ILP v. ILO Voting

Chamber of Debate Challenges
1

Ladies and Gentlemen, the following are your volunteers, please vote for three in preferential order while adhering to the voting rules.

In the event that ILP does not dispute having four contestants, the top four point getters are in. If ILP chooses to dispute this action, the top three are in and the ILP debaters will vote on whether or not to include a fourth. Voting will conclude Friday the 12th at 8:00p.m…

Here are the volunteers:

Smears
Unreasonable
Sittlichkeit
Xunzian
Carleas
Tabula Rasa

Here are the rules:

Voting:

If it comes down to a vote, then each poster with a joined date on or before November 26, 2008 may vote on the three contestants they wish to represent their respective website. There will be a seperate thread for voting.

Rules:

1.) Points will be determined in the order that you vote for people. Your first vote will be worth three points, your second vote will be worth two points and your final vote will be worth one point.

2.) All three of your votes must be on one post.

3.) If a single user attempts to vote twice, neither vote will be considered, I am not going to do an American Idol format here!

4.) You MAY vote for yourself, but a self-vote will only result in one point, regardless of where you position yourself on the voting.

5.) Your vote may not be edited, if it is edited, it will be disregarded.

6.) You may not vote for the same participant multiple times, or your vote will be disregarded. In other words, I could not do this:

7.) You may not vote for participants at both ILP and ILO. Although, if you have two different SN’s, I suppose I can’t stop you. Also, if you volunteer to represent one site, you may not vote at the other site. Again, if you have two different SN’s, I can’t stop you.

1.) PavlovianModel146
2.) PavlovianModel146
3.) PavlovianModel146

2
  1. Sittlichkeit
  2. Carleas
  3. Smears

P.S. I vote for 3v3 as originally planned.

3
  1. Carleas
  2. Smears
  3. Tab
4

Disclaimer - my votes are based on familiarity (some I’ve known for longer and can make a better assessment of) and what i perceive of a breadth of knowledge (the topic being unkown).

Carleas
Xunzian
Tab

5

Unreasonable
Xunzian
Carleas

6

Hmmm…can I vote for both sides? Am I ILP or ILO? A crisis of conscience!

For ILP I choose:

Xunzian
Tabula Rasa
Carleas
Sittlichkeit

7

No, voting can only be for one side or the other, but they have more or less decided already.

You were only supposed to vote for three, though. If I assume order of preference your vote would then be:

Xunzian
Tabula Rasa
Carleas

Is that correct?

8

Smears
Carleas
Xunzian

Go team!

Edit: With Pav’s permission I have re-ordered my nominations. :sunglasses:

9

Xunzian
Carleas
Tabula Rasa

10

Xunzian
Tab
Smears

11

Xunz
Tab
Carleas

12

Xunzian
Carleas
Smears

13

xunzian
carleas
smears

14

Tabula Rasa has changed the order of the people voted for, but not the people voted for themselves, this I will allow provided I have fore-knowledge.

15

:blush: sorry, didn’t read all the rules.

16

Sorry Pav for interfering here I know its supposed to be strictly votes butttt, Tab, that last post is too funny coming from you.:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

17

That’s nothing - You should see me trying to set up new electrical gear after displaying a proper manly contempt for such things as “instruction manuals”.

18

Hey, somebody please send me a link to the debate once it starts. I want to see it. I just found out about it.

19

My vote, if I get one:

at ILP–
Tabula Rasa
Carleas
Xunzian

at ILO …not joining just to vote, and they’re all over here (or could be if they so chose), anyway–
Gamer
SIATD
OG

I think they should debate whether or not genuine meaning or moral truth is possible if it is not grounded in the eternal, and what that would imply about the eternal, if genuine meaning and moral truth are grounded in it (and what sort of evidence would be… evident… if the eternal had those characteristics… and whether or not such evidence IS evident…).

Or maybe: What is the point of the field of Ethics–what is the question it seeks to answer? One team could argue: “How should we behave with others and ourselves?” (viewing selves as a type of other, as in “no self-respecting person would ever…”). The other team could argue a different question.

THAT would (potentially) be an interesting discussion.

Goodnight.

20

Oh god, tell me about it. I just bought my kid an arcade basketball game for Christmas, and I can tell from looking at the picture of it on the box and the actual size of the box that this is going to be ugly. To put this sort of thing together, I have to send the kids away to play with their other presents so that I can cuss freely and with gusto when necessary.
:angry-cussingblack: