Debate Tournament

[Zairak]

As you could probably tell from the title, this game has people debating against each other. Just thought I'd try this in an actual competition scenario instead of General Discussion. Basically, two people debate on a subject, general or otherwise. This is not Fight Club, however. Debates do not go on as long as they need to, a week is the longest they will go on, barring unforeseen circumstances. Right. Here are the basic guidelines as of now.

1. Do not post in here asking if you can become a participant. Private message me and I'll add you to the list included in this post.

2. Absolutely no flaming, trolling or general ass-hattery. Doing so will result in your disqualification.

3. There will be 5 judges at the minimum. Just private message me if you are interested.

Rule Change:
Rule 4: A judge cannot be a debator at the same time. You can, however, judge other debates, if you agree to be fair about it.

5. If you see a particular person on the list you want to debate with, talk with them, not with me. Only once you agree to debate should you contact me.

6. If you do not pair up with somebody, I will randomly assign you a partner and a topic. I will choose a topic for each debate and which position you argue by random methods. Shouldn't really matter if you suppourt the point of view, this tournament is suppoused to show who the best debator is anyway.

7. Judges will assign points, 0-10, based on how they feel the participants did at the end of the debates. 0 obviously is the lowest score and thus means that they could not get any worse, even if they tried. That means that you, should you become a judge, will probably not be giving out 0's or 10's frequently, if at all. The winners will advance to the next round.

8. You can still pick who you want to debate with after the first round, so long as you tell me in advance.

9. Judges can cut the debate short if they decide that the participants are just repeating themselves and not really getting anywhere.

I think that's about it for now. I may add in other guidelines later as the situation warrants. Now, as I said, I'll need 5 judges. I would also like at least twelve people who want to debate, although more would be welcome. If enough people sign up, I'll start it this coming Monday. Until then, feel free to ask questions I didn't answer in the guidelines. Have fun.

Edit: I have enough judges now, but you can still sign up if you want.

Participants:
killshot
Tatterdemalion
Overmind
agrajagthetesty
Spoofs3
leonhart321

Judges:
guywithnolife
Tormented
darkarcher
agrajagthetesty
Spoofs3

Debate Tournament Winners:

1st Tournament Champion: killshot

2nd Tournament Champion: Spoofs3

3rd Tournament Champion: killshot

[Zairak]

Well, may as well get this going, I guess.

The first debate will be on the topic of fuel sources, with killshot suppourting the position that we should seek other sources of fuel and Tatterdemalion suppourting the position that we should continue to use oil as our primary source of fuel.

I still need 3 more judges to step forward and many more participants. Despite not having all 5 judges yet, I'm going to start the first debate now.

First round starts whenever Tatter and killshot are ready to start in.

[Tatterdemalion]

If neither of us goes, will it be a stalemate?

Well, I might as well go, even though my position is more of a rebuttal stance (I'm essentially advocating not changing, so that's not really an active position).

But in any case, here I go.

America is a nation built on petroleum. The fact of the matter is that with existing technologies, there is no means by which to adequately replace the vast amount of petroleum used for energy with one of these so-called "alternative" sources. Were the technology in ready supply I doubt there would be much question to the matter, but the fact remains that the means are not present, both for industrial, transportational, and other purposes.

Yes, it could be said that "investing" in research and development could be beneficial, but at the same time that would not only be a very unwise investment due to its lack of a definite return, but at the same time, any money spent "investing" has to come from somewhere. Why, in times of economic crisis, should the hard working taxpayers of America have to sacrifice their own quality of life for the sake of a risky venture with no immediate return, and only hypothetical long-term effects.

The American people do not have money to throw away on some sort of Utopian fantasy-land that has no foundation in reality. On top of that, even if the appropriate technology did exist, you would have to make a massive changeover to "alternative" sources of fuel. And how would this be done? America is built on petroleum, which has fuelled the gears of industry and national growth for close to a century. People are not going to suddenly give up that American dream just because some half-developed technology may or may not roll around in an undetermined amount of time. It took the hard work of generations of dedicated taxpayers to build up this country, you can't just take away its entire foundation from under it, and expect it to remain standing.

Even if new energy technology comes to be, why should anyone assume it would even come close to being as consistent or reliable as petroleum is now? Also, as long as petroleum exists, which it does, why would anyone in their right mind stop using it? Just think of how many millions of Americans you would be forcing out of fork, all of the oil riggers and refiners, not to mention the automechanics and gas station owners all across America who struggled to make a better life for themselves and their families. What would they do if suddenly petroleum were snatched right out from under them? Why, it would take an act of sheer Communism to separate them from their livelihood, and I think we can all agree that the government has no right to force people to sabotage their own industry for the sake of petty politics.

And no, petroleum is not going to suddenly "run out" any time soon, the problem is that Americans simply need to become less dependent on foriegn sources of oil. So long as we can put an end to the tyrannical monopoly that OPEC currently holds, as well as building up our own supply through unregulated drilling, the supply of petroleum itself will not be a problem. And because we are indeed actively bringing freedom to the oppressive Muslim countries that are trying to deprive us of the black gold our forefathers struggled for, that should certainly not be a problem for much longer.

[Zairak]

Well, it would be a stalemate, but the tournament would kinda have to end if I did that due to lack of volunteers. I think it will go faster now that you have posted, it's just hard to start sometimes.

[Zairak]

Update: killshot won't be able to start until Friday due to college. Therefore, the first round will go through next week as well.

[Tatterdemalion]

Update: killshot won't be able to start until Friday due to college. Therefore, the first round will go through next week as well.
Odd, I always pictured him being a bit older than that...

[Zairak]

To be fair, he could be going back to college to get a degree. In any case, he said his response would be up sometime in the afternoon/evening, so this should take off around then, barring more bad luck.

[killshot]

Well, I think I'm ready to start. Lets hope next week goes a little more smoothly.

Alternative sources of fuel would not only be beneficial to America, they will soon be necessary. Projections show that in as few as fifty years, fossil fuels will not be able to meet the energy demand of the world. As the population swells, the world is consuming more and more fuel each year. It is estimated that by the year 2030, the total energy demand will increase up to 50%. A time will come when petroleum will not be able to supply us with the energy we need. We need to plan ahead and consider alternative fuel sources before a massive fuel shortage leaves us without power.

One of the prime concerns with any new technology is funding. These alternative fuel sources are not going to come cheap. However, after the technology is developed to extract and harness the new energy, these fuels could easily pay for themselves. Wind, solar, and geothermal energy could provide a cheap, limitless supply of energy that could easily take the place of oil and natural gas. Bio fuels can be quickly renewed and perform the same function as gasoline. Hydrogen fuel cells could one day become an affordable technology used in the majority of new vehicles. Once the transition from petroleum to alternative energy is made, they could become just as affordable, if not cheaper than traditional fuel sources.

One of the greatest advantages of switching from petroleum is the reduction of carbon emissions. Global warming is quickly becoming a major concern and if we do not take steps to get our emissions under control, we may have bigger problems than a fuel shortage. These new sources of energy are designed to have almost no impact on the environment, making them them the obvious choice for which fuel is safer. Petroleum is harmful to the planet during each phase of its production. Drilling for oil damages the environment and destroys many plants that could potentially used as medicines. Burning the oil for energy releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect. Alternative fuels are necessary to prevent damage to our ecosystem and to prevent a potential global disaster.

Switching to alternate fuel sources would greatly improve America's status in the international community. We would no longer have to rely on foreign oil, or oil at all for that matter. America could make a killing selling clean energy to the rest of the world, and help reduce the world's carbon emissions as an added bonus. This new energy could open up thousands of new jobs and improve our crumbling economy. The creation and distribution of clean energy could restore faith in American ingenuity and could make America the world's largest energy provider.

The truth is we can't afford not to explore other sources of fuel. When our petroleum reserve runs dry, the world will grind to a halt. We need to prepare for this inevitable future by funding the research of new and cleaner technology. The sooner we can develop and integrate this technology, the sooner we can feel secure about the future. This switch to cleaner fuel will eventually happen sometime. Why shouldn't America be leading the way?

[Tatterdemalion]

One of the prime concerns with any new technology is funding. These alternative fuel sources are not going to come cheap. However, after the technology is developed to extract and harness the new energy, these fuels could easily pay for themselves. Wind, solar, and geothermal energy could provide a cheap, limitless supply of energy that could easily take the place of oil and natural gas. Bio fuels can be quickly renewed and perform the same function as gasoline. Hydrogen fuel cells could one day become an affordable technology used in the majority of new vehicles. Once the transition from petroleum to alternative energy is made, they could become just as affordable, if not cheaper than traditional fuel sources.
Notice the incredubly speculative nature of your argument. Research may return results, which may occur in the near future, and may provide a viable alternative to petroleum, which may be affordable. I could just as easily say that tomorrow we may find an enormous oil reserve that will last us for the next two hundred years. Science is not the sort of thing that works like clockwork, it is often slow, unpredictable, and sporadic in its accomplishments. We have no way of knowing whether further research into any of the "alternative" sources of energy that you mentioned will return any practical results, and in shaky financial times of uncertainty such as this, we can't risk throwing millions of dollars into what will in all likelihood be a financial black hole. You can't go to the store and buy technology, science is, and compared to the amount of money that is put into it, very rarely do major technological breakthroughs occur. America can't afford to throw money away when there are problems that need immediate attention.

I don't know if you noticed, but there's a war going on, and whether or not you agree with it, you can't deny that as long as they're in Iraq, our brave boys and girls in uniform need the appropriate funding for supplies and resources to do what it takes to pull through and survive. Average, hard working American Joes are getting into financial desperation as a result of the greed of frivolous money-squeezers and big spenders, and can barely afford to support their own dream to succeed, and reap the rewards of their labor. Are you going to be the one to tell Mr. and Mrs. Johnson that their son in Iraq isn'tgoingto get the body armor he needs, or that their daughter can't go to college and fight for a better life because we need to throw their hard earned money around in the hopes that on some improbable chance a clean, cheap, renewable, practical and easily implemented source of energy will suddenly magically become available? Well, if you are then be my guest, but I'm not so sure I could live with myself having to bear such a burden. One of the greatest advantages of switching from petroleum is the reduction of carbon emissions. Global warming is quickly becoming a major concern and if we do not take steps to get our emissions under control, we may have bigger problems than a fuel shortage. These new sources of energy are designed to have almost no impact on the environment, making them them the obvious choice for which fuel is safer. Petroleum is harmful to the planet during each phase of its production. Drilling for oil damages the environment and destroys many plants that could potentially used as medicines. Burning the oil for energy releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, contributing to the greenhouse effect. Alternative fuels are necessary to prevent damage to our ecosystem and to prevent a potential global disaster.
While carbon emissions may indeed be a problem, it's not as though the very use of petroleum as a fuel will automatically destroy the Earth

Also, even if America could magically switch all forms of energy to some "alternative' fuel, do you think that would stop petroleum drilling? Do you know just how much is made from petroleum? Plastic, vaseline, clothing, asphalt, baby oil...even if we could completely end our use of petroleum as a fuel, petroleum would still be a necessary part of our economy and our lifestyle.

So I ask, whatever happened to conservation? Not trendy or cutting-edge enough for you? The world has been using petroleum in large quantities for close to a century and a half, and while yes, it's going to have a noticeable effect on the environment, it's not until recently that the more critical effects of global climate change started to surface. It isn't necessary that we end all petroleum use, which isn't even possible, all that is necessary to ensure the general safety of the environment is that we keep our petroleum use at a reasonable level, as opposed to using it in the excessive and wasteful sense that we do today.

Why should people waste all of their money and attention on a technology that doesn't even exist, when at the same time if they would just be more responsible, and economical with their use, they could make a significant impact through a means that is already in their grasp? There's no doubt about it that Americans are incredibly wasteful with their petroleum use. People choose to live in suburban and rural areas, in such a way that leads to them making unnecessary use of their automobiles.

Whatever happened to public transportation? Or bicycling? Or, Heaven forbid, walking? With all of this talk about seeking "alternative" energy, people are neglecting the fact that there are already existing alternatives to overconsumption, which do not require abandoning petroleum as a source of fuel, and are already within their grasp, as opposed to some sort of high-hoping miracle technology of the hypothetical future. Why abandon what you have for something that you're wishing for?

