Announcement: Debates in the Gahzette

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

You learn something new about a person every day :book: .

---

Hey, I've never said otherwise in my life! And I do believe I've stated my love for smaller businesses... it's just the big, old EvilCorp Inc. I don't like...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Hum hum hum hum...

Well Don, two things;

1. What happened to morals?
2. I'm not in favour of a state-controlled economy... I'm a mixed economy man. So change it slightly(state controls the important stuff, market can deal with the rest), and I can do it. I seriously have no idea how to defend a full planned economy, so can't do that :clown:

---

I thought you said you didn't want to do the moral relativism vs. universal moral truths one. If you do, hey, I can oblige. You right erh, write the premise this time though.

*Not getting off to the best of starts here, now am I.... :stupido3:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andres

Sigurd, I've sent my opening statement to you on Wednesday...

What are we waiting for? A new Belgian government?

Or are we waiting for Louis :mean: ?

---

Hey, if it wasn't for Walloon obstruction there'd already be a new government. :whip:

Anyway, my Pm's written and send. Took me a while, I simply haven't been able to write anything constructive or meaningful lately. Going through one of those 'let's just spout nonsense everywhere' phases. :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I thought you said you didn't want to do the moral relativism vs. universal moral truths one. If you do, hey, I can oblige. You right the premise this time though.

---

Was my ranting unclear? :laugh4:

I'll give you these two to choose from then:

1. moral relativism vs. universal truths
2. free market vs. restricted market

Unless you plan to be a number-cruncher in an economy debate... I'm too lazy to find a bunch of statistics myself, so that goes out the window :smash:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Was my ranting unclear? :laugh4:

I'll give you these two to choose from then:

1. moral relativism vs. universal truths
2. free market vs. restricted market

Unless you plan to be a number-cruncher in an economy debate... I'm too lazy to find a bunch of statistics myself, so that goes out the window :smash:

---

You got it, you 'anything-goes' hippy, option 1 :hippy:

Since you didn't post one for it, I'll propse a premise.

It has been proposed that morality is a flexible, subjective virtue which depends heavily upon the circumstances of a particular situation. This view is in contrast to the more traditional view that there are in fact moral absolutes by which all persons must abide. Rather than the use of terms 'good' and 'evil' or 'right' and 'wrong', it would be preferable to use the terms 'appropriate' or inappropriate'.

Defending the position that morality is indeed relative and subjective is Hore Tore. Defending the position that there are absolute moral truths is yours truly.

Okay Sigurd, I think the glove's been tossed.

Relative sounds relativliy broad for such a fixed ideoligy.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You got it, you 'anything-goes' hippy, option 1 :hippy:

Since you didn't post one for it, I'll propse a premise.

It has been proposed that morality is a flexible, subjective virtue which depends heavily upon the circumstances of a particular situation. This view is in contrast to the more traditional view that there are in fact moral absolutes by which all persons must abide. Rather than the use of terms 'good' and 'evil' or 'right' and 'wrong', it would be preferable to use the terms 'appropriate' or inappropriate'.

Defending the position that morality is indeed relative and subjective is Hore Tore. Defending the position that there are absolute moral truths is yours truly.

---

Alrighty then! Oh, should we debate using our own opinions(in which case I fear a 'agree to disagree'), or should we be unreasonable debaters(think a Lenin vs. Reagan debate :laugh4:)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Okay Sigurd, I think the glove's been tossed.

---

Aren't we supposed to smack each other?

I don't think the idea is to see how much blood we can get in the water. That's how debates in the Backroom tend to go now, without any special formats. I think the idea is to take the premise that morality is relative and defend it. I'll take the position that morality is absolute and have to defend that. But I think we need our moderator (Sigurd) to really spell out the rules for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Going through one of those 'let's just spout nonsense everywhere' phases. :embarassed:

---

If it makes you happy, go on.
I do it myself and your "nonsense" certainly makes me laugh a lot! :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane

Opening statement by Louis VI the Fat


Hello,

I, a member of the Vlaams Belang (‘Flemish Interest’ political party) and Andres, unemployed francophone Belgian, and would like to discuss the rights of the francophone inhabitants of Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde (BHV). Also known as Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde in English, or Brussel-Halle-Vilvoorde in French (since two weeks.)

---

:laugh4: It just got better from there. I know what I'm drinking tonight!

I enjoy your "knees bent running around" style of debate.

