Man, I’m getting tired of this...! My new debate challenge.

I’ll debate any poster on ILP with their trope against my trope.

The reason it’s so important to me is that I want to be exposed for my trope or I want to expose you for yours.

I’ll debate all members individually.

I think it’s important for these discussions to be ossified in the debate forums rather than buried posts.

I’ll give you some of my tropes…

  • morality is objective

  • god doesn’t exist

  • we all live forever

  • all sex is psychopathy

  • all marriage is psychopathy

Choose one and debate me, choose all of them and debate me.

I’ve heard it all before… Ecmandu is crazy, Ecmandu just wants attention

These are just excuses.

I might be interested in one of them, who would moderate?

Carleas is a very good moderator… but… I like high stakes… I’d leave it to the entire board.

I can leave it to the entire board to decide the winner, if that’s what you mean, but a single, disciplined person must moderate. I have no objection to Carleas if he wants to do it.

We will need a structure too, which I would be happy to leave to whoever the moderator ends up being.

So… having been here in my infantile state before (like we all were back then)

I suggest 5 rounds. Carleas has obviously been occupied with work and family… but I’m pretty sure he’ll do it, if not… Dan~

What debate do you want to take? (out of curiosity)

I want to take

  • morality is objective

I hear you on Carleas, that’s why I’m not sure he’ll do it. But I was thinking about it and I don’t know who else I would trust. MagsJ is the person with most integrity by far, but I don’t know if she can withdraw herself from a subject and be dispassionate. Obsrvr and promethean are intellectually competent, but I wouldn’t trust them not to inject their own agendas.

I would veto Dan~. I admire his self-discipline in a lot of things, but I don’t consider him impartial or capable of impartiality. In a pinch, I might accept, because of the discipline thing. But probably not.

OK, 5 rounds, I guess that would be…

  1. opening arguments

2 - 4 counters

5 conclusions?

do we have anything like a word limit or other kind of limit? I think a moderator might see some worth setting that we can’t think of right now.

I would also suggest that, if at the time we both agree, we can skip round 4.

Or, if not limits, standards to determine the winner.

Oh wow. Cool. You really want to debate me on the other 5? I like it.

No no, I only want to debate

  • morality is objective

what I meant was that, if at the end of round 3 we both feel we argued enough, we can skip to conclusions.

You’ve got it.

Morality is objective!!!

I like that one.

Let’s get Carleas here.

In nomine Patris…

I think I just got hit by a bolt of inspiration.

If Carleas can’t/won’t do it, would you agree to WendyDarling?

I’ll give you a little prep work.

Everyone wants the best outcomes for themselves.

Some people are empaths… their best outcome is the best outcome for all beings.

Nobody wants their consent violated.

Work on your argument.

Wendy is fine.

No no, none of this, save it for the debate.

Ok then we will give Carleas… 3 days? and then we go with Wendy?

To choose the winner, I say we have a 3 day voting period after the debate ends, and whoever votes votes. If nobody votes, or there is a tie, Wendy decides.

Oh yeah, and another thing, a 24 hour limit after each post to post a response? Sound reasonable to you?

Don’t worry about it man. There’s more where that came from. I just want you to prep. What did I state?

5 measly small sentences.

I want this to be an even debate. I want to give you a chance here.

People have put me on ignore and called me a piece of shit so many times in this board, I want to make this unambiguous to them.

24 hours sounds fine to me.