The notion of "alternative" fuel is no excuse to be lazy, and the misguided belief that somehow if you throw around a bunch of money in a few years the world will be oil-free is no substitute for personal responsibility. There is no reason that citizens should feel the need to look to fabricated easy answers when if they just make an effort, they already have the means to fix the problem.Switching to alternate fuel sources would greatly improve America's status in the international community. We would no longer have to rely on foreign oil, or oil at all for that matter. America could make a killing selling clean energy to the rest of the world, and help reduce the world's carbon emissions as an added bonus. This new energy could open up thousands of new jobs and improve our crumbling economy. The creation and distribution of clean energy could restore faith in American ingenuity and could make America the world's largest energy provider.

And what about all of the jobs that are going to be lost once petroleum is hypothetically phased out (not that it's actually going to happen)? What about the people who work drilling for oil, those who labor in the refineries, the thousands upon thousands employed by the oil companies involved, the people who own and operate gas stations,the people who supply gasoline to gas stations, the engineers who design aeroplanes that run on jet fuel, the companies that manufacture the engines that use this fuel, the mechanics who repair these aeroplanes, auto mechanics as well, anyone associated with the manufacture of trains and ships...an enormous sector of the economy relies on the use of petroleum (and this is just as a source of fuel, not to mention all the other uses of petroleum). And you're saying that the abandonment of petroleum as a source of fuel is going to help the economy? I think you have it a bit backwards.

Also, keep in mind that what America does is really going to be of little impact on a global scale a few decades from now. America may be the world's largest current consumer of petroleum, but what do you think is going to happen once India and China get in on the market? These are countries with populations extraordinarily larger than that of the Unided States, with a higher growth rate, both population-wise, economically, and politically. Whether you want to think about it or not, America is by no means the rising star of the world, and compared to India and China it's unlikely that 20 years from now America will be the leader in anything.

[killshot]

Notice the incredubly speculative nature of your argument. Research may return results, which may occur in the near future, and may provide a viable alternative to petroleum, which may be affordable. I could just as easily say that tomorrow we may find an enormous oil reserve that will last us for the next two hundred years.
Are my claims too abstract for you? Then how about some absolutes? If we continue to consume petroleum at the rate we are now, we will run out. If carbon emissions resulting from using petroleum aren't cut drastically, we will have to face the issue of global warming. So what if we could find another oil reserve? That is only going to delay the inevitable. Also, the discovery of a larger oil reserve would do nothing to prevent global warming. Science is not the sort of thing that works like clockwork, it is often slow, unpredictable, and sporadic in its accomplishments. We have no way of knowing whether further research into any of the "alternative" sources of energy that you mentioned will return any practical results, and in shaky financial times of uncertainty such as this, we can't risk throwing millions of dollars into what will in all likelihood be a financial black hole. You can't go to the store and buy technology, science is, and compared to the amount of money that is put into it, very rarely do major technological breakthroughs occur. America can't afford to throw money away when there are problems that need immediate attention.
So how long do you think we can put off this research? Would you wait until the oil dries up and half the world begins to be devoured by the swelling oceans? This research may seem trivial at the moment, but there will come a time when our petroleum reserve gives out. We need to be prepared for this inevitability by investing in research that will break us free from our oil dependence. Sadly, we don't have the luxury of choosing when it is financially convenient to deal with this problem. Either we commit to this research now or we risk being completely ill prepared to deal problems that affect not only America, but the entire world. I don't know if you noticed, but there's a war going on, and whether or not you agree with it, you can't deny that as long as they're in Iraq, our brave boys and girls in uniform need the appropriate funding for supplies and resources to do what it takes to pull through and survive. Average, hard working American Joes are getting into financial desperation as a result of the greed of frivolous money-squeezers and big spenders, and can barely afford to support their own dream to succeed, and reap the rewards of their labor. Are you going to be the one to tell Mr. and Mrs. Johnson that their son in Iraq isn'tgoingto get the body armor he needs, or that their daughter can't go to college and fight for a better life because we need to throw their hard earned money around in the hopes that on some improbable chance a clean, cheap, renewable, practical and easily implemented source of energy will suddenly magically become available? Well, if you are then be my guest, but I'm not so sure I could live with myself having to bear such a burden.

We are indeed in a poor position to be funding new projects. However, the problems that will arise by not funding research for better fuels are not going to go away. Will you tell the oil reserve not to run out until we can fix our economy? Can you tell global warming to leave us alone while we finish our squabble in the Middle East? You can ridicule this necessary spending all you want, but at the end of the day, staying the course and ignoring these issues will only lead to our mutual destruction. While carbon emissions may indeed be a problem, it's not as though the very use of petroleum as a fuel will automatically destroy the Earth
If used in moderation, petroleum is not that great of a threat to our environment, but we have moved well beyond moderation in our oil consumption. So I ask, whatever happened to conservation? Not trendy or cutting-edge enough for you? The world has been using petroleum in large quantities for close to a century and a half, and while yes, it's going to have a noticeable effect on the environment, it's not until recently that the more critical effects of global climate change started to surface. It isn't necessary that we end all petroleum use, which isn't even possible, all that is necessary to ensure the general safety of the environment is that we keep our petroleum use at a reasonable level, as opposed to using it in the excessive and wasteful sense that we do today.

Our energy consumption has moved well beyond the scope of simply shutting the lights off when no one is in the room. The world's population is so great that even using petroleum sparingly is not going to fix the problem of over consumption. True, global warming has only recently started to have an effect, but our fuel consumption is only going to increase. With a world population nearing 7 billion, global warming is going to start increasing more rapidly than in the past. No amount of bicycling is going to decrease the world's energy consumption enough to stop global warming. And what about all of the jobs that are going to be lost once petroleum is hypothetically phased out (not that it's actually going to happen)?
Switching to cleaner energy is a necessity that must take priority over the livelihood of people in the oil industry. These people will just have to learn to adapt to a new economy. This doesn't even have to be as devastating as you make it out to be. Auto mechanics wouldn't be thrown out on the street just because the source of fuel has changed. It's highly unlikely that gas station owners would not be able to make the transition from distributing petroleum to selling an alternative. Petroleum doesn't even have to be phased out completely, as long as it is replaced as the primary fuel source.

Also, keep in mind that what America does is really going to be of little impact on a global scale a few decades from now. America may be the world's largest current consumer of petroleum, but what do you think is going to happen once India and China get in on the market? These are countries with populations extraordinarily larger than that of the Unided States, with a higher growth rate, both population-wise, economically, and politically. Whether you want to think about it or not, America is by no means the rising star of the world, and compared to India and China it's unlikely that 20 years from now America will be the leader in anything.
The increasing industrialization of China and India is even more reason to develop these technologies as soon as possible. With these two countries consuming more than even the United States, it is imperative that we find a way to minimize petroleum usage. Whether the United States is a leader or just a participant in the search for cleaner fuel is of little consequence. We are dealing with an issue that concerns the entire world so there is no need for national pride to impede progress.

SIDE NOTE: I move that we begin referencing each others posts by number as opposed to quoting the entire paragraph. These post have already become fairly epic in length.

[Tatterdemalion]

Damn it, I have to write this twice...Our energy consumption has moved well beyond the scope of simply shutting the lights off when no one is in the room. The world's population is so great that even using petroleum sparingly is not going to fix the problem of over consumption. True, global warming has only recently started to have an effect, but our fuel consumption is only going to increase. With a world population nearing 7 billion, global warming is going to start increasing more rapidly than in the past. No amount of bicycling is going to decrease the world's energy consumption enough to stop global warming.
You know as well as I do that the vast majority of petroleum consumption is by major industrialized nations all of which are characterized by having very stable populations, while the vast majority of global population growth is occurring in third-world, or "developing" countries, most of which have very little petroleum consumption at all.

Americans consume far more petroleum than any other country in the world, the second largest consumer being China. Now consider the fact that America consumes around three times as much of the world's petroleum as China, while having one third of China's population. The extravagant excess with which Americans consume petroleum is by no means a necessary, or even a reasonable level of consumption for a person to live in the modern world, and if you believe it is, you're deluding yourself. Maybe you don't want to leave the lights off, and maybe you'd be happier never mounting a bicycle, but you can't argue that reasonable conservation by responsible citizens is going to have no effect on the environment without blatantly ignoring the facts of the matter. So how long do you think we can put off this research? Would you wait until the oil dries up and half the world begins to be devoured by the swelling oceans? This research may seem trivial at the moment, but there will come a time when our petroleum reserve gives out. We need to be prepared for this inevitability by investing in research that will break us free from our oil dependence. Sadly, we don't have the luxury of choosing when it is financially convenient to deal with this problem. Either we commit to this research now or we risk being completely ill prepared to deal problems that affect not only America, but the entire world.
The problem with your argument is that it depends entirely upon the faulty assumption that just tossing some cash around is going to suddenly produce a major scientific breakthrough, returning an easily produced, fully developed, affordable, and universally implementable technonlogy in an incredibly short period of time. How can you logically assume something so incredibly improbable is going to occur when even with as much funding as possible it's still an unprecedented longshot, with little to no chance of being a practical success?

But then again, I can't ignore the fact that this method has worked time and time again in the past. After all, that's where all of those flying cars came from. And that wonderful cold fusion, you can't leave that out. And if not for all of the money put into that SETI project, we would never have made with all those countless races of extra terrestrials. So hey, I suppose throwing as much money as possible at a problem until it goes away due to the discovery of a new miracle technology must work. Come to think of it, it's the first rule of the scientific method, isn't it?

And if this is indeed as much of a world problem as it is an American problem, then why doesn't the rest of the world do the research? I mean, what about Europe? If this is such a surefire thing that just needs a little research, then wouldn't the European Union be on board, pouring money into alternative energy as opposed to the LHC? After all, throughout history the Europeans have been far more technologically innovative than the Americans, and at the one time when the Americans took the lead, it was due to European scientists. So considering that Europe has as much of a share in the world as America (more, actually, cvonsidering they have a larger population), then shouldn't the ones who can actually afford it be the ones to pick up the check?If used in moderation, petroleum is not that great of a threat to our environment, but we have moved well beyond moderation in our oil consumption.
Yes, and we all know that once you start consuming too much of something it's impossible to ever start to use less of it. That's why overeaters can never lose weight, and why no one has ever quit smoking. Not to mention that opium habit all of China has, because since it was introduced as a drug in the 1800s, the country has never been able to use less of it.Are my claims too abstract for you? Then how about some absolutes? If we continue to consume petroleum at the rate we are now, we will run out. If carbon emissions resulting from using petroleum aren't cut drastically, we will have to face the issue of global warming. So what if we could find another oil reserve? That is only going to delay the inevitable. Also, the discovery of a larger oil reserve would do nothing to prevent global warming.
Yes, but also consider this:

1. Even if we do suddenly stop using petroleum for fuel, there will still be a large demand for it, which will eventually run out and will eventually put the world into the very crisis you describe. So if we're going to run out of petroleum either way, wouldn't it be better if when it happened we hadn't wasted all of our money beforehand, squandering our time and resources on futile research?

2. We can significantly reduce consumption, and limit the effects of global warming through responsible use, without the need to abandon petroleu as a primary source of fuel, or throw away money on wishful "research."We are indeed in a poor position to be funding new projects. However, the problems that will arise by not funding research for better fuels are not going to go away. Will you tell the oil reserve not to run out until we can fix our economy? Can you tell global warming to leave us alone while we finish our squabble in the Middle East? You can ridicule this necessary spending all you want, but at the end of the day, staying the course and ignoring these issues will only lead to our mutual destruction.
The spending you describe would only be necessary if we had some reason to believe that it is actually going to accomplish something, and miraculously end our overconsumption problems as you suggest it will. But there is no good reason to believe anything like that. Taking that into consideration, as it stands it is in fact the exact opposite of necessary spending, and is indeed the worst possible use of funds at the worst possible time.Switching to cleaner energy is a necessity that must take priority over the livelihood of people in the oil industry. These people will just have to learn to adapt to a new economy. This doesn't even have to be as devastating as you make it out to be. Auto mechanics wouldn't be thrown out on the street just because the source of fuel has changed. It's highly unlikely that gas station owners would not be able to make the transition from distributing petroleum to selling an alternative. Petroleum doesn't even have to be phased out completely, as long as it is replaced as the primary fuel source.
How can you possibly be so heartless? Certainly, when you think "oil industry" it's easy to imagine a bunch of corporate fat cats when you hear "oil industry," but do you know what the oil industry actually is. It's drillers, and riggers, and transporters, and refiners, maintinence people, the whole lot. Common working men who are just trying to support their families and make a better life for themselves. These are the hard working American Joes whose strength and dedication built this country. Now you want to tell them that their lives aren't worth supporting? What's the point in develioing an "alternative" source of fuel if thousands of people can't even afford to own a car or heat their homes? Why would you destroy the economy just in the hopes of preserving the economy for a few years longer? What is accomplished through that sacrifice?The increasing industrialization of China and India is even more reason to develop these technologies as soon as possible. With these two countries consuming more than even the United States, it is imperative that we find a way to minimize petroleum usage. Whether the United States is a leader or just a participant in the search for cleaner fuel is of little consequence. We are dealing with an issue that concerns the entire world so there is no need for national pride to impede progress.
agree entirely that there is no need for national pride to impede progress. Therefore it is imperative that we as a nation limit our petroleum use by and reducing our consumption, rather than ignoring the value of conservation in favor of a bunch of far-fetched notions regarding "alternative" energy, simply because we would rather lead the world with miracle science than take responsibility for our actions. National pride needs to be forsaken in favor of a practical and realistic move towards the future.




