Announcement: Debates in the Gahzette

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Guns don't have rights .

---

I disagree. They all deserve a loving home.

Quote:

---

Are you going to be picky about who you feel that you might be competant enough to go up against you?

---

Corrected. And yes, I am.

Besides, tribesy, we already debated guns recently. And you didn't seem up to the task of actually defending your views. :shrug:

Quote:

---

If CR really wants to debate gun control then I am willing to take him on.

---

I don't want to nag anyone into feeling obligated to debating me. But if you'd like to...

CR

Quote:

---

Besides, tribesy, we already debated guns recently. And you didn't seem up to the task of actually defending your views.

---

Was that the one where your "facts" were repeatedly shown to be of the non-factual variety and you attempted to attack a view that you clearly didn't have the faintest grasp of what concept it was you thought you were attacking:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Nevermind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

How can I possibly resist? :laugh4: :laugh4:

---

Damn, he's crazy enough to accept :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I shall fiercely defend the brave Flemish nation in their righteous cause.

---

What Flemish nation?

The funny thing is, they don't even have a language. You can hardly state that "le Flamand" is a language. People living in Antwerp, don't understand people from Limburg and none of them understand people from West- or East-Flanders. What language is it you Flemings are always talking about :inquisitive:


Mind you, my esteemed opponent. I am well prepared. Due to the most recent evolutions in our country, I have started to read Le Soir and La Libre Belgique for the last few days and I have been watching the news broadcasts on RTBF - La Une :knight:

Oh, and in case you have "reasonable" proposals to actually "solve" certain issues, the answer is:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joelle Milquet

NON!

---

And maybe my esteemed opponent should start giving swimming lessons to his beloved flemings. Within 50 years there probably will no longer be such thing as Flanders :devil:

As you can see, I'm ready to face my opponent. Show me what you got frenchie flaminguant :boxing:

We need to try this consept...
Therefore I suggest that:

Andres and Louis prepare an affirmative proposition on their views. Andres will argue his points as a Walloon/francophone while Louis will argue as a flemish-nationalist.

Crazed Rabbit and Waldinger prepare an affirmative proposition on their views. CR will argue his points as pro gun whilst Waldinger will argue against guns.

Make your arguments in a pm and send them to me. As outlined earlier in this thread remember that it is in the affirmative. This means you have to actually argue for your position and not argue why the opposite view is wrong (you have the opportunity of doing this at a later stage).
We are hoping the opening statements will be in the ballpark of 300 words.

I will open a thread dedicated to your debate and with the help of the moderators lock it so that the only posts will be the debate between the two participants.
The exchange will be via pms sent to me.

Let’s start this shall we?

I accept. However, it will be a couple days before I can get in my first PM; my father is visiting in a couple hours for the weekend and that's a bit more important to me than the backroom.

EDIT: So will the debate be more defined or just 'guns are good' vs 'guns are bad'?

Oh, tribesy; why yes it was that debate where you did nothing but repeat that sentence, or variations thereof, over and over again, with no evidence and refusals to list anything more than vague references.

CR

Just so you know in advance. I'm actually pro gun in real life but that will just make my victory even sweeter when I crush CR. Fear my contrarian ways!!!!!!!! :smash: :smash: :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

We need to try this concept...
Therefore I suggest that:

Andres and Louis prepare an affirmative proposition on their views. Andres will argue his points as a Walloon/francophone while Louis will argue as a flemish-nationalist.


I will open a thread dedicated to your debate and with the help of the moderators lock it so that the only posts will be the debate between the two participants.
The exchange will be via pms sent to me.

Let’s start this shall we?

---

I am sorry. Look, it is nice of Andres to have put all this effort into making this work, but now I do not want my comments in the same thread as Andres anymore. Andres had his time. I now demand two seperate threads.

Also, I want Panzerjaeger to come in and support me, for historical reasons. :wink3:

But seriuosly. Andres, we must choose: we do this seriously, or, we take sneaky stabs at each other while pretending to support our cause, or, we leave the serious Gahzette debate to CR and Waldinger and open a thread about our subject and have ourselves a complete riot there. Then all those other Walloons, doc_bean, peasant phill, Moros, Conradus, can join in. They are all unemployed anyway, so can do with some diversion...~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

I accept. However, it will be a couple days before I can get in my first PM; my father is visiting in a couple hours for the weekend and that's a bit more important to me than the backroom.

---

Yes, consentrate on family during this weekend and return with a good propostion next week.

Quote:

---

EDIT: So will the debate be more defined or just 'guns are good' vs 'guns are bad'?

---

Any way you like it. Be sure you and Waldinger have the same starting point. How about agreeing to a exact definition here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

... [bla bla bla]...

But seriuosly. Andres, we must choose: we do this seriously, or, we take sneaky stabs at each other while pretending to support our cause, or, we open a thread about it, leave the serious Gahzette debate to CR and Waldinger and have ourselves a complete riot there. Then all those other Walloons, doc_bean, peasant phill, Moros, Conradus, can join in. They are all unemployed anyway, so can do with some diversion...~;p

---

There are only one option... :whip:

I would prefer that the topic be more specific such as whether handguns should be legal or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldinger

I would prefer that the topic be more specific such as whether handguns should be legal or not.

