I’m cool with you judging as long as you think you can be relatively unbiased. I’d trust you to do that, if you trust yourself I’m fine with it.
Biased? I don’t know, I like you both equally well, and I have no opinion on the question though it is a fairly interesting one. I guess I can honestly say that I trust myself not to be biased in this situation. If it were Joker against Faust, that’d be different, but here I’ll be fine. I promise.
I’m going to read through the past adjudications to get a feel for what mine should look like. This will be awesome.
I figured you’d be sympathetic to Dorky’s position, but hey, I trust you. Provided Dorky gives it the OK, we’ve got our third judge. I slacked on PM’ing Stitt a bit. . .
BRING IT OOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
Sweet. Was there a final wording of the debate? Post or PM me a concise wrap-up, and I’ll open the thread.
Unless Dorky objects, as I understand it the topic is:
“Religion plays a causative role in the current troubles in the Middle East”. Dorky argues for, I argue against.
I use ‘troubles’ as opposed to ‘conflicts’ because I imagine there are some conflicts that dorky sees as being areligious whereas I imagine he conceives the general situation of nastiness there as being a function of religion. And, as a matter of full disclosure, I’m not gonna try and take some linguistic fuckery angle, so I think it is also less important because of that. Dorky and I know what we are arguing, we’ve argued it plenty of times before. I have to imagine the judges have either seen it (they have been involved in many of the threads) or will figure it out. We’re not going for subtle here.
Nope, sounds good to me. We know the issue well enough, I know it won’t be a semantics argument.
You mean like changing ‘conflicts’ to ‘troubles’?
(Oops, too late!) 
Well, if you guys know what you’re arguing, that’s good. The rest of us wait with bated breath.