RESPONSE TO SIDE NOTE: I'm not quite sure what you mean. If you can show me, then if possible I'll go back and edit my posts to conform to the format you're suggesting

[killshot]

Example: Instead of quoting the paragraph that begins, "You know as well as I..." I would just refer to it as "Paragraph 1." I just thought things would look neater this way. This only makes post twelve and I already have to do quite a bit of scrolling to reach the bottom.

Response to paragraphs one and two:

Yes, America is currently the world's leading oil consumer, but whose to say that won't change once China and India become more industrialized? Both countries are rapidly expanding, meaning that they will require more and more oil as they grow. Even if they keep petroleum use to the minimum amount required for production, they are still going to be polluting the world with their emissions. Combine this with the extravagant use of petroleum by America and you have a planet that will one day be mostly uninhabitable.

So what would you propose America do to cut down on petroleum use? Public transportation only works in compact areas with important places located relatively close to one another. Bicycles are a good idea only if you need to travel short distances. Do you expect Americans to bike 20 miles uphill to get to work everyday? It might be easy for someone who lives in New York to give up driving, but for many Americas who live in rural areas, driving is the only practical way to travel. Short of a massive redesign of rural America which would be infeasibly expensive, I don't see any other way to combat our petroleum use other than to switch to other fuels.

Response to paragraph 3:

Your entire argument seems to hinge on the assumption that alternate energy is nothing more than a scientific longshot. The truth is that the technology is already available. Some other sources of energy include solar, wind, geothermal, and water power, all of which are viable alternatives to oil, coal, and natural gas. You also seem to be overlooking nuclear power, which despite the bad publicity is a safe alternative to coal. All of these technologies are already available and some are even cheaper to implement than fossil fuels.

Response to paragraph 4:

Because failure in the past definitely means scientific research is a waste of money, am I right?

Response to paragraph 5:

Even if American researchers are not the ones to discover anything groundbreaking, it still does not mean that America does not need to pay into the research. Discovering a cost effective, clean source of energy would benefit the entire world, not just America. I'm not saying that America needs to independently finance the whole project, but a reasonable contribution would be a great help.

Response to paragraph 7, point 1:

The large demand for petroleum for fuel can be met with other fuel sources. If technology can advance to the point where petroleum is obsolete as fuel, the the demand for it will decrease dramatically. We won't run out anytime soon if petroleum is no longer a primary fuel source.

Point 2:

Could you define "responsible use?" If petroleum is our only fuel source then wouldn't any use of petroleum for fuel be necessary?

Response to paragraph 8:

I believe I have already covered this earlier. We have the technology to fix these problems. All we need is the money to refine and implement them.

Response to paragraph 9:

As I said before, this is a necessary change that people within the industry will just have to adjust to. Conversely, these new energy sources will open up new jobs. Perhaps some sort of incentive could be created so that workers who lost their jobs in the oil industry could have first pick of the new jobs created by the new fuel source. As I also stated before, this change won't affect some workers at all, other than the type of energy their plant produces.

I am also curious how I can "destroy" the economy by "preserving" the economy? One would think I could only accomplish one at a time.

[Tatterdemalion]

No, I don't think your way really works. I mean, the benefit of copying the paragraph rather than numbering them is that you could look back at exactly what the paragraph said by comparing the comment and response side by side, rather than having to keep scrolling back up to the previous post. Also, even if the page is long, that's not a big problem, is it? I mean, if you have to get to the bottom of the page you could use end instead of scrolling, right?Yes, America is currently the world's leading oil consumer, but whose to say that won't change once China and India become more industrialized? Both countries are rapidly expanding, meaning that they will require more and more oil as they grow. Even if they keep petroleum use to the minimum amount required for production, they are still going to be polluting the world with their emissions. Combine this with the extravagant use of petroleum by America and you have a planet that will one day be mostly uninhabitable.
Keep in mind that China and India are not going to develop the same way as America did, even as incomes become higher. China and India already have large populations concentrated in a relatively small area, and in many parts bicycle use and non-automotive methods of transportation are already commonplace. It's not as though if the economies of India and China develop more they're going to have a level of automotive use comparable to that of the United States, considering that with population size and distribution, which is far larger and more concentrated than that of the United States, if you were to have the same level of automobile ownership, it would be impossible to have any sort of efficient highway system that would make owning and using a car daily practical. Combining this with the ready availability of other sources of transportation, there's no logical reason why China and India would become as autocentric as the United States.

Keep in mind, it's not as though American development and the rise of the prominence of the automobile was somehow a natural part of national development that all countries follow. The suburbanization of available land in the United States, and the rejection of urban planning models that favored public transportation over universal car use was specifically gfuided and encouraged through government appropriation of funds and granting of tax subsidies during the 40s and 50s. Considering it was arguably a bad idea then, there's no reason that other countries would follow the same pattern now that it's an even worse move to make.So what would you propose America do to cut down on petroleum use? Public transportation only works in compact areas with important places located relatively close to one another. Bicycles are a good idea only if you need to travel short distances. Do you expect Americans to bike 20 miles uphill to get to work everyday? It might be easy for someone who lives in New York to give up driving, but for many Americas who live in rural areas, driving is the only practical way to travel. Short of a massive redesign of rural America which would be infeasibly expensive, I don't see any other way to combat our petroleum use other than to switch to other fuels.
Yes, it's true that the layout of the country makes it difficult for everyone to suddenly switch to public transportation, but keep in mind, it is possible to sustain rural areas without requiring people to own cars. Whatever happened to the railroad, for example? In countries like Japan, where there are indeed considerable rural areas, inter-city railways are used, which make it possible for people to travel to and from the city where they work/go to school easily without use of a car (and owning a bicycle makes it possible to also commute to/from the train station, as well as to travel inside the city without a car).

Now, you may argue that this is impractical, but how is implementing an existing technology in a way that has already had a great deal of success abroad, and is economically feasible to virtually everyone less practical than putting money into an attempt to develop technologies that are far less accessible, in the hopes that they will get to the point at which it will be possible for most people to use them in their day to day lives, then attempting to abandon their existing automobiles in favor os something that will invariably underperform as a single vehicle, and will be considerably more expensive as a purchase (as all technologies invariably are)? Even if you argue that in the long run it's more cost effective, not owning a car is still far more affordable than owning a car that runs on "alternative" energy.

Also keep in mind that while not everybody lives in New York, it's not as though everyone lives on a giant hill either...or under a giant hill, a hill which happens to have a city on top of it, or other place where people go to work...maybe in Colorado, perhaps, but other than that it's not exactly a descriprion of the average American's living situation.Your entire argument seems to hinge on the assumption that alternate energy is nothing more than a scientific longshot. The truth is that the technology is already available. Some other sources of energy include solar, wind, geothermal, and water power, all of which are viable alternatives to oil, coal, and natural gas. You also seem to be overlooking nuclear power, which despite the bad publicity is a safe alternative to coal. All of these technologies are already available and some are even cheaper to implement than fossil fuels.
The technologies exist so much as the premise that they can eventially be developed to the point that they can be made into a cheaper automobile that everyone will be able to own and maintain. Is there a car that runs on water? The technologies exist, it's not as though they're somehow completely developed, with millions of completely cost effective and entirely practical models just waiting to be made, which would revolutionize the world if only the government would give the green light. There's a foundation for the idea that we can use these "alternative" energies, there's not actually a means by which they can be applied in such a way as you are suggesting, and replace petroleum.

That's still as much of a longshot as any, without any more promise for return. If you're going to use these in the capacity at which they can currently be applied, that's one thing, and you can go ahead, but there's no reason to suggest that these technologies will develop to the point of being able to replace petroleum any time in the near future, no matter how much of the taxpayers' money you pump into them. So yes, it's still wishful thinking.Because failure in the past definitely means scientific research is a waste of money, am I right?
Yes, you are. Unless all the aliens we've made contact with say otherwise.Even if American researchers are not the ones to discover anything groundbreaking, it still does not mean that America does not need to pay into the research. Discovering a cost effective, clean source of energy would benefit the entire world, not just America. I'm not saying that America needs to independently finance the whole project, but a reasonable contribution would be a great help.
As I said before, it would only be a help if we had the assurance of a return, which as of now we do not. Put money into something you know can work, not something you hope will somehow pay off.Response to paragraph 7, point 1:

The large demand for petroleum for fuel can be met with other fuel sources. If technology can advance to the point where petroleum is obsolete as fuel, the the demand for it will decrease dramatically. We won't run out anytime soon if petroleum is no longer a primary fuel source.
First off, that's still running on the hopes that there will arise a fuel source that can completely replace petroleum, which there is no evidence to suggest. Secondly, how long is "anytime soon"? Are you saying that it's urgent for us to stop stop using petroleum for fuel because we'll run out in 50 years, but if we run out in, say, 150 years it's not a problem? Why,because you won't be around? Or do you think suddenly an alternative source of plastic is going to suddenly appear out of nowhere through the miracles of science?Could you define "responsible use?" If petroleum is our only fuel source then wouldn't any use of petroleum for fuel be necessary?
Responsible use would involve reducing unnecessary use of automobiles electricity, and the like, less waste of other petroleum-based products, as well as reycycling, and the use of non-petroleum based fuel where it's already applicable (while it's ridiculous to assume that "alternative" fuel can ever replace petroleum, that's no reason why existing non petroleum-based fuel shouldn't be used in the limited capacity it can actually serve)..

You think it's funny to call conservation "just turning off the lights," but by your own admission American use of petroleum is extravagant. By saying that you should ignore all of the existing means of conservation that are possible because you hope that one day we won't need to use petroleum at all (which may well not be true), you're dismissing the practical in favor of the improbable. It's like quitting your job because you hope you'll win the lottery. Unless you've already got the winning ticket, which America does not have at its disposal, it's a ridiculous idea.I believe I have already covered this earlier. We have the technology to fix these problems. All we need is the money to refine and implement them.
No, you've just said it. Just saying that if you throw enough money at a problem it will somehow become practical and implementable doesn't mean we actually have the means to do it. I mean, we have the technology to make things reach a temperature of a fraction of one degree Kelvin. Does that mean that if we throw around enough money it's reasonable to believe that we'll reach absolute zero in a couple years?

And you're right, we do need that money. I mean, we don't have it, so we can't possibly use it, but if we were to get it somehow that would be great. Hey, maybe America should play the lottery!As I said before, this is a necessary change that people within the industry will just have to adjust to. Conversely, these new energy sources will open up new jobs. Perhaps some sort of incentive could be created so that workers who lost their jobs in the oil industry could have first pick of the new jobs created by the new fuel source. As I also stated before, this change won't affect some workers at all, other than the type of energy their plant produces.
So now the government gets to decide who gets what jobs? So either the govenment is going to tell companies who to hire, or...the government is going to run the companies themselves? Honestly, how can you go around advocating Communism, then expect people to take you seriously? Next you'll be saying we should force every homeowner and business in America to completely take apart their building in order to remove their old heating system and pay to install an entirely new one, because the government gets to decide how people heat their homes...oh, wait, you are saying that.

And yesh, I guess people will just have to "adjust" to not having anymore livelihood. You know, it's not as though these different technologies are somehow interchangeable, or even closely related...but hey, if you're going to be the one to tell Mr. Automechanic and Mrs. Oilrefiner that they've lost their jobs, and can't afford to feed their families because they're a "necessary expense," and that they "just have to adjust," then be my guest. I myself don't think I could bring myself to do it.I am also curious how I can "destroy" the economy by "preserving" the economy? One would think I could only accomplish one at a time.
No, you're trying to preserve it, but you end up destroying it instead. That is, you do one in the name of the other.

