D

I don't really have the means to donate and enter such a tournament, but I'm willing to judge debates.

I've got a year and a half of experience at hard-core policy debate, so I'm pretty sure I could do a competent job, and I've got experience with several types of argumentation.

I also think there need to be two main rules, a word-count limit, and a time limit. Other than that, we may want to have a default topic of debate, and then if the two debaters can come to a consensus on something else, that can be their topic.

I still think the least headed-for-disaster way to do this would be to set up a formal-rules debate contest for the title of Master Debater...
I vaguely remember Stephistan conducting a couple of formal debate threads, back in the day.

So what are these universal rules of debating that you seem to say are common knowledge and synonymous with the word "debate"?

Nothing like a strawman. Wait, what's a strawman? No one here has ever heard of that, ever.

Regardless, I didn't say anything about common knowledge or universal. I said it's an answered "problem". There are already debate competitions. They've existed virtually as long as there have been competitions. Some of the rules are nearly universal, some are regional or specific. There wouldn't be a terrible lot of difficulty in selecting a rule set. No more so than there is difficulty selecting a ruleset for spades or pool.

I vaguely remember Stephistan conducting a couple of formal debate threads, back in the day.

I kind of remember that as well. I wonder if anyone still here participated.

I kind of remember that as well. I wonder if anyone still here participated.
I (well, my 2004 nation) wasn't allowed to join beacuse I was too new.

I wouldn't actually mind to have a debate thread between a few participants, might be interesting. As others have pointed out, would need to follow certain rules, perhaps modified after parliamentary debate style. Instead of the 'strict time limit", perhaps a word limit and time restrictions (such as 24 hours to post your answer).

I wouldn't actually mind to have a debate thread between a few participants, might be interesting. As others have pointed out, would need to follow certain rules, perhaps modified after parliamentary debate style. Instead of the 'strict time limit", perhaps a word limit and time restrictions (such as 24 hours to post your answer).
id rather have a one or 2 day time limit for the whole event. with advance notice so the debaters arent too busy to fully participate, a 12 hour limit would be good.

id rather have a one or 2 day time limit for the whole event. with advance notice so the debaters arent too busy to fully participate, a 12 hour limit would be good.

well parliamentary debate styles requires 2 teams of 2, with 6 total speaking times (PM, opposition leader's response to PM, member of government, member of opposition, PM's rebutall, opposition leader's rebuttal).

So difficult to get that through a day, with formulated typed responses.

well parliamentary debate styles requires 2 teams of 2, with 6 total speaking times (PM, opposition leader's response to PM, member of government, member of opposition, PM's rebutall, opposition leader's rebuttal).

So difficult to get that through a day, with formulated typed responses.
eewwwww

id rather have it be interesting.

I'd join but, you know, it would probably be unfair on the other competitors...

interestingly enough, after some research, "normal" speaking rate is approximately 150 words a minute. If we factor in "rapid speaking" of parliamentary debators, and figure in about 225 words a minute (a 50% increase), and with the strict time limits, we can come up with some loose word restrictions. Parliamentary debate works as follows;

1) Prime Minister - 7 minutes (1575 words)
2) Leader of the Opposition - 8 minutes (1800 words)
3) Member of Government - 8 minutes (1800 words)
4) Member of Opposition - 8 minutes (1800 words)
5) Prime MInister's rebuttal - 5 minutes (1125 words)
6) Leader of the Opposition's rebuttal -4 minutes (900 words)

Of course, this can be shortened some, to account for mental pauses, stutters, and general "collection time" which while present in live conversation, does not occur in typing, so perhaps we could go with the "average speaking speed" of 150 words per minute, which creates time lines of: 1050, 1200, 1200, 1200, 750 and 600 words respectively.

