So allowing people to take either side. What if they both have the same opinion?
Isn't the idea that you assign each of them a side and they have to run with it?
jotate on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
If they have the same opinion, I'd hope they look for little nuances they disagree on and debate those. Like if both are in favor of, say, a tough baseball steroid policy but disagree on how many positive tests triggers a lifetime ban, argue the number of tests. It's how an actual debate would go. You might agree on the larger points but disagree on the little particulars.
I would think you do your best debating when you truly believe what you say. That's what I want. I want your A game. I've never liked the 'you're in favor, you're against' assignment system. They wouldn't do that in a real debate. If McCain and Giuliani are both for the war in Iraq, the moderator isn't going to go 'Okay, Senator McCain, tonight you'll be arguing against the war'.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
I think I'm just going to dedicate myself to taking the opposite position on the issue. Partially because it'll be more awesome that way. Partially because then I'll have an excuse when I get curb stomped.
jotate on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
I think I'm just going to dedicate myself to taking the opposite position on the issue. Partially because it'll be more awesome that way. Partially because then I'll have an excuse when I get curb stomped.
I'm sure that'll make whoever plays you feel real good about beating you.
I think I'm just going to dedicate myself to taking the opposite position on the issue. Partially because it'll be more awesome that way. Partially because then I'll have an excuse when I get curb stomped.
I'm sure that'll make whoever plays you feel real good about beating you.
That's the idea.
jotate on
0
Options
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
I think I'm just going to dedicate myself to taking the opposite position on the issue. Partially because it'll be more awesome that way. Partially because then I'll have an excuse when I get curb stomped.
I'm sure that'll make whoever plays you feel real good about beating you.
If they have the same opinion, I'd hope they look for little nuances they disagree on and debate those. Like if both are in favor of, say, a tough baseball steroid policy but disagree on how many positive tests triggers a lifetime ban, argue the number of tests. It's how an actual debate would go. You might agree on the larger points but disagree on the little particulars.
I would think you do your best debating when you truly believe what you say. That's what I want. I want your A game. I've never liked the 'you're in favor, you're against' assignment system. They wouldn't do that in a real debate. If McCain and Giuliani are both for the war in Iraq, the moderator isn't going to go 'Okay, Senator McCain, tonight you'll be arguing against the war'.
but the entire point of debate is being able to know both sides of the issue
someone who can only argue one side is a terrible debater
Randall_Flagg on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Well, okay, if you think you can beat the other guy going the other way, that's your perogative. But I'm not going to force you one way or the other.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
We should definitely have term limits, because if we don't then the mole people will be able to infiltrate our government and sabotage our country from the inside.
We should definitely have term limits, because if we don't then the mole people will be able to infiltrate our government and sabotage our country from the inside.
Actually I can pick this one up. Going with US since I don't really know UK term limits and so forth.
The concept of term limits has been, and always will be the limiting of any single political organization or person's control of the executive branch of the government. Now I'm not saying there are mole men... but if there were, wouldn't it make sense to add a simple preventative measure such as term limits?
Getting any single spy into a foreign country is hard enough and getting one into a position of power is extremely difficult, but so long as there are term limits the ability of any one foreign agent will be severly limited. The number of incursions needed to maintain a solid political base will increase the likeliness of our detecting a spy, human or otherwise. Especially mole men, with their uniquely long life spans, were they to exist and I don't intend to imply that they do, could possibly hold a position long enough for an entire generation to be sanitized to the effect of having any single person holding a political office, as the mole man in question will have held it their entire life. After thirty odd years of dedicated leadership, they may even be able to pass an otherwise ludacris bill for deep mining in unprofitable locations, places where an army of mole men may lie in wait for a chance to conquer an unsuspecting populace...
Of course this is equally true of any power, foreign or domestic, who wish to harm our great nation. They, through lack of term limits, may well have the chance to weaken key institutions and cause great harm to our great people.
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Okay, competitors. I think we need to go over a little something called time limits.
I know you're off putting together big, detailed things to use as your arguments, but know that eventually I need to move things along. So let's say, hard and fast, what the time procedure is.
I am using Page 1 of the D&D forum as my timer. As long as your matchup thread stays away from the bottom of the page, and your arguments remain decent, I'm good. But when you're the last thread on the page, or have dropped to Page 2, I will jump in.
*If both sides have made at least one post on a topic to that point, I will simply move on to the next topic.
*If one or both sides have failed to present an argument, I will open things up to the alternates. At that point, if you are the next to post, and that post is your argument, you stick around. But if an alternate presents their argument before you, the alternate will take your spot and inherit any arguments you've made to that point as their own.