[killshot]

After I saw how my format turned out, I considered editing it back to the old one. I thought it might be a good idea, but it seems it didn't do much to change the length anyway. Nothing ventured, nothing gained I guess.Keep in mind that China and India are not going to develop the same way as America did, even as incomes become higher. China and India already have large populations concentrated in a relatively small area, and in many parts bicycle use and non-automotive methods of transportation are already commonplace. It's not as though if the economies of India and China develop more they're going to have a level of automotive use comparable to that of the United States, considering that with population size and distribution, which is far larger and more concentrated than that of the United States, if you were to have the same level of automobile ownership, it would be impossible to have any sort of efficient highway system that would make owning and using a car daily practical. Combining this with the ready availability of other sources of transportation, there's no logical reason why China and India would become as autocentric as the United States.

The problem isn't just with automobiles. You are probably correct in saying that the concentrated populations of India and China will have little use for automobiles, but what about the fuel consumed by the factories that are helping these countries thrive in the industrial world? It's projected that in a few years, China will become the world's largest exporter. The products they export have to be made somewhere. Factories need to be constantly working in order to meet the demand. It's unlikely that China or India have very strict policies, if any at all, that limit the emissions of these factories. By burning large amounts of unclean fuel, China is projected to exceed the United States in carbon emissions by the year 2010 with India following close behind. The technologies exist so much as the premise that they can eventially be developed to the point that they can be made into a cheaper automobile that everyone will be able to own and maintain. Is there a car that runs on water? The technologies exist, it's not as though they're somehow completely developed, with millions of completely cost effective and entirely practical models just waiting to be made, which would revolutionize the world if only the government would give the green light. There's a foundation for the idea that we can use these "alternative" energies, there's not actually a means by which they can be applied in such a way as you are suggesting, and replace petroleum.

If you want to talk solely about automobiles and ignore the other technologies that we are currently implementing, you can't forget about biofuels. We may not have a practical model of a hydrogen fuel cell at the moment, but we do have biofuels that are easily renewable and carbon neutral. In terms of affordability, biofuels are cheaper per unit of volume than petroleum. Growing the resources to make biofuels would make use of previously unused land and create new jobs in this industry. This fuel may not be able to completely replace petroleum, but it would definitely cut down on its use. Yes, you are. Unless all the aliens we've made contact with say otherwise.
You heard the man kids, throw away your science text books because research just isn't cost effective. First off, that's still running on the hopes that there will arise a fuel source that can completely replace petroleum, which there is no evidence to suggest. Secondly, how long is "anytime soon"? Are you saying that it's urgent for us to stop stop using petroleum for fuel because we'll run out in 50 years, but if we run out in, say, 150 years it's not a problem? Why,because you won't be around? Or do you think suddenly an alternative source of plastic is going to suddenly appear out of nowhere through the miracles of science?
There may never be a single fuel source that can replace petroleum, but I'm sure a combination of different sources should be able to get the job done. "Anytime soon" means we stretch our petroleum reserve to last as long as possible. Ideally, make it last until we grow beyond a need for it, or a catastrophic disaster wipes out the human race. There is no sense in wasting a non-renewable resource when viable alternatives can be found. You think it's funny to call conservation "just turning off the lights," but by your own admission American use of petroleum is extravagant. By saying that you should ignore all of the existing means of conservation that are possible because you hope that one day we won't need to use petroleum at all (which may well not be true), you're dismissing the practical in favor of the improbable. It's like quitting your job because you hope you'll win the lottery. Unless you've already got the winning ticket, which America does not have at its disposal, it's a ridiculous idea.
My point was that simply conserving petroleum through the usual methods is no longer going to be enough. Too many necessary utilities and products use petroleum to make simple conservation enough to prevent global warming and a possible oil shortage. Its always a good idea to recycle and conserve as much as possible, but getting away from petroleum as a primary fuel source would make a much bigger difference than simply not being wasteful.

No, you've just said it. Just saying that if you throw enough money at a problem it will somehow become practical and implementable doesn't mean we actually have the means to do it. I mean, we have the technology to make things reach a temperature of a fraction of one degree Kelvin. Does that mean that if we throw around enough money it's reasonable to believe that we'll reach absolute zero in a couple years?
Scientific discovery tends to occur in bursts. Once the initial breakthrough is made, improvements to the original design are usually quick to follow. We have discovered several different technologies that could free us from our oil dependency. Are these not worthy of further research just because success is not guaranteed?

So now the government gets to decide who gets what jobs? So either the govenment is going to tell companies who to hire, or...the government is going to run the companies themselves? Honestly, how can you go around advocating Communism, then expect people to take you seriously? Next you'll be saying we should force every homeowner and business in America to completely take apart their building in order to remove their old heating system and pay to install an entirely new one, because the government gets to decide how people heat their homes...oh, wait, you are saying that.

So wanting to help out the people who have to sacrifice their jobs in order to prevent a global crisis makes me a communist? That's a strange sentiment coming from someone who wants to force people to walk to work and ban laziness. I don't think I even need to mention how horribly this was taken out of context.And yesh, I guess people will just have to "adjust" to not having anymore livelihood. You know, it's not as though these different technologies are somehow interchangeable, or even closely related...but hey, if you're going to be the one to tell Mr. Automechanic and Mrs. Oilrefiner that they've lost their jobs, and can't afford to feed their families because they're a "necessary expense," and that they "just have to adjust," then be my guest. I myself don't think I could bring myself to do it.
I think two can play the emotional appeal game. If I have to tell the workers of the oil industry to find new jobs, then I suppose you would be the one to tell the people living on the coast why the jobs of these workers are more important than their homes being above sea level. Aren't the lives of everyone on earth more important than saving the oil workers from the unemployment line? I just don't think I have the heart to give the planet a death sentence just to save the oil industry. Then again, maybe you do.

[Tatterdemalion]

You know, I think I've done enough to make my point here. If it isn't clear to the reader at this point, there's nothing more for me to do.

I've pretty much said what there is to say. If killshot has anything to add, I'll turn the floor over to him, and then to the judges.

[Zairak]

I think I'll cut this off here, actually. The week is up anyway.

Judges, you may announce your scores now.

[Tormented]

>> ... Scores?

[Spoofs3]

Well i vote Tatterdemalion to win seeing as his points were clearer, And swifter, The last point of Killshots was one in which I was quite turned around on the idea that Tatter wins automatically because of his points throughout, But due tot he last point it was close, Still due to throughout better points I vote Tatterdemalion

[Tormented]

Ohhh... not.. point scores...

Yes, I vote for Tatterdemalion as well. I felt he was more precise with his statements.

[Zairak]

Ah...Actually...7. Judges will assign points, 0-10, based on how they feel the participants did at the end of the debates. 0 obviously is the lowest score and thus means that they could not get any worse, even if they tried. That means that you, should you become a judge, will probably not be giving out 0's or 10's frequently, if at all. The winners will advance to the next round.
So, yeah, you give points to both participants.

[Tormented]

Ahh.... >> >>... I'd say 8 to 7... Unless there are decimals.

[Zairak]

Tally so far:

killshot: 28
Tatterdemalion: 28

Judges in:
Tormented
darkarcher
Spoofs3
agrajagthetesty

I assume that's what you meant, Tormented?

Also, Spoofs3, I'm gonna need a number score.

[Tormented]

That is what I meant.

[darkarcher]

I'd say 7 for killshot, 6 for Tatterdemalion.

You both made good points, and you both made a lot of the same mistakes in your reasoning. Also, I counted off points because using a guilt-trip is a logical fallacy, but you both utilized that tactic. No one really presented any actual evidence for their viewpoint beyond just word of mouth, either.

In all the reason I gave killshot the point higher was that he had a better focus on the entire "energy" definition, while Tatterdemalion had a bad habit of just coming back to the automobile industry. Anyway, it was entertaining and you both performed well.

[Zairak]

Still waiting on agrajag to give a score and Spoofs3 to give an actual score...

[darkarcher]

Sorry, one last thing I wanted to point out. ^-^;;

Your little sarcastic quips that you had going back and forth, although entertaining, were rather childish.

Sorry, I just get really intense when I have to judge people...

[Spoofs3]

Ugh, Stupid point system, Not how debates work...
Anyways, With this new...er system created... For an Unknown reason, I vote mister Tatters with 7
Killshot with 6
better now?

[agrajagthetesty]

Sorry I'm a little late. I've had some problems with my internet connection. They're likely to continue all week, as well, so it may be an idea to reschedule my debate.

I give Killshot 8 and Tatterdemalion 7. It was pretty close, but I felt that Killshot gave a broader perspective. And I agree with darkarcher that the sarcastic exchanges lowered the tone a little.

[Zairak]

Yes, much better. For the record, I went with this system because I feel it gives a more accurate representation of how the debators did, as opposed to voting one way or the other.

Um. Well, looks like it was a tie. As guywithnolife hasn't been back since volunteering for the post, I guess I'll have to find another judge to break the tie.

In the meantime, since agrajag's internet connection is suffering and I haven't found any new participants yet, Overmind and Spoofs3 will be debating abortion.

In this round, Spoofs3 will be opposing abortion and Overmind will be suppourting it. Round starts whenever the contestants are ready.

[OverMind]

Good luck Spoofs.

On topic then:

In a secular society truly free from the reins of religious influence, policies can be implemented which benefit everyone while still providing the freedom of faith the religious right values so dearly. If you look at my native Canada (where abortion is not restricted legally), the citizens living here vary on so many degrees (wealth and moral outlook to name a few). This applies everywhere since no one is the same. So, taking this diversity into account, would it not make sense that something as complex as abortion should allow for diversity in choice? Sure, if an individual contends to be fundamentalist, the freedom to keep the baby is there which is in accordance with faith. On the other hand, if an individual feels the need to abort, the freedom to do this is also there. So, as you can see, by permitting abortion, society not only maintains the rights of fundamentalists but further gives rights to everyone else. In this way, the needs of today's diverse (not necessarily ethnic diversity, just plain diversity) population are addressed.

Adding on to this, abortion can simply be viewed as just another procedure applied to the body which, after completed, still lets the patient live. I am emphasizing this point because there are a multitude of other procedures people allow their bodies to undergo which, though detestable to others in society, are still legal. A simple example includes tattoos and piercings while, at the extreme, we can include sex-change operations in this category. At the end of the day, some people may not want a tattoo (or a gender change), but why should their opinion affect those who want them? It doesn't. Analogously, why is abortion any different?

Further (and I can't make an introductory argument about abortion without mentioning this one), permitting abortion gives additional rights to one section of the population which has been neglected, and even dominated, throughout most of human history; women. First off, I mentioned the religious right. Scrutinizing any of the major Western religions, one can come to the easily reachable conclusion that women have had little say or authority in religion; a consequence of the Western world's emphasis on maintaining a patriarchal society. So, then, why should restricting abortion, the traditional position of Western religion which (as I mentioned) is controlled by men, apply to women? They've had no say in religion, so why should religion have a say in how they should live their lives? Doesn't it seem that preventing women the right to abort is another consequence of them being "controlled" by men (who, in this case, are doing it indirectly using religion)? And, further, isn't the abortion procedure performed directly on the woman's body? Shouldn't she have the final say in what should be done to it as opposed to anyone else?

Now, taking giving this post a darker twist, outlawing abortion can do more harm than "good" (I'm using the "one-size-fits-all" religious definition of "good" here). Just like anything that is outlawed, those who want the banned "goods" (i.e. think of abortion as a service) will go to any measure to get them. The traditional example I can use here is prohibition in the United States which lead to problems like a black market, and unsafe, "homebrew" beverages being consumed (and killing people). Analogously, restricting abortion forces people to take the unsafe option (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion); getting an abortion performed by someone who is not qualified. Idealistically, an abortion law is in place to allow all children to be born but, realistically, the law will be sidestepped. Unfortunately, a botched abortion can lead to sterility or, worse, death. Taking all of this into account, why not just legalize it if people are going to have abortions anyway and save a few lives at the cost of idealism (presumably "someone else's idealism")? Wouldn't it be better to go with the lesser of two "evils" in that, by permitting abortions to be performed by qualified doctors, the baby is aborted ("bad" according to the religious right) but the woman is not at risk of dying ("bad", and much worse than the former)? Abortion, as a medical procedure, is much better when authorized and controlled by the government as opposed to a few shady characters with questionable accreditation.

Finally, I'll conclude this post with a question for my opponent: What is the pro-life view on abortion and rape? From my discussion, it is evident that pro-choice allows for a diversity of situations to be accomodated so it is up to the individual to decide. So, then, if the child is unwanted (i.e. since it wasn't conceived by choice), it will never exist. On the other hand, the child may be wanted and that's fine too, pro-choice accomodates this decision. I don't know how rape can be legitimized in the pro-life argument so I await to read your logic behind this one.

[Spoofs3]

Good luck Overmind... Wait....
Overmind?
Shit...