Just a thought.

eewwwww

id rather have it be interesting.

parliamentary debate style is very interesting, it's just very formatted.

interestingly enough, after some research, "normal" speaking rate is approximately 150 words a minute. If we factor in "rapid speaking" of parliamentary debators, and figure in about 225 words a minute (a 50% increase), and with the strict time limits, we can come up with some loose word restrictions. Parliamentary debate works as follows;

1) Prime Minister - 7 minutes (1575 words)
2) Leader of the Opposition - 8 minutes (1800 words)
3) Member of Government - 8 minutes (1800 words)
4) Member of Opposition - 8 minutes (1800 words)
5) Prime MInister's rebuttal - 5 minutes (1125 words)
6) Leader of the Opposition's rebuttal -4 minutes (900 words)

Of course, this can be shortened some, to account for mental pauses, stutters, and general "collection time" which while present in live conversation, does not occur in typing, so perhaps we could go with the "average speaking speed" of 150 words per minute, which creates time lines of: 1050, 1200, 1200, 1200, 750 and 600 words respectively.

Just a thought.
Don't forget to calculate time zones into the plan. Most debates happen in real time with people all in the same room together. Not so on NSG. The above is fine for dictating lengths of posts, but for time to respond, I think Ash's ~12 hour suggestion has merit.

You know, if you really want to impose limits that will make competitors stay on program, you could also require that the posts be in verse -- haiku, iambic pentameter, heroic couplets, something like that -- or a selected literary style, like hardboiled mystery, gothic romance, or lovecraftian horror.

Plus the word count limit.

Plus the time to respond limit.

Plus the requirement that it be on topic and logically sound for advancing the debater's argument.

EDIT: You know, the more I think about that, the less I think I'm kidding. :D

Hold on, I could have sworn you already tried this, what happened to the last attempt?

You know, if you really want to impose limits that will make competitors stay on program, you could also require that the posts be in verse -- haiku, iambic pentameter, heroic couplets, something like that -- or a selected literary style, like hardboiled mystery, gothic romance, or lovecraftian horror.

Plus the word count limit.

Plus the time to respond limit.

Plus the requirement that it be on topic and logically sound for advancing the debater's argument.

EDIT: You know, the more I think about that, the less I think I'm kidding. :D
now THAT might make it interesting.


but i doubt it.

maybe if we allowed flaming ...

parliamentary debate style is very interesting, it's just very formatted.

I like the idea of teams. Now THAT could be interesting.

I don't think I'd want the responses to be so limited though (in terms of so few responses). Perhaps we could go with more responses with an overall word limit.

Also, I think we could simply schedule rounds. Get everyone competing in a particular round to agree to a time of day. It shouldn't be two hard to block out two or three hours. That way the debater doesn't get 12 hours to form their response and there is less advantage to people who don't work and whatnot. You'd have to actually be prepared for the debate and ready to make arguments.

now THAT might make it interesting.


but i doubt it.

maybe if we allowed flaming ...

All kidding aside, I think we'd want to suspend standard forum rules. That's easy to get around though and it makes it possible to have a closed debate.

Ard sent me a suggestion when I talked about having formal debate before. We'd simply roleplay it on an RP forum. It's pretty easy to set it up so people arrive and the debate setting is created. We're allowed to make a closed thread and we can actually control the events to a degree. Also, this would allow us to handle the debate characters however we like without having the issue of it being personal.

Perhaps we could go with more responses with an overall word limit.


You'd be screwed.

Muravyets v. Neo Art. Hell, you could sell tickets to that one.

Opening bout would be Cat-Tribe v. Grave_n_Idle.

For the cartoon, Fass v. New Mitanni.

Muravyets v. Neo Art. Hell, you could sell tickets to that one.

Opening bout would be Cat-Tribe v. Grave_n_Idle.

For the cartoon, Fass v. New Mitanni.

I approve!!!:eek:

Muravyets v. Neo Art. Hell, you could sell tickets to that one.

Opening bout would be Cat-Tribe v. Grave_n_Idle.

