ILO v. ILP Number of Debaters

Chamber of Debate Challenges
1

Dear Participants and Spectators Alike,

ILO has officially unofficially chosen who will represent them in this debate, provided there are four representatives. ILO is the only site where any posters whatsoever have said anything to me in the open or PM’ed me about adding an extra debater.

How the system would work with four people is that over here we would still each vote for three debaters, but the four people that score the most points in the vote would go to bat for ILP.

Does anyone have a problem with increasing the field of contestants from three to four per site? If so, it shall be put to a vote amongst the three ILP posters who are voted in for debate. If not, then we will make it four participants in this debate.

If you guys would like my opinion:

ILP feels assured of victory

ILO seems to believe they will lose

It would be the sportsmanlike thing to do to grant them this one request. I will not arbitrarily grant this request. If anyone has a problem with increasing it to four participants from three, anyone at all, please say so within seventy-two hours.

2

As I mentioned, I am not going to be making any suggestions about this debate until I am a confirmed-participant on a team.

Only the participants and judges should be relevant concerning any formal debate. The audience is only allowed for spectacle.

Hypothetically, I would not even allow audiences in the most professional debates. The best should only accompany themselves.

3

Don’t listen to unreasonable, the pressure is already getting to him. No one here cares if you up it to 4 as long as the 4th doesn’t mean smears. Also, don’t be fooled by the different styles you see on ILP and ILO. Both forums are far to overconfident, it just so happens that ILP manifests this overconfidence honestly, and ILO manifests it via a circle jerk. What this debate comes down to is a battle of personalities and styles. ILP’s style is a blob of shit, a undifferentiated mass of ego’s amid countless idiotic discussions that go no where on purpose. ILO’s style is refinement for refinements sake, an art made of shit, the mona lisa of the sewer that has quit trying to go nowhere in order to go nowhere more authentically. The only difference is that ILP knows there is no difference and ILO doesn’t.

4

I’d just as soon have three contestants. If we go for one-on-one showdowns, it is a nice odd number. If we go for #-on-#, three allows for a nice “into, middle, conclusion”. As the Germans say, “Aller guten Dinge sind drei”.

But if there is a fourth topic just begging to be discussed, I could be convinced.

5

It may come down to whether or not we do the one-on-one thing…

6

note: the smiley was supposed to be a mirror image of what comes after is. As in <number/pound sign>-on-<number/pound sign>