ANYWAYSSo, taking this diversity into account, would it not make sense that something as complex as abortion should allow for diversity in choice?
Taking that statement made by you into effect isn't anything allow for diversity of choice?
many things can harm the body and have been outlawed in many parts of the world for that exact reason,
Take drugs for example, Many drugs cause no harm to other people but only cause harm to the user and that would be the users choice to start taking the drugs in the first place, if we were to allow abortion what's to stop drug users to argue about their favorite drug to be implemented into society?
Nothing,
This can also be said for many things in society that have been outlawed for that reason as wellAdding on to this, abortion can simply be viewed as just another procedure applied to the body which, after completed, still lets the patient live.
But the difference between this and a tattoo as you said is that another Human loses ITS life,
Some people may not want to view a clump of cells as an actual human but I would like to bring up an Image of a Fetus which has been aborted at 8 weeks, WARNING, DO NOT LOOK IF EASILY SHOCKED OR AT WORK (http://www.abort73.com/HTML/AbortionPictures/images/abortion-08-01.jpg)
Now, I would like you to look at that and say that is not human, As you can see it contains many things human, Arms, legs, Ribs, Eyes, A nose, And yes, Even little tiny toes and fingers, 5 fingers per hand I believe.
And even more amazingly at how human it looks at that stage, it also feels human, That clump of cells has 3-5 more weeks to feeling pain, REAL PAIN that we humans have objected to over a course of history, That we humans have argued against, That we humans criticized nations for Inflicting pain,
Now that we have the connection of them looking human, Feeling like Human, What makes them not human? The fact that they are on the inside of the body and needs us to grow?
Exactly, It is a parasite to our minds, But wait, Suddenly when it reaches a certain period of pregnancy its deemed as wrong to abort it!
Why? Because it looks more human?
Why is it wrong to abort a fetus after 5 months when it feels pain and looks like a human after 3?
It is not just another procedure to the body that lets the patient live, But one that kills anotherFurther (and I can't make an introductory argument about abortion without mentioning this one), permitting abortion gives additional rights to one section of the population which has been neglected, and even dominated, throughout most of human history; women.
HA! I care not for the rights of Women in this case, But I address the one society that has been taken to the bank on multiple occasions, That has been tossed around, Beaten, And abused on multiple occasions!
Even when they suffered during the holocaust people do not want them to be remembered!
And still today, They are abused, And have not gained allot of rights Women have nowadays...
I am of course talking about the Homosexuals
As we know, Babies do not come from the stork, They grow inside the woman after Intercourse between a man and a woman.
Unfortunately for Homosexual couples, There is one key ingredient missing in that equation, And that is the opposite sex.
Homosexuals have made the choice to be gay, And making that choice they cannot have children unless they use other methods.
Now the main method is a very simple one called adoption.
This method allows people who do not want a child, To give it away to someone who does want a child, This would be a great idea for Homosexuals as I have said before, They cannot make their own.
Now may I ask you, Why Should this caring family, Who care so much for a child not be able to get one, All because one person got selfish and killed it instead?
Can there be a reason justifying this? No, I don't think so anyway
This can be a great right given to Homosexuals even while they are being Mistreated And I certainly believe, They deserve this breakJust like anything that is outlawed, those who want the banned "goods" (i.e. think of abortion as a service) will go to any measure to get them.
Unfortunately this is like Communism, Good on Paper but it doesn't turn out as planned.
You COULD make it legal and then the "Banned goods" Won't be abused, But it doesn't work that way, Otherwise we would live in a perfect world where everyone knows right from wrong, No murder, No Alcohol, No abuse, Perfect
The world has complications, And there are people who abuse the system, And that is why laws are there, Just because people will try break them is not a valid reason to remove them.
And you talk of choice, but yet you feel they do not have the choice of taking the risk of going to these people who they know are unsafe doctors.
I feel if you wish to be so full of choice, Let them have their choice, They chose it, They can deal with the consequences, They're are always consequences when breaking the law,
Moving onto another point on this topic, Not all "Safe" Abortions are "Safe" many of them can still lead to death, it's rare but it can still happen,
And many abortions at later stages of Pregnancy can lead to not being able to have more children in later life.
Safe?
Not soWhat is the pro-life view on abortion and rape?
The child still deserves a life, Take if I had a wife,
I start to beat her, Our son still deserves a life even If I am committing a crime, It wasn't his fault I am beating my wife, it is mine
I am to blame, Not the child.
The child should not be punished for what I am doing, And this is the same for rape and Abortion.
If I rape a woman, She ends up pregnant, Is it the childs fault?
Can any sane person actually blame the UNBORN child for what I did?
No,
You are giving it the death penalty for an Unknown reason, A reason that does not even exist and you try justify it because you consider it choice,
But as I have mentioned before, There are better choices, Adoption for one, Which can give everyone a choice, Without causing so many problems As I have listed,

In closing this part of Pro-Life I have to conclude by saying everyone is happy

The people who believe Abortion is wrong are happy because they don't have to deal with Abortions
People who want choice are happy because they have the choice not to keep the child in adoption, And isn't that really what Abortion is about?
Homosexuals are Happy as they can love a child they could not naturally
Religion is happy due to no moral issues

Everyone is Happy, And no Child had to die in the causing of everyone being happy,
Pro-Life is Happy, Pro-Choice is Happy

[Tormented]

... Do I break a breach of judging by posting, or something? 'cuz... must... say...

[Spoofs3]

No, I don't think so, I believe judges can enter at any time to place in Points of Information,
I would actually like this to be like a real debate so I would like if other people can enter Points of information (Not enough people per team to do it properly so might as well do this)

[Zairak]

Oh, naturally, people can comment. I'd just like to avoid a spamfest like in some other games, that's all.

[Tormented]

So... do I still keep it until the end, when I hand out points, or do I say it in the middle of debating?

[Zairak]

I guess you should save it until the end, but it's not vital or anything.

[Tormented]

I shall, then.

[Tormented]

... Is it over?

[Zairak]

OverMind said he was making a response a while back.

[Spoofs3]

Is it finished?

[Zairak]

...I don't know anymore. Like I said, OverMind said he was making a response. I will definitely put a stop to it this Monday though.

[killshot]

I'm glad this hasn't died. Things sort of got put on hold after everyone in this thread (except Tatter) started playing Death Note the Forum Game.

[Spoofs3]

I made my response during that time :(
And i had Survival to GM Badly
Why don't you people make time?

[killshot]

Hey, my debate is over. It's not my fault the game died.

[Zairak]

Well, it ends tomorrow regardless. Next debate will be agrajagthetesty and the winner of the first debate, which I will announce now. After some thought, I give Tatterdemalion 6 points and killshot 7 points, making killshot the winner of the first debate by one point. Damned hard choice, but...Meh. So, next debate is going to be agrajagthetesty and killshot. Topic will be up after the current debate ends.

[OverMind]

I'll post something in a few hours. I apologize to everyone for the delay.

[killshot]

Hurray for me. Although if this tournament is about debating skill alone, I think Tatter should have won. I'm not complaining though.

[Zairak]

Meh, I judged as best I could. I'm not exactly a professional judge, after all.

[Zairak]

Turn end in roughly 4 hours.

[Tormented]

Does that mean I have to judge now?

[Zairak]

Not quite yet, OverMind may make his post yet. 2 hours and 30 minutes until the end.

New debator has signed up: Leonhart321.

[Zairak]

...And debate end. Judges may make their judgements now. After, the debate between agrajagthetesty and killshot will take place.

[Tormented]

Okay:

While I believe that both argued their topics well, my hat tips over to Overmind for his betterment in the reality of the topic of necessity.

Also:Religion is happy due to no moral issuesHomosexuals
Lololololol.

Oh, right... Uhm, 8-7 Overmind.

[Zairak]

Point Tally:

OverMind: 16

Spoofs3: 13

For judges this leaves...darkarcher and agrajagthetesty.

[Tatterdemalion]

Out of curiosity, if we now have another debator, wouldn't it make more sense for the next round to be agrajag and Leonhart321, considering that neither of them has debated yet, as opposed to killshot, who's already passed the first round? Just a thought...

[Zairak]

You have a point... I'm definitely going to have to do a better job organizing this next time.

In light of that, leonhart321 and agrajagthetesty will be debating on the topic of drug legalisation. Agrajag will be suppourting the legalisation of drugs and leonhart opposing.

Debate start after darkarcher and agrajagthetesty pass their judgement on the last debate.

[agrajagthetesty]

Overmind: 8
Spoofs: 6

Had to dock points from Spoofs for using shock as part of an argument.

My internet connection still isn't fixed- I'm having to steal it off various friends and family members. Boo.

[Zairak]

So, will you be able to debate?

[agrajagthetesty]

Yes, although intermittently.

[Zairak]

Ok, that's fine.

[Insane]

Can I just ask why the words "Homosexual" and "Homosexuality" were capitalised.
I personally don't see the reasoning.

[Spoofs3]

¬_¬
Shock?
Would take more than an Image to shock you ¬_¬
Either way you wouldn't have believed me and i did say WARNING, You did not have to look, That is more of to look at to count everything I listed more so than to shock you into believing I am right,
its like posting an Image of Stalingrad after world war 2,
its to prove it was brutal, It makes the scene more real if you can see the image

As for the idea of Capitalizing Homosexual is for my bad grammar reasons, I use capitals to highlight the major words in a sentence... Yeah.... I am that Stupid

Anyways I knew I would lose, it was Overmind, I believe I stated "Shit" before the debate began XD

[Insane]

I agree about your point about shock. But am wondering why you sidestepped my question.

[Spoofs3]

Look above at my Edit, I missed the question, I replied to page 2 before yours and completely missed it,
Its a grammar thing I do, I randomly Highlight words in my sentences sometimes, Usually words after commas or just plain long words I feel like Highlighting

[Insane]

No problem, at least that's cleared up.

[Spoofs3]

yeah Sorry bout that, If you actually re-read it you'd notice I also Highlighted Human and Women.
So yeah :D

[agrajagthetesty]

Actually, I didn't look. I just don't think it's necessary to post pictures of aborted foetuses. Stating facts about the way in which they develop would have been sufficient.

[Insane]

I believe it is necessary, it is needed to truly prove the point and get through to the people this debate is trying to persuade.

[Spoofs3]

"One Man dead is a tragedy, 6 million is a statistic"
I just want you to realize that it IS a tragedy and not just a statistic
Understand?
Stalin will not have his way making it a statistic!

[agrajagthetesty]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I just think that trying to shock people into coming around to your way of thinking is inappropriate in a contest that's all about debate skills. No biggie.

[Insane]

The shock isn't a way to persuade; more to make sure that the facts of the matter are truly realised.

[Spoofs3]

No, i didn't put that there for a shock, Its there to prove my point, Any statistic can be made up on the spot, And without proof can be believed or disbelieved on the spot, However the image is real, its to show I am not making up facts, IT IS TRUE
Thats my point about Stalins quote "One man dead is a tragedy, 6 million is a statistic"
Because with the one man you can look at his story and know he was human, Harder to let go.
With 6 million very little there to prove anything about all 6 million apart form the number, Making our minds think it is easier to let go.

[agrajagthetesty]

Ok, I understand what you were trying to do a bit better now. I still don't agree with it, but I understand.

[Tatterdemalion]

Either way, it's still an attempt to use a visceral argument over a rational one, which, although it may be an effective persuasive strategy at times, certainly isn't an ethical one.

But I'm not a judge (although I'm starting to wish I was), so I'll shut up now and go away.

Although I will say, isn't it interesting that we're getting more of a debate out of the results of the previous debate than from the previous debate itself?

[agrajagthetesty]

Although I will say, isn't it interesting that we're getting more of a debate out of the results of the previous debate than from the previous debate itself?
A very good point.

[Spoofs3]

It is a rational Arguement, Facts are made up all the time,
Humans do things like this,
Pictures can prove things, And I still believe placing images is right aslong as I placed a warning beside it, Which i did,
It would be unfair if I just placed the image without warnign and Unethical
But I did give you a chance to ignore it in caps, I also did the arguement in a sentence afterwards making it easy to understand without the Image, The image was just to make you see I was not making it up.
Sides Images have to be used to prove things, In an actual debate or say a court case, You need images to back up the story, Its only logical

[killshot]

The point everyone is trying to make is that your image was posted to make an emotional appeal. Although appealing to the emotions of others is a good way to make others see your point, it is also a logical fallacy. A pictures of terrible things are sometimes used out of context and can distort the reality of the situation. Just by posting a picture of an aborted fetus, you are only showing the "bad" aspect of the issue. I could just as easily post a picture of a happy college graduate who only got the chance to finish school because she had an abortion. Both pictures show real events, but neither allow the viewer to see the full scope of the situation.