For the cartoon, Fass v. New Mitanni.
Pfft. I'd have him reduced to spouting nothing but snotty ad hominems in 10 posts or less. :tongue:

Pfft. I'd have him reduced to spouting nothing but snotty ad hominems in 10 posts or less. :tongue:

I dunno. You might get fatally distracted by Neo's catsuit.

I dunno. You might get fatally distracted by Neo's catsuit.

So ka?! Neo has a catsuit?!:eek2:

Muravyets v. Neo Art. Hell, you could sell tickets to that one.

Opening bout would be Cat-Tribe v. Grave_n_Idle.

For the cartoon, Fass v. New Mitanni.

Who would I be against? :D

Who would I be against? :D

Heikoku would go against... Bottle!!

You'd be screwed.

Well, duh.

I'd pick two mods, think of the scale of warfare! think about it.
with two mods falling out, others could retake power once and for all of...(Grand voice)...the forum.

The suggestion put by Jocabia is good, that debates be scheduled and the contenders be online at the same time.

In twelve hours, (or 24) a determined but not very talented debater could compose a very good reply. If their opponent doesn't have 12 hours to burn, it's not a fair contest.

Okay, here's the fight card for the opening round:

Cat-Tribes vs. Valentasia, debating ADD/ADHD.

Fassitude vs. Tucker Island: homosexuality, immoral or just a great time?

Neo Art vs. Deep Kimchi, Knesset politics.

Nanatsu no Tsuki vs. Ardchoille: swimsuit portion.

Jocabia vs. Canuckheaven: Who would have won the last US Presidential election if we lived in an alternate universe where the distribution of Hydrogen Isotopes differed by 0.08%?

Hotwife vs. Gun Manufacturers: The .17 HMR, ethical to use on coyotes or not?

Katganistan vs. Lunatic Goofballs: Clowns or cats, which is the better method to teach your children to fear dangerous things?

New Mitanni vs. Intangelon: Applications of the ancient Greek and Egyptian concept of musical integers applied to contemporary harmonic science and will it make the groupies do you?

Muravyets vs. Ashmoria: who's having Tim Gunn's baby?

Muravyets vs. Ashmoria: who's having Tim Gunn's baby?

oh lord is it acceptable to bring in examples of MPREG from fanfiction?

oh lord is it acceptable to bring in examples of MPREG from fanfiction?

We have fan fiction?

We have fan fiction?
no

but mpreg is common in fanfiction and ...well... tim gunn isnt going to be fucking any women any time soon.

Jocabia vs. Canuckheaven: Who would have won the last US Presidential election if we lived in an alternate universe where the distribution of Hydrogen Isotopes differed by 0.08%?
An inspired suggestion, sir.

Okay, here's the fight card for the opening round:

Cat-Tribes vs. Valentasia, debating ADD/ADHD.

Fassitude vs. Tucker Island: homosexuality, immoral or just a great time?

Neo Art vs. Deep Kimchi, Knesset politics.

Nanatsu no Tsuki vs. Ardchoille: swimsuit portion.

Jocabia vs. Canuckheaven: Who would have won the last US Presidential election if we lived in an alternate universe where the distribution of Hydrogen Isotopes differed by 0.08%?

Hotwife vs. Gun Manufacturers: The .17 HMR, ethical to use on coyotes or not?

Katganistan vs. Lunatic Goofballs: Clowns or cats, which is the better method to teach your children to fear dangerous things?

New Mitanni vs. Intangelon: Applications of the ancient Greek and Egyptian concept of musical integers applied to contemporary harmonic science and will it make the groupies do you?

Muravyets vs. Ashmoria: who's having Tim Gunn's baby?
Brilliant! :D

no

but mpreg is common in fanfiction and ...well... tim gunn isnt going to be fucking any women any time soon.
Well, maybe he owns a baby we could fight over. Has anyone checked with him?

Brilliant! :D


Well, maybe he owns a baby we could fight over. Has anyone checked with him?
i bet it is impeccably dressed.