Translation: The French were openly mocked in the movie but came out on top. Sorry for all the French comments recently, I think I've gone international.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

But I think we need our moderator (Sigurd) to really spell out the rules for us.

---

I am happy to oblige.

It started with an article on the Backroom found in issue 7 of the Gahzette. This article gives the basics of debates.
What the participants need to do is prepare an affirmative statement of the view they are going to debate. This means, you outline your view and why you think your view is correct. Do not argue why your opposition is wrong. You do that in the following rebuttals.
This is also a formal debate, meaning you can point out fallacies and technical faults in the rebuttals. If one debater calls the other an idiot, it is clearly an ad Hominem attack and points will be subtracted for that debater.
When I have received both opening statements I will pm them to your opposition.
One of the debaters will go first and prepare a rebuttal. The other will wait for the first and make a rebuttal based on the opponent’s opening statement and the opponent’s first rebuttal.
We want max 4 rounds.

That is;
Round 1 = opening statement
Round 2 = first rebuttal
Round 3 = second rebuttal
Round 4 = rebuttal and/or closing statements.

Send them by pm to me or Sapi
I will open a dedicated thread when I have received both opening statements.

Will we have the option for speeches for and against the proposition after the main debate?

Perhaps at the end of the debate interested viewers could submit a speech for or against the proposition, and Sigurd (or perhaps the debaters) could choose two to be posted in the thread...

Just an idea. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

Will we have the option for speeches for and against the proposition after the main debate?

Perhaps at the end of the debate interested viewers could submit a speech for or against the proposition, and Sigurd (or perhaps the debaters) could choose two to be posted in the thread...

Just an idea. :bow:

---

Interesting ideas Myrddraal, we shall take them into consideration.

Now for the debate between Don and HTore.. have you agreed on an angle for your topic yet?

Hi. Sorry for disappearing, but I'm away in the woods for Thanksgiving at my parents' cabin. I've only got dial-up, very slow at that, plus lots of family stuff going on. I'll be ready to go on Monday.

Thanks.

No worries Don...

I have been thinking and I would love having a go at a debate. I can't take on every topic as I would need to at least know a thing or two about it beforehand. Therefore I would like to debate something in the religious departement.
I know Jimbob has put his name on the list with religion as topic, but he can't do one right now.

I can take either the theist view or the atheist view. I am an agnostic so it wouldn't be too hard.
Anyone interested? I challenged Husar before, but he feels he isn't up to it.

Exactly.
I'm much better at spamming and inserting my random, not-really-thought-through comments into serious discussions to derail them.
Everybody has his profession. :sweatdrop:
I'm also very uncertain about theist topics and so on, I could argue against myself for both sides, would keep me occupied. :dizzy2:

Update: I have sent in my final rebuttal/conclusion to Sigurd and CR so once CR does his final rebuttal/conclusion the debate will be over.

I will be happy if I could participate in one of the debates. Sadly, I don't have right something to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Exactly.
I'm much better at spamming and inserting my random, not-really-thought-through comments into serious discussions to derail them.

---

Wow, you really have come along way in the self evaluation department havent you Husar?

:flowers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hussy

I could argue against myself for both sides, would keep me occupied. :dizzy2:

---

But arguing against oneself is a sign of a critical mind! It shows that you can view subjects from different perspectives. :yes:

Quote:

---

But arguing against oneself is a sign of a critical mind! It hows you can view subjects from different perspectives. :bow:

---

Have to differ with you there. I think it is a sign of a weak and feeble mind, incapable of thinking stuff through to its logical conclusion. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Wow, you really have come along way in the self evaluation department havent you Husar?

:flowers:

---

It's part of my grand evil plan to take over the universe but sometimes I actually insert an honest opinion if that makes you happier.
And thanks for the flowers. :beam:

Louis is hilariaous :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Interesting to note no one has asked to or proposed the old nugget of god is dead etc etc. Or what about a debate on the org itself or maybe on the totalwar games that created this board. Just a thought lads

Like.... Are blitzers the 1337 r0xx0s?

How about a debate on something outrageous like we should all join the flying spaghetti monster religon or die :idea2:

debate me on anything. ill win

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

debate me on anything. ill win

---

Ok then! How 'bout we debate whether Texas sucks or not, and I'll take the Texan side? :beam:

:sweatdrop:

Phew, finally done with my conclusion in the gun debate.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

How about a debate on something outrageous like we should all join the flying spaghetti monster religon or die :idea2:

---

What? wether God exists or not?

The aethiests are coccy!