Why Is This Section Inactive?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Well, why is it? I would like to see more challenges going forth.

[The Golden Turd]

Carleas shoots down all the good suggestions (like Ecmandu vs Trixie, lots of excitement generated), and everyone debates everyone everywhere already. More or less a joke, like the old academic section.

Honestly, if you or I debated, would either of us accept another person's verdict? I wouldn't trust the competency of anyone to control the flow of my ideas, or inform me they were invalid cause they think so if I disagreed, cause teacher said you gotta follow X, Y, Z in a discussion . I probably shove their ass through the meat grinder of philosophical awareness at that point.

Anyone with a lower level of self respect isn't worth debating. Be your own person, not some academic wannabe bitch.

[Wizard]

Because all challenges have been removed and any potential challengers shall be silenced immediately.

No true "challenges" are allowed on this website.

[Carleas]

Carleas shoots down all the good suggestions

I've never shot down a proposed debate. I have asked for the terms of a debate to be defined before the debate begins (as I did with Ecmandu vs. Trixie), and at that point it usually becomes clear that what people are really looking for is a free-for-all like you can find in any of the other forums, rather than the structured debate for which this forum was designed.


HHH, if you'd like to see more challenges, that pick a topic you'd like to debate and issue a challenge.

[The Golden Turd]

No, you shot down the debate. When you want to change a debate to a different kind of debate, it means you got rid of the former structure. That former structure WAS the debate.

[Carleas]

Door's not closed my friend, just be explicit about the details: Who's judging? In what order? How long for topic nominations? How many posts? Who goes first? ...Is Ecmandu even interested in participating? He never committed.

[The Golden Turd]

He did commit. You jostled him out.

No, there is value in impromptu programming. Your in DC, ask a military officer about unit balls, and Mr. Vice. Mr. Vice provides at best the outlines of a itenary, it's a system that's both formal and adaptable.... you never know what's going to happen. Closest thing in the civilian world would be a Roast on Comedy Central of a fellow comedian or actor.... except Mr. Vice is roasting and goading everyone. The Telelogy very open.... no one quite knows where it is going.

There is a lot more to debates than Robert's Rules. No.... you really don't need to know in advance how everything will unfold, how the structure is designed. Thats being anal and presumptive, you can have order within chaos..... everyone has two loafs of brain, we know how to synchronize and play off one another. Its how the world actually works. Humans aren't that alien species from StarShip Troopers where the insect armies all used one big brain entity, and have to go through it for everything.



Thats what your essentially saying.... you wanna be the big brain bug, cause your anal.

Everyone's answer in reply has been disinterest so far. You may get a few more over the years, maybe even one soon to spite this statement, but it's more or less certain the reason why.... no reason to do so. Nobody cares to be judged by you or your standards.... or anyone elses.... and if we wanted to, we would just do it elsewhere, without the unnecessary oversight and molestation.

Since you are a lawyer, pay attention. This is what happens when a court discredits itself.... people stop using it, and get their needs it once supplied elsewhere. The logic of such a dying court us as impeccible as ever, just doesn't apply to reality anymore. Its increasingly distant, alienates, and people move on. Trial by Combat..... technically still legal in the US, but nobody reaches for it. Same goes for your controlling attitude here..... nobody uses it. The concept is increasingly rare in fact, an artifact of academics. You will see Dawkings stumble through a few debates occasionally, viewership on YouTube smaller and smaller for university level talks. It doesn't have the pull it once had. People are moving on to freer, non-linear, community inclusive discussions that are tangent ridden, and have lots of chiefs, but not a lot of Indians involved.

I really doubt anyone will recall this format of debate in 100 years. Its rather primitive and stupid.

[Carleas]

Take the argument you just made, and apply it to sport. Would anyone watch a football game where the rules weren't laid out in advance? The whole point of sport is that it is constrained by the rules that are defined and known. Points are defined, scoring is defined, fair play is defined, and within those constraints the players compete.

That's what the Chamber is. Every other forum on the site can house the free-wheeling conversation you're talking about. The Chamber is for sportive, constrained, spectator debating. So the rules need to be defined in advance.

[Ecmandu]

Turd, you're nuts, I never committed…

Starship troopers eh?

Here's the deal, you offered chemistry as a debate… I got an A in chemistry, and I consistently did better on tests than this asian guy who was in all AP classes and spent most his time as a TA… (I skipped school all the time and never did my homework - but this class was curved test heavy so I did well) but I haven't even thought about chemistry to this regard for decades.

I'd have to learn chemistry to debate this. Which I have great precedent for doing; I remember I was supposed to take a placement test for a community college, and The morning before the test, I read the math cliffs notes and scored 100% on math and english on that test… in fact, I actually scored myself out of my own ability… I was immediately placed in calculus II, and thought everyone was speaking gibberish, I didn't understand shit. Sure, I could have picked up some more cliffs notes and finished it, but my panic disorder was so high, I could no longer go to the classes. The point, I'm good at learning complex topics very fast. Absent learning the cure for AIDS etc… I'm not that interested in chemistry. The odds of me learning the cure for AIDS by reading cliff notes is pretty small!!!

You know where my passions are. Actually, there is one debate that Trixie and I could have where we disagree. Trixie thinks that approach escalation is not an issue, and that men should feel free to hit on women whenever they want. I can win that debate. Trixie uses my stand on this to call me crazy.

[Uccisore]

I managed to get my mean-spirited joke-debate through!

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

Turd, you're nuts, I never committed…

Starship troopers eh?