Okay, here's the fight card for the opening round:

Cat-Tribes vs. Valentasia, debating ADD/ADHD.

Fassitude vs. Tucker Island: homosexuality, immoral or just a great time?

Neo Art vs. Deep Kimchi, Knesset politics.

Nanatsu no Tsuki vs. Ardchoille: swimsuit portion.

Jocabia vs. Canuckheaven: Who would have won the last US Presidential election if we lived in an alternate universe where the distribution of Hydrogen Isotopes differed by 0.08%?

Hotwife vs. Gun Manufacturers: The .17 HMR, ethical to use on coyotes or not?

Katganistan vs. Lunatic Goofballs: Clowns or cats, which is the better method to teach your children to fear dangerous things?

New Mitanni vs. Intangelon: Applications of the ancient Greek and Egyptian concept of musical integers applied to contemporary harmonic science and will it make the groupies do you?

Muravyets vs. Ashmoria: who's having Tim Gunn's baby?

Amazing!:D

Baldwin for Christ versus MeansToAnEnd - social paradigms regarding the development of eastern european orthodoxy throughout the middle ages in response to socioeconomic pressures based on declining influence of the papacy.

....

Nahhhhh

Okay, here's the fight card for the opening round:

Cat-Tribes vs. Valentasia, debating ADD/ADHD.

Fassitude vs. Tucker Island: homosexuality, immoral or just a great time?

Neo Art vs. Deep Kimchi, Knesset politics.

Nanatsu no Tsuki vs. Ardchoille: swimsuit portion.

Jocabia vs. Canuckheaven: Who would have won the last US Presidential election if we lived in an alternate universe where the distribution of Hydrogen Isotopes differed by 0.08%?

Hotwife vs. Gun Manufacturers: The .17 HMR, ethical to use on coyotes or not?

Katganistan vs. Lunatic Goofballs: Clowns or cats, which is the better method to teach your children to fear dangerous things?

New Mitanni vs. Intangelon: Applications of the ancient Greek and Egyptian concept of musical integers applied to contemporary harmonic science and will it make the groupies do you?

Muravyets vs. Ashmoria: who's having Tim Gunn's baby?

Unbe-freakin'-lievable. I love it.

Tetrachords, go-left functions and the potential for sexual deviancy. I'm in.

FOR THE ENCORE:

Baldwin for Christ v. Hammurab

'Cause THAT would be...well...I have no words.

Heikoku would go against... Bottle!!

I like that, but I'll go you one better (I think): Bottle v. Bitchkitten v. Poliwanacraca in a cutthroat three-way...








...match.

Pfft. I'd have him reduced to spouting nothing but snotty ad hominems in 10 posts or less. :tongue:

Oooh, the smack is already flowing....

Who would I be against? :D

You need to ask? We un-DoS Andaras, and hook up a turbine to make green energy out of the wind, steam and pure invective flowing out of that bout.

Oooh, the smack is already flowing....



You need to ask? We un-DoS Andaras, and hook up a turbine to make green energy out of the wind, steam and pure invective flowing out of that bout.

Andaras vs. HappyLesbos, topic: the Mosin Nagant, great rifle of the revolution and sword of the people, or cheap rifle for bubbas?

Andaras vs. HappyLesbos, topic: the Mosin Nagant, great rifle of the revolution and sword of the people, or cheap rifle for bubbas?

Your imagination is truly staggering.

I like that, but I'll go you one better (I think): Bottle v. Bitchkitten v. Poliwanacraca in a cutthroat three-way...








...match.

I would sell tickets for that match. *nod*

You need to ask? We un-DoS Andaras, and hook up a turbine to make green energy out of the wind, steam and pure invective flowing out of that bout.

Must you compare me to him? :p

Must you compare me to him? :p

No, and I didn't. How is suggesting a debate between you in any way a comparison?

Fassitude vs. Tucker Island: homosexuality, immoral or just a great time?

You seem to think that homosexuality is something debatable. Perhaps in the hell holes where some of you live, but I no longer slum and entertain your social retardation.

