ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

This is the thread for conversation for the second Debate.

(Carleas, can you please move this thread to the proper area? For some reason, I am unable to create topics in the Discussion sub-forum)



Still? Shit, I thought I fixed that.

Looking forward to another great debate!

The following is a replica of a post I made on ILO which should be disclosed to both sides to ensure equality:

[b]Necessity is irrelevant unless it is made relevant throughout the course of the Debate.

Clearly some states have not used terrorism as a tool. Take that guy that lives on the concrete slab just off of, Britain I think it is, and is somehow legally defined as its own country, I doubt if he terrorizes anyone.

On the other hand, clearly some states have used terrorism as a tool.

The question is a general one and the goal of the participants (at least in my opinion) should be to sway how each judge generally feels.

(This will be re-posted at ILP in the interest of fairness)[/b]

Does not compute, cap’n.

…unless it is made relevant

I have been notified that SIATD will no longer be Debating for ILO.

Kawaki will take the place of SIATD as Team Leader where SIATD took Gamer’s place.

Obviously that leaves a hole in their roster which has been filled by W.C…

I forget, are we doing formal debate rules with this, were the opening statement can’t reference the other opening statement directly?

The Debate rules are formal, yes. The category that it would fall under (in my scoring system) would be adherence.

By the way, since Kawaki will be given forty-eight hours to make his decision, ILP has been given (without request) a forty-eight hour time extension because since we are aware now that the topic may be changed there is no reason to put serious effort into a post on their part. That extension will not be penalized.

Just for the record, I will not be penalizing time extensions provided the following two conditions are met:

1.) I am given the request for the time extension prior to the time that the actual post is supposed to be made.

2.) That when a time extension is agreed upon, said poster posts within the newly agreed upon time, or requests an additional time extension.*

*All time extensions will be for forty-eight hours and no more than two time extensions will be granted for any one specific post. Secondly, failure to post within the time extended to the team requesting the time extension will be penalized at a rate of one point (initially) and then one additional point for every four additional hours past the newly agreed upon time.

Since both Gobbo and I put a certain amount of time into our posts (mine was completed before I got the PM discussing this change of situation), how about a mini-debate? My post, like Gobbo’s, was designed to serve as an introduction. That means we’d both be on the same playing field, with arguments left open for later team members and holes in the argument set as traps. They would both be incomplete works, but something to recognize our work. ILO gets one post, ILP gets one post, then we move on to judging.

Then we can get a new, real topic #2. Otherwise, I’m fine dumping my post. But I don’t like it. Granted, I don’t like the topic. It is stupid. sigh But that wasn’t my decision.

Sure, it would be a shame to see any level of work go to waste.

Although, since the mini-debate will affect the actual competition in no way whatsoever I would just as soon have the mini-debaters judged by their peers, which is to say I think the two members from ILO and ILP who are not posting in the mini-debate would make the judging interesting.

Whoa - critical hit on the ‘delegation skills’ there pav. :laughing:


I mean, we (The Judges) will do it if that is what the participants want, but I thought the other way might be kind of fun and a little bit of a break for everyone between debates.

In fact, maybe we should think of a side game for between Debates 2 and 3, suggestions anyone?

Having the teammates judge seems like a rather silly idea to me. First off, there is the whole conflict of interest thing, which makes the whole exercise rather silly. But compounding that, there is that fact that the teams usually discuss the topics with each other. So while my post is mostly mine, there are parts that are Tab, Carleas, and Smears. I have to imagine that ILO conducts the debate in a similar manner (indeed, WC suggested that such cooperation would be one of ILO’s strengths at the start of the debates!). So you aren’t just asking people to judge against a teammate, where conflict of interest would make it difficult, but you are also asking them to judge against themselves, where conflict of interest is damned near absolute. Right? Neither side knew this thing was going to crash-and-burn so we didn’t plan accordingly.

The most important judge of a man is the man himself.

All the same, I agree with your point. It is kind of silly, but then again, so is the topic.

At any rate, the three original judges will judge the mini-debate, but I would like to mention that this mini-debate will have no reflection whatsoever on the two out of three Debates needed to win.

Should mankind presently be investing in manned space flights?
ILO argues the affirmative.

ILP Accept or veto?

I suggested this at ILO and will post it here as a possible debate topic.

Morality is a social construction.

Open to be re-worded to be more precise/fit the rules etc etc.

Archy vs Anarchy was a much more general topic, and therefore open to a larger platform of ideas.

Manned spaceflight is

  1. rather specialized topic
  2. narrow in scope
  3. not a terribly philosophical topic

If nothing else, I urge the members of ILP to veto the idea. No one wants to study up on expenditures for manned space flight. Yes, we already know that plenty of neat consumer products were the result of work done by NASA… like TANG! And finally, no one really wants to read much on that topic anyway.

Yeeeahh, kinda agree with GCT there. Unless We’re gonna discuss Star-trek philo.

ILP has already accepted.