If you want another example of emotional appeal, take a look at my first debate. Both Tatterdemalion and myself used this logical fallacy to help get our points across. I'm not denying that it can be a useful tool of persuasion, but it is better to rely on hard facts and evidence rather trying to appeal to emotion in a serious debate. If you take note of why both of us lost points, you will see that the judges picked up on this fallacy and deducted points accordingly.

[Spoofs3]

Its not my job to show the good sides, Wouldn't be a good debate if I showed Overminds topic, I'd have handed over the debate,
he was supposed to show his views, I was to show mine, So by the end you should have got the whole picture, Thats what a debate is ¬_¬
I would be taken more points away if I showed Overminds point, Wouldn't you agree?
Sides I didn't show ANY of the good things of Abortion during my debate,, Same as overmind didn't show any bad...
Therefore I do not accept "you are only showing the "bad" aspect of the issue" because thats what i was meant to do...

Also that is a hard fact, It shows the fact
Its an image of death, it shows death in history books, Biology books and Others...

I'm going to stop at that because I can see now that none of you are going to change your minds and decide it should be correct but I leave this dying point at Was it right to take pictures of the Concentration Camp Jews dying and Dead? Was it right to show them? Is it right to show them?
I believe so, You need to see these images to show the emotion, Otherwise they are just words on a page

[Tormented]

... Do I have to rate this debate too?

[Zairak]

This is great. It's like an intermission debate between debates...

@Tormented: Only if you want to.

[killshot]

A picture can't give a proper prospective on the issue. A picture shows one event at one point in history. You could very easily find a picture depicting the worst of the worst, regardless of whether or not the actual event is as bad as the picture would have you to believe. For example, if you wanted to draw attention to the poverty level in a particular area, would a picture of a destitute family living in a tent get your point across better than a picture of the wealthy old man living across the street? It sure would, but you wouldn't be accurately portraying the living situation of the entire area. Pictures can sometimes distort the truth by not telling you the whole story.

I understand that you don't have to present OverMind's case for him, but you should be able to state your opinions without misrepresenting the truth. I'm sure there are other ways you can get people to side with you without resorting to the shock value of a picture that was meant to make people view abortion as a disgusting practice. Just because you are representing one side of this debate doesn't mean you can ignore the other side entirely. You need to be aware of both sides of the issue and explain how your point of view is superior to your opponents.

I shouldn't get sucked into this any further. I'm supposed to be writing a research paper.

[Tatterdemalion]

But the thing is that you're not conveying any actual information with your image, it's not telling us anything about abortion that we didn't already know. The only thing that your image can show us is exactly what an aborted fetus looks like, but at the same time, what an aborted fetus looks like has no rational connection to whether abortion should be legal or not.

The Holocaust and its associated images are difference, becvause you have to keep in mind that before images and video of concentration camps and the like made it into the media, people were generally unware of the conditions and treatment of prisoners in Nazi Germany. It's a similar thing with the more recent Abu Ghraib prison scandal. In these cases, it's journalism, because there's relevant information being conveyed by the image. Your image isn't actually conveying any relevant information, so it's not the same thing.

And yes, without the images you can't "show the emotion" and you'd just have "words on a page." Also, keep in mind that's the entire point. The point of a debate is for two people to present a well organized, rational argument, using logic and reasoning to advocate a particular viewpoint. Emotion has nothing to do with it. And to use a visual aid that has no place in the rational argument itself, in an attempt to create "emotion," is indeed unethical, because it is an attempt to work around a strong logical argument, filling in the holes with visceral outrage.

The purpose of debate is, ideally, for the participants to rise above the effective, yet baseless and unethical coercion, manipulation, fear-mongering, peer-pressuring, viscerality and moral outrage of persuasion that we see every day, in order to participate in some sort of educated, enlightened discourse, and be secure in reason rather than be persuaded by blind emotion.. What you are doing is the opposite of that.

[leonhart321]

less intermission, more next debate

[Zairak]

Still waiting on darkarcher's score.

[leonhart321]

poke him.....with a sharp stick

[Zairak]

Meh, he's not on right now.

[darkarcher]

Only 1 post each? Disappointing.

5-4 OverMind.

I didn't really feel any sort of genuine conviction from either argument. Spoofs loses a point for going off-topic more.

[Zairak]

Final Score:

OverMind-21 points

Spoofs3-17 points

Winner: OverMind

Next debate will start whenever the debators start. Agrajagthetesty vs. leonhart321 on the topic of drug legalisation. Agrajag will suppourt the legalisation of drugs and leonhart321 will oppose the same.

...And start.

[OverMind]

*sighs*

I'm a day late and a dollar short, as usual.

I wanted to point out that I made the mistake of not responding at all. This was a disservice to all of you, especially Spoofs3 and Zairak, both of whom I personally PMed ensuring that my response (which is still unfinished) would be posted on time. Of course, it must have been annoying to some judges who really wanted to get into the debate but were, perhaps, waiting for me to make a rebuttal. Had the debate carried on properly, Spoofs may have even won (he came off a lot stronger than, admittedly, I thought he would ... who knows, maybe he could have gotten a lot stronger).

Further, he made some good points and you can't blame him for trying ... granted, he took some creative measures to illustrate his argument (some of which the judges disagree with on fundamental grounds), but not all of us are well-versed in debating. Hopefully, this thread will allow users of little experience to learn, while still providing the more experienced with a chance to fine-tune their skills.

To avoid rambling, I feel that failing to reply should result in point deductions for myself (I can't even provide a justifiable reason for why I never replied). Anyway, sorry to impede on the current debate.

Carry on.

[Spoofs3]

Its ok, It still was a good debate and made the judges easier to decide with only one arguement each XD
Either way it was a good debate and you won fair and square.

Also, I Realise how much can be stolen for this debate on drugs from my debate against abortion, I added in that topic alot about legalizing abortion...

ANYWAY, Thats not why I typed in,
I was meant to say, Can judges bring up "Points of Information"?
It will make the debates more interesting and give the judges a chance to correct mislead facts if any Debater decides to try cheat by making up facts

[Zairak]

I don't see any reason why they couldn't.

[Zairak]

Ok. The debate ends tomorrow evening sometime, one way or the other. If neither side has made a post by then, it will be counted as a double forfeiture and we will move onto the next debate.

So, leonhart and agrajag, I'd advise you to post something if you intend to continue on.

[Tormented]

Lulz, there was a debate?

[leonhart321]

I have to write a very important essay that was only set a couple of weeks ago and have only had the time to do recently
Therefore, regrettably, i will have to pull out of this round

[Zairak]

No problem, there's always next time.

So, unless agrajag makes some attempt at debating by tommorrow, killshot and OverMind will start the last debate Monday evening.

@Tormented: ...Maybe...

[Zairak]

Ok, this debate is a double forfeiture. The final debate will be between OverMind and killshot. The topic will be the same as the last debate, since the topic wasn't touched upon at all. So, OverMind will be suppourting the legalisation of drugs and killshot will be opposing the same.

Debate starts now.

[agrajagthetesty]

Ah, I'm so sorry! A combination of broken internet and college work made me completely forget. Damnation...

[Zairak]

No problem, we will be having another soon enough.

[Zairak]

Ok...This is not going as expected. Would one of the two debators please make a post? I'd hate to end this without an actual winner...

[killshot]

I don't see a reason to put any effort into this if I am the only one going to make a post.

*clears throat*

Drugs are bad, Mkay?

There. If OverMind shows up I will continue. Otherwise, lets just end this.

[Zairak]

I...Guess that counts, then. Debate ends tonight sometime.

[Tormented]

Greatest debate ever.

[Tatterdemalion]

Wow, wasn't that exciting.

The final debate is now over, having reached the time limit of one week.The judges will now present their scores, and the winner of this round will be declared the winner of the inaugural Debate Tournment.

Come on guys, this one doesn't take a genius.







(And no, I'm not comandeering the tournament or anything, this is under Zairak's instruction)

[Tormented]

Well, this is... this is a real tough one.

... Ohh, killshot's avatar is a person? I thought it was a robot.

Killshot - 2 Overmind - 0

... Was this really a debate, or just a passing glance?

[Spoofs3]

I cannot believe I was askd to hurry up on rating this debate...

Overmind- 6
Killshot - 4

I wasn't too impresed But Overmind showed the true power by proving his point even in silence

[Tatterdemalion]

I cannot believe I was askd to hurry up on rating this debate...
Did I ask you that? I'm sorry if it seems as though I was trying to hurry you. Perhaps I'm a bit frustrated by how the last debate went, and it's coming out in my use of language.

Still, no offense intended towards you or anyone else. If I came off as uncivil, I apologize. Really, I'd much rather we can be friends.

[Spoofs3]

Thats cool =3
I'm just sad that this has kinda died, Hopefully you can revive it

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, I’m ending this here. 5 days is ample time for the judges to have weighed in, even taking Christmas and the like into consideration.

Going by the scores thus far we have a tie at 6-6, so, as with the last tie, we’re going to need an additional person to offer a score for the tiebreaker. Last time it was Zairak, but because Zairak has turned his responsibilities for the rest of the tournament over to me, I will offer the tiebreaking score.

I’m scoring this 1-0 to killshot. For the most part Overmind had a the responsibility in this debate to present a strong argument, as he is the one who is actually supporting an action. For a successful argument against drug legalization, killshot does not have to do anything, because he is advocating changing nothing, Unless faced with an argument for change in the first place, his position would invariably win. That being said, his argument is still barely an argument, such that it is virtually impossible to take seriously, so one point is more than enough.

That being said, the final scores are:

Killshot - 7
Overmind - 6

Thus I am proud to declare killshot the winner of the inaugural Debate Tournament.

Overmind receives a consolation prize. The consolation prize is absolutely nothing, but then again, technically the title of winner is also essentially nothing, so that way everyone’s happy.

Congratulations, killshot, and Merry Atheismas

And yes, there will be a second Debate Tournament. If you are interested, don’t worry, more information will be available shortly.

[Insane]

Nice summary

[killshot]

I believe that this is the first time in history a debate has been won by a South Park reference. I am slightly disappointed I didn't get the chance to debate OverMind, but I suppose I may get another shot in the next tournament. I would like to thank Zairak for hosting this tournament as well as Tatterdemalion for organizing the mess it became. I look forward to the next tournament and hopefully some new competition.

And by the way, I like Christmas just as much as the next person. It's gotten to the point where I can go the entire season without running into anything related to Christianity.

[Zairak]

Well, then. Down to business. The signups for the second Debate Tournament will start now, for both judges and debators. The quota for judges is still 5, although more would of course be appreciated. There's still no limits to the number of debators, so don't be shy.

There will be at least one change, however. TatterDemalion will be running most of the Tournament this go around, announcing the start and end of debates and their respective participants/topics. So, good luck to the participants, and have fun.

[Tatterdemalion]

Also, I'm going to add that while there is technically no limit to the number of participants, in order to have a nice structure it would be best to have a power of 2, which means that we're shooting for 8. If we go over 8 that's fine, we can always incorporate a system of byes, but that being said, anything under 8 would just be disappointing.

The deadline for sign up is currently set at 5 days from today, however if consistent interest is shown in signing up I'll extend it a few. Otherwise, we start on Saturday.

Debators:

Spoofs3
killshot
agrajagthetesty
Leonheart321
TheFreedomIllusion
MrsSallyBakura
Zairak

Judges:

Spoofs3
Tormented
Insane85
darkarcher
geminigirl

[Spoofs3]

I sign up both as Judge and Debator

[Tormented]

I'll sign up as a judge.

[killshot]

I officially sign up as a debator. If we are short on judges I will act as one too, however I think some problems could arise if most of the debators are also judges.

[Tormented]

however I think some problems could arise if most of the debators are also judges.
"So, how did you think of your debate?"
"I obviously won."
"Ok"

[Tatterdemalion]

Well, no one is going to be judging their own debates, so I suppose the two problems that could arise would be either judges who are also debators trying to stack the tournament in their favor, or awarding points unfairly due to some sort of vindictiveness...now, I don't think this is very likely, considering that the honor system works pretty well in this kind of setting, and also, if anyone were to be clearly doing this they'd be disqualified...but yes, I see what you're saying, although at the same time, it doesn't look like most of the judges will be debators anyway.

[Zairak]

Since Tatterdemalion will be running the tournament, I will be a debator this time.

[geminigirl]

I will judge

I am not going to debate though.