You seem to think that homosexuality is something debatable. Perhaps in the hell holes where some of you live, but I no longer slum and entertain your social retardation.

Fassitude vs Tucker Island -

Is it possible to debate with a person that you disagree with without drowning them in contempt?

Is it possible to debate with a person that you disagree with without drowning them in contempt?

Possible, probably. Desirable, no.

Possible, probably. Desirable, no.

Discourse Analysis 101:

If you let your contempt for your opponent show, you alienate the third parties watching the debate. By alienating the third parties watching the debate you empower your opponent. By empowering your opponent you make your work in the debate harder. By making your work in the debate harder you only hurt your cause.

So, yes, Fass, it IS desirable to debate without openly showing your contempt. You may see your opponent as less than a pile of garbage, but letting it show is a BAD MOVE.

I don't know, nor do I care, what is it that made you frustrated enough to lash out at anyone that doesn't hold the exact same worldview as you, especially given that Sweden is reputed to be a good place for both homosexuals AND doctors, the facets of your identity that you show us the most. I AM, however, pointing out that it WEAKENS YOU.

I am, however, assuming that you know these things fully well. You also know how much you annoy people when you treat whatever they are saying that doesn't match your worldview to a T with a disdain best left to fundamentalists.

So, I will have to ask: What exactly do you intend when you do this?

You seem to think that homosexuality is something debatable. Perhaps in the hell holes where some of you live, but I no longer slum and entertain your social retardation.

Fass, ANYTHING is debatable. The simple fact that some people debate it - however wrongly or poorly - makes it debatable. Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure you'd react the same way if I said to you: "You seem to think that the common cold is treatable". Is it a treatment NO ONE would botch? Likely. But it's still treatable. Conversely, is it a debate those in favor of homosexuality (as a choice, etc) would win? Yes, but it's still debatable.

And I assure you you REALLY don't want to claim I "live in a hell-hole".

Have we declared a master debator yet?

>.>

My vote for that would be Ifreann.

--snip--

--snip--

*yawn*

And I assure you you REALLY don't want to claim I "live in a hell-hole".

*looks at your location field* Oh, honey... Brazil? Yes, yes indeed I would. A third world hell hole, even.

Have we declared a master debator yet?

How about a panel? Maybe with Ben Stein and Simon Cowell on it...

Fass, ANYTHING is debatable. The simple fact that some people debate it - however wrongly or poorly - makes it debatable. Quite frankly, I'm pretty sure you'd react the same way if I said to you: "You seem to think that the common cold is treatable". Is it a treatment NO ONE would botch? Likely. But it's still treatable. Conversely, is it a debate those in favor of homosexuality (as a choice, etc) would win? Yes, but it's still debatable.

And I assure you you REALLY don't want to claim I "live in a hell-hole".

So very wrong.

So very wrong.

That's debatable.

One time, 100 years ago, people debated whether 1 was prime.

You, Intangelon, as a proponent of mathematics, should look to the bible.

Its true, I read it in a Chick pamphlet.

That's debatable.

One time, 100 years ago, people debated whether 1 was prime.

You, Intangelon, as a proponent of mathematics, should look to the bible.

Its true, I read it in a Chick pamphlet.

They also debated the merits of stoning those who grew different crops in the same row.

And, if by "proponent" you mean "suspicious of everything past simple curves", then yes. I'm a proponent.

They also debated the merits of stoning those who grew different crops in the same row.

And, if by "proponent" you mean "suspicious of everything past simple curves", then yes. I'm a proponent.

Look, corn next to sorgum is the devil.

THAT'S not debatable.

Look, corn next to sorgum is the devil.

THAT'S not debatable.

Posit: corn next to sorghum is a planting choice, not a ticket to damnation. Have at it.

*looks at your location field* Oh, honey... Brazil? Yes, yes indeed I would. A third world hell hole, even.