Here's the deal, you offered chemistry as a debate… I got an A in chemistry, and I consistently did better on tests than this asian guy who was in all AP classes and spent most his time as a TA… (I skipped school all the time and never did my homework - but this class was curved test heavy so I did well) but I haven't even thought about chemistry to this regard for decades.

I'd have to learn chemistry to debate this. Which I have great precedent for doing; I remember I was supposed to take a placement test for a community college, and The morning before the test, I read the math cliffs notes and scored 100% on math and english on that test… in fact, I actually scored myself out of my own ability… I was immediately placed in calculus II, and thought everyone was speaking gibberish, I didn't understand shit. Sure, I could have picked up some more cliffs notes and finished it, but my panic disorder was so high, I could no longer go to the classes. The point, I'm good at learning complex topics very fast. Absent learning the cure for AIDS etc… I'm not that interested in chemistry. The odds of me learning the cure for AIDS by reading cliff notes is pretty small!!!

You know where my passions are. Actually, there is one debate that Trixie and I could have where we disagree. Trixie thinks that approach escalation is not an issue, and that men should feel free to hit on women whenever they want. I can win that debate. Trixie uses my stand on this to call me crazy.

I recall saying the opposite of that. I said it makes the dating game unbalanced and women need to learn to approach men in order to balance the sexes

[Ecmandu]

Actually, initially, you said men should feel free to approach women! Then you started to understand more and stopped your rhetoric that men who didn't approach were betraying their gender .

[Ultimate Philosophy 1001]

I never said they were betraying their gender by not approaching, I said they were making it unbalanced by approaching.
What I said was, approaching is not the root of all evils, only some evils. It is the same fallacy as saying money is the root of all evils, you just gave the fallacy your own little twist.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Seriously, who has the cojones to start a debate around here? Need to liven up this place.

[Mr Reasonable]

You do it.

[surreptitious57]

I am too old and cannot debate anyone as I have no subject matter

[Carleas]

I'll debate you HHH. We'll debate about whether humans are livestock. 3 posts each, 200-300 words each, no images.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I'll debate you HHH. We'll debate about whether humans are livestock. 3 posts each, 200-300 words each, no images.

Sounds fun. Busy schedule where I might not respond right away.

[Carleas]

That's fine, we'll say 3 days per post to give us time. Who will judge?

Since it's your motion, I think you should go first. One way we could arrange it is that you go first and last with shorter intro and conclusion posts, say 100-150 words. Or, if you'd prefer, you can do a full intro and I'll get the last word.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That's fine, we'll say 3 days per post to give us time. Who will judge?

Since it's your motion, I think you should go first. One way we could arrange it is that you go first and last with shorter intro and conclusion posts, say 100-150 words. Or, if you'd prefer, you can do a full intro and I'll get the last word.

I insist that you make opening deliberations.

It's always more fun that way.

[Carleas]

Hmmm... I can go first, but since I'm arguing the negative I don't think that makes as much sense. You're the one making an assertion (humans are livestock), anything I write by way of intro will just be a response to that rather poorly-defined claim. You could (and will probably need to) come back and say, "no no no, that's nothing like what I mean, actually I mean this" and then my entire intro post is just wasted.

So, if I go first, I'd want to do the format where I have a shorter intro and conclusion post, so:
1) me (100-150 words)
2) you (200-300 words)
3) me (200-300 words)
4) you (200-300 words)
5) me (200-300 words)
6) you (200-300 words)
7) me (100-150 words)

I can accept this, though I'd still prefer you to go first. What say you?

Also, any nominations for moderator? It may be hard to find someone who is both impartial and willing to read through our 1200-1800 words.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Hmmm... I can go first, but since I'm arguing the negative I don't think that makes as much sense. You're the one making an assertion (humans are livestock), anything I write by way of intro will just be a response to that rather poorly-defined claim. You could (and will probably need to) come back and say, "no no no, that's nothing like what I mean, actually I mean this" and then my entire intro post is just wasted.

So, if I go first, I'd want to do the format where I have a shorter intro and conclusion post, so:
1) me (100-150 words)
2) you (200-300 words)
3) me (200-300 words)
4) you (200-300 words)
5) me (200-300 words)
6) you (200-300 words)
7) me (100-150 words)

I can accept this, though I'd still prefer you to go first. What say you?

Also, any nominations for moderator? It may be hard to find someone who is both impartial and willing to read through our 1200-1800 words.

I'm a prolific slacker. I insist you go first. You seem to be acquainted with some of my past writings by the sounds of it anyways with the subject you've chosen to debate me with.

The criteria seems well enough.

[Carleas]

I had a hunch you were a prolific slacker, and in fact the design of this challenge, as well as the topic, were really just a suggestion I gave you not too long ago turned into a debate.

Anyway, we need a judge and/or MC. I propose Uccisore.

j/k. Mr. Reasonable, any interest?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I had a hunch you were a prolific slacker, and in fact the design of this challenge, as well as the topic, were really just a suggestion I gave you not too long ago turned into a debate.

Anyway, we need a judge and/or MC. I propose Uccisore.

j/k. Mr. Reasonable, any interest?

I propose Gib or WWIII.

[WW_III_ANGRY]

I had a hunch you were a prolific slacker, and in fact the design of this challenge, as well as the topic, were really just a suggestion I gave you not too long ago turned into a debate.

Anyway, we need a judge and/or MC. I propose Uccisore.

j/k. Mr. Reasonable, any interest?

I propose Gib or WWIII.

I will be honored to judge the debate impartially.