[Tatterdemalion]

Signup for judges and debators ends today, although when "today" is may vary depending on what part of the world you live in.

The Debate Tournament, Second Incarnation begins tomorrow. No matter where you live, "tomorrow" is the time between now and two days from now.

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay then, here we go.

To begin with I?€™d just like to thank Zairak for allowing me the privilege of officiating the Debate Tournament this time around. It is, after all, his brainchild, so I promise to take good care of it.

Also, I?€™d like to thank everyone who signed up for doing so. That means welcoming back Spoofs3, leonheart321, agrajagthetesty and of course killshot. It also involves saying a first hello to MrsSallyBakura and TheFreedomIllusion. Zairak fits in there somewhere, but I?€™m not sure where exactly.

And the judges, of course, where would we be without you?


Now on to a longwinded discussion of the tournament?€™s structure and rules.

The structure is simple enough. The tournament will consist of 3 rounds, those being the First Round, the Semifinals and the Final Round.

The progression of the tournament will be recorded on this graphic, which will be updated as the tournament progresses.

http://i264.photobucket.com/albums/ii198/C16H12FN3O3/tourney-4.png

All match ups, as well as topics, have been assigned completely at random, and when I say random, I mean literally drawing folded up slips of paper with names written on them.

Killshot, because he is the returning champion, will receive a bye in the first round.

At the beginning of each debate I will announce the topic and question to be discussed, as well as the position each participant will be defending, and which participant will go first.

This is where the rules deviate some from the first Debate Tournament, so if you?€™re going to pay attention to one part of this post, this should be it.

The time limit for each debate is still one week. That being said, a debate is not going to go an entire week if we have only one or two posts made by the participants. Each participant now has a period of two days from time of the previous post, or, if there are no posts, from the beginning of the debate, to make a post. If after two days no posts are made, the debate ends and we proceed to scoring. If no posts are made within two days of the start of the debate, this will count as a forfeiture on the part of the participant charged with starting.

Also, if a participant has said all that needs to be said before one week has passed, he or she may rest his or her argument, with their opponent?€™s next post ending the debate. This may never happen, but the option is still there, considering that oftentimes less is indeed more.

When a debate ends, scoring will follow. Just as last time, judges will evaluate the participants by assigning a score between 1 and 10, 1 being the absolute lowest possible, 10 being practically perfect in every way. During this period, judges may also add whatever comments or criticisms they feel appropriate. Scoring will also last for two days, after which the totals will be calculated and the following round will begin. If not all judges have weighed in after two days, the totals will be calculated from the scores of those who have.

In the event of a forfeiture, the forfeiting participant?€™s opponent will not be awarded a technical victory. Instead, the eliminated participant from the previous round who has the highest score will be brought back as a replacement for he or she who has forfeited. In the event of a tie score for highest, the replacement will be determined at random.

Also, there is always the possibility that due to the complications of a busy schedule, a participant may not be able to continue the tournament. This is unfortunate, but at the same time, it is understandable, as work, school, and similar matters must always come first. That being said, if you are aware ahead of time that there is no way you will be able to debate, please tell me, so that the forfeiture can be recognized without senselessly going through the motions of a debate with only one participant.

And finally, although this is pretty obvious on its own, any sort of flaming, trolling or incivility is of course not allowed. I believe freedom of speech goes a long way, especially in a context such as this, but that being said, if you resort to personal attacks or abusive rhetoric, you will be disqualified.

There, that wasn?€™t too much, was it? A bit wordy, yes, but all for the sake of keeping things organized.

So now, enough has been said. We should be getting on with the Debate Tournament, no?

The first debate will be between Spoofs3 and Zairak. The question is whether or not organized prayer should be permitted in public schools. Spoofs3 will be arguing in favor of allowance, and Zairak will be arguing in opposition. Zairak will go first.

You may begin.

[Zairak]

Organized prayer should not be permitted in school for a number of reasons.

First off, that is not what school is meant for. School is meant to provide an education to children and give them tools to succeed in their adult life. You could make the case that a child could use some knowledge of religions. However, there is a name for the place you learn about religion. It’s called Church. School is there for the sole purpose of giving children a better chance to succeed in life, period.

Now, I am not saying that any sort of prayer should be banned in school. For instance, if, say, a Christian were to start praying by themselves or with a select group of likeminded peers, more power to them. That does not have any effect on others, beyond what the others wish for. But, when you are talking about actually making an entire school that may or may not belong to the specific religion the organized prayer is representing, that’s a problem.

I mean, there are two general situations you have here. In one, the student in question is already a Christian. If that’s the case, then they don’t need organized prayer in school. If they don’t feel the desire to pray or at least think about God on a daily basis, are they really Christian? The other scenario is that the person is not a Christian, in which case you are making them go through a daily ritual that they don’t really believe in. In either case, organized prayer in schools is, at best, unnecessary and at worst, a turn off for those who aren’t Christians, or whichever religion the organized prayer pertains to. I single out Christianity for no specific reason other than that it was, as far as I have been able to tell, formerly involved in school.

Finally, how would you pick out a religion to implement? I mean, obviously, the ones that don’t involve prayer are out. However, there’s quite a few of them out there that do implement prayer. Putting in just one would seem to be making a statement that the other religions are wrong. So then, what do you do? Would you prove that the religion in question is the one true religion? Or would you just ignore the problems that would result from such an action?

I believe this suffices to start off the debate, doesn’t it? Good luck, Spoofs3.

Edit: I am going to edit the first post to contain the past winners.

[Spoofs3]

Good luck Zairak, Do your best ^_^However, there is a name for the place you learn about religion. It’s called Church
I may believe with your views on School being there to provide an edication for future life but this is where we must differ,
I am going to provide most of my views on my home country Ireland, THis is for some reason, The main one as it is a living area of society in where Religion used to contain a huge aspect of society and is the country of which I live, Meaning I can give Facts supporting my beliefs on MY day to day life and I do not think I would be a very good debator if I start givng facts to do with American schools in which I have never been to one, Nor will.School is there for the sole purpose of giving children a better chance to succeed in life, period.
In Ireland as I have said, The church used to have a HUGE aspect in day to Day life, This being said, I must bring up the education standards it has brought to us in life, Most of the schools in Ireland are Christian Brothers run and/Or Nun runs schools.
They provide our Education, They give us the Education, And that is why they are called Catholic Schools.
In these schools I see no reason on why Organized Prayer should be banned for multiple reasons.
1. The church made the schools, They are doing this out of their time, They do not need to teach us but do it in their time in which they could do other things in the Priesthood.
2. The Catholic schools were created for such people, Catholics, If they were not Catholics, Why feel the need to go to the school when there are plenty of other schools in the area (3 schools in my area, 1 of which is Catholic run, Plenty of choice isn't there?)

Another reason I do not agree with this point is that it is FAR greater than a way to get further in life, School is one of the ways this can be achieved but not the only way, But I shall go through the aspects of school first.
1.School is also a place to make friends, It is very important to have friends in this enviroment, THis has nothing to do with getting further in life or career.
2. Many Subjects are by far USELESS in outside school circumstances, irish for one is worth the same amount of points as other subjects, But very little actually pursue this after school. As for Globally, maths is needed in almost ALL careers, In most Carrers only the basics are needed, The more advanced ideas are rarely needed in life, These subjects are merely to give Common Knowledge, Useful knowledge to pass to children, But practically useless outside a school Surrounding, Meaning you will not need it further on in life.
3. There are other ways to get further in life even if you fail at school! FETAC is one in ireland, It is for people in Ireland if they failed subjects to get to their dream Job even if they did unwell at school.
Due to these three points School can be considered not only to study but to be used to have fun, And to get a general knowledge of life,
AN Aspect of General Knowledge of life is of course religion, Why insult this when there are other things as well people might not believe in that are in school, it is all a case of General Knowledge But, when you are talking about actually making an entire school that may or may not belong to the specific religion the organized prayer is representing, that’s a problem.
In Ireland Children of Christianity are required to perform a set prayer session, THis is called Confirmation and Communion.
This is where they go to the church and are enlisted into the faith even more so than they were baptised, It allows the children to perform more tasks within the church if they so wish.
In my class we had a Muslim, He did not take part in this Prayer service and was given work when the others were doing practice for the service.
he had homework and handed it up upon every day at the start.
Now, He is not part of the faith, He didn't have to do the mass, he could continue his school work. The point is
He WASN'T Forced, Only the children of the Religion had to do the mass, And other religions carry on with their work as usual, As your argument says its a problem forcing people of other religions to do this mass and they don't have to, It isn;t a problem. All sorted, Everyones happy ^_^In either case, organized prayer in schools is, at best, unnecessary and at worst, a turn off for those who aren’t Christians, or whichever religion the organized prayer pertains to
Unnecessary? OH ON THE CONTRARY!
It helps the school get close together in their religion, And if they are in a catholic school, They are presumed to be catholic,
Now if it were in your mind a non Catholic school it could turn the person off Catholicism, But as I pointed out before, no one is being forced into attending these mases. Not in Ireland, They get work while we go to do these prayers.
Now Holiday Organized Masses are sometimes a different thing Altogether.
Chirstmas is a holiday celebrated in MANY religions! Not for the same reason, Not for the same reason at all but it is celebrated.
Whos to say we have to have the Organized mass IN A CHURCH?
We could change it to have it in a nuetral area, In which everyone celebrates the mass in their own way, Christians and Buddists for Christmas, Jews for Honnika (Excuse the spelling), Muslims for quanza (Once again, Excuse the spelling), And others for the Religion they celebrate at the time.
Even Atheists celebrate the time of giving as many atheists still believe Christmas as a time of giving and may not see the religious aspect of it, but give on the day none the less.
Organized masses need not discriminate, But can be refined as I will bring back up in the last pointFinally, how would you pick out a religion to implement?
For this I am going to take you and the Judges, Chairperson and spectators on a trip a bit north of Dublin, The mian ideas of my arguments,
Welcome to Northern Ireland, We are still in a country where Religion is quite high, But it is in a battle, Catholics and Protestants inhabit the area, How are we to decide the idea of which to implement?
The idea of course lies with the greatest Idea that has joined the human race since Sliced Bread.
I am of course talking about Democracy! Oh Democracy, The wonderful invention in which the people choose,
Using Democracy Northern Ireland has been split into Catholic areas and Protestant areas, This has decided the main School Masses for Organized Prayer.
This is not encouraging segregation, It is called these areas because it is where the Majority of people live,
The Catholic areas have mainly Catholics, The Protestant have mainly protestants. Easy to decide with our great idea Right?

But in this plan, I have yet another solution, you cannot shun an Idea for not being refined enough, It can always be created into a better plan!
Why have one? Why not have organized Prayer sessions for all? This was everyone can have a prayer session and everyone is happy! As I said before, keep refining, Just deleting the system for not working once will solve no ones problems,
Look in the past when a countries democracy didn't work in and see what they turned to?
most of the time the next plan was worse, Cannot shun democracy for not working in an unrefined state,
Cannot shun Organized Prayer for not working in an unrefined state


Due to all these reasons I believe you cannot shun the Prayer for a reason that it discriminates, Or that School is meant for the idea of getting further in life, But it is a way to try new things, Get used to General knowledge that school provides Including the General Knowledge on the Christian faith.


(This is Probably going to be BY FAR the hardest debate I will ever have to do, Good luck once again)

[Zairak]

In Ireland as I have said, The church used to have a HUGE aspect in day to Day life, This being said, I must bring up the education standards it has brought to us in life, Most of the schools in Ireland are Christian Brothers run and/Or Nun runs schools.
They provide our Education, They give us the Education, And that is why they are called Catholic Schools.
In these schools I see no reason on why Organized Prayer should be banned for multiple reasons.
1. The church made the schools, They are doing this out of their time, They do not need to teach us but do it in their time in which they could do other things in the Priesthood.
2. The Catholic schools were created for such people, Catholics, If they were not Catholics, Why feel the need to go to the school when there are plenty of other schools in the area (3 schools in my area, 1 of which is Catholic run, Plenty of choice isn't there?)
Naturally, it wouldn't be banned in Catholic schools and the like. It is obvious by their very name that you also learn about religion there, making them a mix of school and church. However, that's a bit off to the side. We are talking about regular schools. Not Catholic schools, not College (or University, as I understand it is called in some countries), just regular school. So, I'm not sure of the point you meant to make by bringing this up.1.School is also a place to make friends, It is very important to have friends in this enviroment, THis has nothing to do with getting further in life or career.
Quite the contrary, it has everything to do with getting ahead in your career, and a great deal to do with getting further in life. To make an example:

Say you owned a clothing store. You are looking to hire somebody. Two applicants with completely equal abilities and credentials apply. One of these is well liked by people and gets along with them well. The other rarely if ever mingles with other people, and as a result, is not sure of how to act around others and often acts inappropriately, even rudely. Who do you hire?