Odd that, after talking yourself up as some sort of enlightened progressive who lives in the only non decadent corrupt hell hole, you would say something like this. Using words like third world to describe Brazil is seen, at least among progressive circles, as slightly outdated, snobbish, western-centric, leaning towards cultural supremacy etc...

*yawn*

You're a very kind person, Fass, to prove for me the point I was making.

*looks at your location field* Oh, honey... Brazil? Yes, yes indeed I would. A third world hell hole, even.

So... What do we do from here? Do I start listing your personal shortcomings in a less than flattering manner? Is that what you want? Tempting though this may be right now, Fass, and believe me, it IS, I won't.

I will only inform you that you just found yourself devoid of an answer better than a yawn, as well as devoid of anything clever to say at all, in the very beginning of an argument with a national from the "third world hellhole" you, in your skewered notion of supremacy, called my country.

Do you think people here are marvelling at how clever you are for trying to use such an idiotic cop-out? Do you think people here won't see it for what it is, a pitiful attempt at escaping an argument due to the intimate knowledge that, guess what, I'm right?

Please. If you will try to insult me and disrespect me, nay, make that insult and disrespect whoever refuses to nod along and bask in the glory that you think is Fass, at least go through the trouble of making an argument. One that doesn't prove the very point I was making about the way you talk to people.

That's right, Fass: You lost an argument to such an inferior person as you believe I am. And if you want, doctor, I can dissect the argument and tell you exactly how it happened. How does that make you feel?

For the record: I TOLD you you didn't want to claim I "live in a hell-hole". Welcome to the result, doctor. Next time, remember to take into account who you're dealing with.

Your hand, sir?

So very wrong.

Debatable: Something that is capable of going through debate.
If something is being debated, it is... debatable. Is something is being counted, it's... countable. o_o

*looks at your location field* Oh, honey... Brazil? Yes, yes indeed I would. A third world hell hole, even.

I tend not to get mixed in debates like this because they tend to give me a terrible headache but this... come on Fassitude. Calling Brazil a hell hole. Have you ever being there or have first hand experience of the place to so mightily and assuredly call it a ''hell hole''? That labeling was not needed. What's more, you're attacking Heikoku's place of origin and not his post.

If the other side of the world is a problem, let us cross the Atlantic and go to a place like Spain. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Spain) is a record of what the Spanish government has done for gay people and rights in the past years. And here we're talking about a country that belongs to the EU, not a ''Third World hell hole'' like you've labeled Brazil. Please.

Debatable: Something that is capable of going through debate.
If something is being debated, it is... debatable. Is something is being counted, it's... countable. o_o

My discrete math prof said that "countable" means "How the fuck did I get stuck with you wretched shitbirds, I was great man in Bulgaria, then got PhD from Washington University, now I spend days talking to glassy eyed dumb fucks who belong in mathematics like elbow belongs in asshole, now shut up, take notes, no more dumbfuck questions or I kill all of you and be on plane back to Sofia before your retard relatives know you are missing!"

At least, that's what he said when somebody asked.

My discrete math prof said that "countable" means "How the fuck did I get stuck with you wretched shitbirds, I was great man in Bulgaria, then got PhD from Washington University, now I spend days talking to glassy eyed dumb fucks who belong in mathematics like elbow belongs in asshole, now shut up, take notes, no more dumbfuck questions or I kill all of you and be on plane back to Sofia before your retard relatives know you are missing!"

At least, that's what he said when somebody asked.

I hear Sofia's a nice city. :D

My discrete math prof said that "countable" means "How the fuck did I get stuck with you wretched shitbirds, I was great man in Bulgaria, then got PhD from Washington University, now I spend days talking to glassy eyed dumb fucks who belong in mathematics like elbow belongs in asshole, now shut up, take notes, no more dumbfuck questions or I kill all of you and be on plane back to Sofia before your retard relatives know you are missing!"

At least, that's what he said when somebody asked.

Now, that explains a lot.:D