Sound good? Let's move a bit faster.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
AngelHedgie, via PM, is in the alternate pool. He won't be available for the current alternate situation with Not Sarastro, but he will be for the next time. Or if the alternates fail to jump in within the allotted time, AngelHedgie will become eligible at that point.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Quid has withdrawn from the competition in order to see his ailing grandmother in Seattle. If anyone has an opinion on whether I should move AngelHedgie through, or if an alternate should come in to inherit Quid's arguments for topic 3, please say so here.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
amateurhourOne day I'll be professionalhourThe woods somewhere in TennesseeRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
::shrug:: it looks like the first four people altogether didn't do much. I don't have a problem with you pushing him through.
amateurhour on
are YOU on the beer list?
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
The alternate procedure is basically 'whichever one gets in first, and if none of them shows up I throw it to the general population'.
I haven't heard anything from any of our alternates since they signed up, though. So I guess you can head on in. I'll get Topic 3 ready.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
Options
clownfoodpacket pusherin the wallsRegistered Userregular
edited January 2008
Sorry about that, I wanted to jump in on the "A la Carte cable" thing but work got nasty for me over the last few days. I am on my weekend now and ready to rock and roll.
clownfood on
0
Options
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Sorry about that, I wanted to jump in on the "A la Carte cable" thing but work got nasty for me over the last few days. I am on my weekend now and ready to rock and roll.
...
THINGS. THINGS WHICH I WISH TO SAY.
Fine then. clownfood, you have priority since you did sign up. deadonthestreet, I'll stick you in the pool for next time.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Posts
You should make our topic "Kentucky". Then I could argue how much it sucks, and he could argue how great it is.
Isn't the idea that you assign each of them a side and they have to run with it?
I would think you do your best debating when you truly believe what you say. That's what I want. I want your A game. I've never liked the 'you're in favor, you're against' assignment system. They wouldn't do that in a real debate. If McCain and Giuliani are both for the war in Iraq, the moderator isn't going to go 'Okay, Senator McCain, tonight you'll be arguing against the war'.
I think I'm just going to dedicate myself to taking the opposite position on the issue. Partially because it'll be more awesome that way. Partially because then I'll have an excuse when I get curb stomped.
I'm sure that'll make whoever plays you feel real good about beating you.
That's the idea.
...I hope I don't play you.
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showthread.php?t=48107
Shouldn't you be gathering information and smiting your enemies?
but the entire point of debate is being able to know both sides of the issue
someone who can only argue one side is a terrible debater
Your topic is: Term limits
a good debater can argue any position, regardless of how ludicrous it may seem on face. This is not hyperbole.
DISCLAIMER: Randall_Flagg being my special friend relies solely on the RNG being mine.
Whoops, I didn't know we were starting tonight. I shall rally my forces, prepare my information, and go forth to smite mine enemies!
...after a good night's sleep and a healthy breakfast of Kashi® organic oatmeal. ;-)
Steam | Twitter
Actually I can pick this one up. Going with US since I don't really know UK term limits and so forth.
The concept of term limits has been, and always will be the limiting of any single political organization or person's control of the executive branch of the government. Now I'm not saying there are mole men... but if there were, wouldn't it make sense to add a simple preventative measure such as term limits?
Getting any single spy into a foreign country is hard enough and getting one into a position of power is extremely difficult, but so long as there are term limits the ability of any one foreign agent will be severly limited. The number of incursions needed to maintain a solid political base will increase the likeliness of our detecting a spy, human or otherwise. Especially mole men, with their uniquely long life spans, were they to exist and I don't intend to imply that they do, could possibly hold a position long enough for an entire generation to be sanitized to the effect of having any single person holding a political office, as the mole man in question will have held it their entire life. After thirty odd years of dedicated leadership, they may even be able to pass an otherwise ludacris bill for deep mining in unprofitable locations, places where an army of mole men may lie in wait for a chance to conquer an unsuspecting populace...
Of course this is equally true of any power, foreign or domestic, who wish to harm our great nation. They, through lack of term limits, may well have the chance to weaken key institutions and cause great harm to our great people.
tl;dr: I agree with Randall.
Kissy kissy ;-)
I know you're off putting together big, detailed things to use as your arguments, but know that eventually I need to move things along. So let's say, hard and fast, what the time procedure is.
I am using Page 1 of the D&D forum as my timer. As long as your matchup thread stays away from the bottom of the page, and your arguments remain decent, I'm good. But when you're the last thread on the page, or have dropped to Page 2, I will jump in.
*If both sides have made at least one post on a topic to that point, I will simply move on to the next topic.
*If one or both sides have failed to present an argument, I will open things up to the alternates. At that point, if you are the next to post, and that post is your argument, you stick around. But if an alternate presents their argument before you, the alternate will take your spot and inherit any arguments you've made to that point as their own.
Sound good? Let's move a bit faster.
edit: that is, if there isn't already an alt lined up.
I haven't heard anything from any of our alternates since they signed up, though. So I guess you can head on in. I'll get Topic 3 ready.
THINGS. THINGS WHICH I WISH TO SAY.
Fine then. clownfood, you have priority since you did sign up. deadonthestreet, I'll stick you in the pool for next time.
Edit: deleted my post in the debate thread