---

Do you agree with this scope CR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

But seriuosly. Andres, we must choose: we do this seriously, or, we take sneaky stabs at each other while pretending to support our cause, or, we leave the serious Gahzette debate to CR and Waldinger and open a thread about our subject and have ourselves a complete riot there. Then all those other Walloons, doc_bean, peasant phill, Moros, Conradus, can join in. They are all unemployed anyway, so can do with some diversion...~;p

---

Meh, I can put forward serious and reasonable arguments for the statements I made. But I also want it to be fun, both for the participants as for the readers.

Can you agree with a mix of meanigful and serious arguments ('ius personae' versus 'ius sole' (just one example, don't want to show my opponent all my cards ~;) ...), spiced up a little (just a tiny little bit) with some typical Belgian stereotypes (the lazy Walloon vs the nationalistic Fleming or some other stereotypes, but let's keep it less exaggerated then what belgian extremists tend to produce)? Some emotion and passion in the debate will make it more enjoyable.

As a fan of fine cooking, you probably agree with me that a tiny little bit of well chosen spice make the difference between a decent meal and a fabulous meal.

Bonne chance Louis :bow:

Quote:

---

Oh, tribesy; why yes it was that debate where you did nothing but repeat that sentence, or variations thereof, over and over again, with no evidence and refusals to list anything more than vague references.

---

Ah you mean the vague references to easily identifiable and verifyable facts that showed that what you had repeatedly claimed was true was indeed undeniably and indisputably false .:2thumbsup:
Falsehoods that you will most probably put forward again in your debate as "fact" , simply because without the falsehoods you stance falls apart :yes:

Oh my god.

We all know you know exactly what debate you are both talking about so just stop referencing it to get in jabs that you couldn't during the actual debate! It really is mind-numbing to read through this otherwise entertaining thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Meh, I can put forward serious and reasonable arguments for the statements I made. But I also want it to be fun, both for the participants as for the readers.

Can you agree with a mix of meanigful and serious arguments

---

D'accord. Bonne chance, Andres! :bow:

Et ius personae est 'le droit du sang', plus communément appelé, en latin, ius sanguinis. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

Do you agree with this scope CR?

---

Yes, I think it's a good idea.

CR

Ok, so

Crazed Rabbit believes that the handguns should be legal.

Waldinger "believes" that handguns should be made illegal.

:study:I need to find some sources now.

I'm not the greatest debater around(quite inexperienced as a matter of fact), but I'd like to try my hand at the
The Israel – Palestinian conflict. I hardly come to this side of the Org but I'd like to give this a shot.

I stand ready to battle anyone, anywhere, anytime, regarding the righteousness of socialized health care vs. the despicable horrors of private medicine. :knight:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=94954

charge

Quote:

---

We all know you know exactly what debate you are both talking about so just stop referencing it to get in jabs that you couldn't during the actual debate!

---

Nope its entertaining to remind Rabbit that he bases his arguements on falsehoods .

Where are we at with the debates? It just kinda died

Don't worry, the Debates are not dead.

I can't speak for Louis and Andres but Me and CR have made are opening statements already. We are now scrutinizing each others opening statement and will PM Sigurd with our rebuttal very soon.

Is there a set format the the people at the Gahzette would like for us to use?

The two debates listed earlier has started.

The format is simple:
- Make an affirmative proposition for your view in the debate in aprox. 300-400 words.
- The debate is formal and you should look for and point out technical fallacies (ref. article in Gahzette issue 7)
- Point these fallacies out and rebut your oponent's views in a number of replies.
- One debator will start the rebutal and the other will follow suit (decided upon a coin toss).
- There will be a set number of rounds (max 4).
- A panel of three will make comments on the finished debate.

I will make a thread for each debate when round 2 (first rebuttal) has started.

Does "ur a n00b" and "you almost certainly have a beard" count as valid rebuttal's of someone elses stance on a particular topic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prodigal

Does "ur a n00b" and "you almost certainly have a beard" count as valid rebuttal's of someone elses stance on a particular topic?

---

Off course.

Did you really expect decent arguments, statistics backed up by trustworthy sources and scientific studies combined with the correct use of logic?

~:confused:

C'mon, what fun would that be?

Besides,

LOU!S' avatarz h4s 4 be4rd!1!1! ROFLOLZ PWN3D!1!1!












What's wrong with having a beard?

Why isn't (aren't you,) Beirut giving the anti-Israel argument?

In the spirit of debating clubs, I'll sign on for being a free-form player. I'll take any position on any argument, just give me a day or two to do some research on the issue and let me know what my position is.

If you've already signed everyone up, wonderful! I'll enjoy seeing it.

By the way, is it too late to suggest a debate topic? I think abortion gets too emotional and there's too much assumption of malintent by both sides.

But what about resurrecting the Terry Schiavo case, and have a topic on end-of-life decision making and who holds the ultimate authority?