The point I am making here is that making friends and generally being around others in school gives you the social skills you need later in life.2. Many Subjects are by far USELESS in outside school circumstances, irish for one is worth the same amount of points as other subjects, But very little actually pursue this after school. As for Globally, maths is needed in almost ALL careers, In most Carrers only the basics are needed, The more advanced ideas are rarely needed in life, These subjects are merely to give Common Knowledge, Useful knowledge to pass to children, But practically useless outside a school Surrounding, Meaning you will not need it further on in life.
This has more to do with the faults in the educational system than anything. The purpouse of school remains the same.Due to these three points School can be considered not only to study but to be used to have fun, And to get a general knowledge of life,
AN Aspect of General Knowledge of life is of course religion, Why insult this when there are other things as well people might not believe in that are in school, it is all a case of General Knowledge
Of course, school can be entertaining. However, religion, while indeed an aspect of life, is not at all necessary for all but a few jobs, those being related to clergymen and the occasional college teacher. Further, the other things they teach in school are FACT. 1+1 does equal 2 and atoms are the building blocks of life. Religion, however...It deals with things that have yet to actually be proven. I am not saying it is right or it is wrong, I am saying it is unconfirmed, and thus distinct from other subjects taught in school.In Ireland Children of Christianity are required to perform a set prayer session, THis is called Confirmation and Communion.
This is where they go to the church and are enlisted into the faith even more so than they were baptised, It allows the children to perform more tasks within the church if they so wish.
In my class we had a Muslim, He did not take part in this Prayer service and was given work when the others were doing practice for the service.
he had homework and handed it up upon every day at the start.
Now, He is not part of the faith, He didn't have to do the mass, he could continue his school work. The point is
He WASN'T Forced, Only the children of the Religion had to do the mass, And other religions carry on with their work as usual, As your argument says its a problem forcing people of other religions to do this mass and they don't have to, It isn;t a problem. All sorted, Everyones happy ^_^
As you said, this does go back to my original point. However, the thing we are discussing is actually making people do it. That's what Organized Prayer is. If you find a way to make it better, that's great, but the new improved version is not Organized Prayer. It is a new way of doing things, and we are discussing whether or not Organized Prayer should be in public schools or not.Unnecessary? OH ON THE CONTRARY!
It helps the school get close together in their religion, And if they are in a catholic school, They are presumed to be catholic,
Now if it were in your mind a non Catholic school it could turn the person off Catholicism, But as I pointed out before, no one is being forced into attending these mases. Not in Ireland, They get work while we go to do these prayers.
Now Holiday Organized Masses are sometimes a different thing Altogether.
Chirstmas is a holiday celebrated in MANY religions! Not for the same reason, Not for the same reason at all but it is celebrated.
Whos to say we have to have the Organized mass IN A CHURCH?
We could change it to have it in a nuetral area, In which everyone celebrates the mass in their own way, Christians and Buddists for Christmas, Jews for Honnika (Excuse the spelling), Muslims for quanza (Once again, Excuse the spelling), And others for the Religion they celebrate at the time.
Even Atheists celebrate the time of giving as many atheists still believe Christmas as a time of giving and may not see the religious aspect of it, but give on the day none the less.
Organized masses need not discriminate, But can be refined as I will bring back up in the last point
Nope, it's still unnecessary. If they are indeed Christian or whichever faith you may choose, they would congregate of their own free will. That is, again, not the problem. The problem is that Organized Prayer does indeed require *everyone* to participate, even if they don't really mean it. As for the refining ideas thing, I refer to my above paragraph.For this I am going to take you and the Judges, Chairperson and spectators on a trip a bit north of Dublin, The mian ideas of my arguments,
Welcome to Northern Ireland, We are still in a country where Religion is quite high, But it is in a battle, Catholics and Protestants inhabit the area, How are we to decide the idea of which to implement?
The idea of course lies with the greatest Idea that has joined the human race since Sliced Bread.
I am of course talking about Democracy! Oh Democracy, The wonderful invention in which the people choose,
Using Democracy Northern Ireland has been split into Catholic areas and Protestant areas, This has decided the main School Masses for Organized Prayer.
This is not encouraging segregation, It is called these areas because it is where the Majority of people live,
The Catholic areas have mainly Catholics, The Protestant have mainly protestants. Easy to decide with our great idea Right?

But in this plan, I have yet another solution, you cannot shun an Idea for not being refined enough, It can always be created into a better plan!
Why have one? Why not have organized Prayer sessions for all? This was everyone can have a prayer session and everyone is happy! As I said before, keep refining, Just deleting the system for not working once will solve no ones problems,
Look in the past when a countries democracy didn't work in and see what they turned to?
most of the time the next plan was worse, Cannot shun democracy for not working in an unrefined state,
Cannot shun Organized Prayer for not working in an unrefined state
I was referring more to a single school in my argument, actually. Of course you could create schools made just for particular religions and branches thereof. But, again, that's not the issue. We are still talking about Organized Prayer, and that means putting it in not just one school, but all schools. This goes back to the requiring people to do things they don't believe in.

As for the Prayer sessions for all, you are talking about something entirely different again. Your idea would indeed work, but that would not be putting Organized Prayer in schools, that would be, in effect, creating a series of religious "clubs". Again, if they are actually Christian, or Hindu, or Muslim, or whichever, they will want to congregate on their own. It should not be necessary to force the entire school to do one organized prayer or several different organized prayers. Besides, what would this do to those who don't have a religion? Say what you will, but a great many humans do frown upon Athiesm.

So, the entire system is unnecessary. If the people involved are actually of a particular religion and care about it, they would get together anyway. If they are not of a particular religion, or they claim to be of one particular religion and actually don't really care, then why make them?

[Tatterdemalion]

Yes, I'm just going to interject here to bring up a "point of information" as Spoofs3 would call it, just to make sure that we understand one another, and there's no miscommunication.

Zairak says that we are discussing "regular schools" as opposed to Catholic schools. I'd just like to call to attention the fact that while Catholic schools and public schools in the United States are distinct, Catholic schools in Ireland are state funded, so they would fall within the category of "public schools."

Sorry for interrupting, I just wanted to make sure we were all clear on the scope of the question.

[Spoofs3]

Not Catholic schools, not College (or University, as I understand it is called in some countries), just regular school.
Catholic schools ARE regular schools, Just run by the church, As for state runs chools as you have said, They still partake in Religious services run by the church every so often as I have said, Christmas masses, Confirmation and Communion,
But that was only my first point which really dealt with those type of school, I am just pointing out that it is needed in some types of schools, That was the first pointThe point I am making here is that making friends and generally being around others in school gives you the social skills you need later in life.
And whose to say the aspects of life you learn in religion doesn't?
it brings people closer together and gives them a chance to learn these aspects faster and better, The Church teaches alot of aspects that the school could not.
The church is by far probably the first thing that introduces the idea of morals to a child, Not the state.
The child hears about the ten commandments or other religious rules FAR before reading laws of the state.
This helps the child grow to be a good member of society.
Would this not be needed later in life? Or even when he IS a child?This has more to do with the faults in the educational system than anything. The purpouse of school remains the same.
Does it now? Read above point, The ideals taught in religion is good for later on in life, Tying in with your statement.I am not saying it is right or it is wrong, I am saying it is unconfirmed, and thus distinct from other subjects taught in school.
Correct me if I'm wrong but so are many others?
many aspects of history are questionable but are still taught are they not?
In Japan the Rape of Nanjing is taught differently as they are still arguing over whether it happened. Not a fact being argued over.
Once again with other ideas, NOT FACT, STILL BEING ARGUED OVER.
Therefore you cannot say that Religion does not deserve a place being not a fact as in History we are still argueing over whether 1+1 = 2If you find a way to make it better, that's great, but the new improved version is not Organized Prayer.
Is it not? I'm sorry, I must have a different definition, Thats when loads of people of the same faith come together and pray?
because if we can make this idea better by having loads of people from loads of different faiths in loads of different schools come together and pray, Why is this not Organized Prayer?
Isn't American Democracy with the President different from Irish Democracy with the Taoiseacht?
Aren't they still democracy?
They may differ, One may be better BUT they are still the same, Democracy.
This is the same for Organized Prayer, We can Make it better and it will still be the same, Organized Prayer.The problem is that Organized Prayer does indeed require *everyone* to participate, even if they don't really mean it.
Does it? Because last time I checked it did not really.
What of the sick? The absent? Does it need them? Are they SWOOPED in to make it in time?
No, It does not need EVERYONE to take place, Why does it need people of other religions?
The problem with your thinking is that in your mind you have one definition of Organized Prayer where everyone is needed and forced to do so, No room for other aspects, This comes back to my difference of American and Irish democracy, If we can Create a new form where people are required to do an organized form of prayer every so often, it is still Organized Prayer, Just not the definition that is used nowadays. Once again you are trying to say the new version does not count, Even if it is pretty much the same, Used in the same way.
It does, Just new and ImprovedThis goes back to the requiring people to do things they don't believe in.
They only have to show up, A I said before, We could just have a bunch of schools, With a bunch of faiths, Come together as one and pray, This was Organized and everyone did come along, But they do not have to worshiop something they do not belive in.
Once again it comes down to your idea being a set idea of Organized religion that it has to be one faith and cannot be plenty of faiths strung together to pray together, Sure in History classes in Ireland we are once again put together like this.
Catholics go up the north to spend days with protestants whether they want to or not, This is because of the Historical differences between us and the Religions,
Sides, In the present The Irish hate the English because Protestants punished Catholics, What does this have to do with the faith even if they are nonreligious? It doesn't, They just don't like them because they punished us.

the point of that is that we have an Organized Prayer with BOTH religions, TO bring us closer, Even if we are nonreligious, It is to help both sides get closer together, TO see that despite the past we are human... Together.Your idea would indeed work, but that would not be putting Organized Prayer in schools, that would be, in effect, creating a series of religious "clubs". Again
Even if they meet during school hours? I believe this would be Organized Prayer under a different meaning, Once again it requires them to come during school hours to pray, Even if they do meet up together,
I shall now use your argument against you.
It has to do with the various flaws in the Organized prayer (See your argument on School System)Besides, what would this do to those who don't have a religion?
See my point on Protestants and Catholics, it is to get closer as a people to see that despite being different, We are the sameIf the people involved are actually of a particular religion and care about it, they would get together anyway.
maybe they do, Maybe they wish to get together more oftenIf they are not of a particular religion, or they claim to be of one particular religion and actually don't really care, then why make them?
See my argument on refining, Its basically the same thing, Just to get closer to other religions, During school hours, it is still Organized Prayer

I have nothing more to say for now,
Back to you Zairak :D



EDIT:
@Tatterdemalion: American Catholic schools aren't state funded? Thats news to me :P Either way, Good point, On with the debate, THanks for the info ^_^

[Spoofs3]

Zairik has pointed out to me that My definition of Organized prayer is different from the U.S.s version of Organized Prayer, The US had it Daily while Ireland had/Has it on special occasions throughout the school year (Christmas, Easter, Death of staff/Student)

The problem is that we are both trying to debate on our own countries version as its the best experience we have had, I could try debate on the US.s Organized Prayer but it is really different to the type I am growing up in,

In future, Try pair people from the same country up with controversy titles such as this (This is one that the rules vary so much country to country it is no longer able to come close to each other)

So yeah, Just saying that we've been in contact over this and to be wary in future.

Anyways, Back to the Debate, Sorry for the interruption

[Tatterdemalion]

What Zairak is referring to is the notion of "daily prayer" which is something religious groups commonly advocate, however "organized prayer" in America refers to any prayer or religious activities sanctioned by the school, school programs, school officials or the school administration, excluding activities organized by students, and is applicable to any event. There have indeed been controversies recently about it in the context of US graduations, so it's certainly not restricted to a daily activity, or a compulsory activity.

So while Zairak's definition refers to something that is discussed frequently in the United States, it is not exclusive. What you are describing, Spoofs3, would be considered organized school prayer under United States law.

[Zairak]

Hmm...I was taught the entirely wrong definition then. That's what I always heard Organized Prayer referred to as in my town. I'm going to have to research for a while.

[Tatterdemalion]

Yeah, daily prayer is a form of organized prayer, however legal decisions in the US with regards to school prayer have reached above and beyond it.

[Zairak]

And whose to say the aspects of life you learn in religion doesn't?
it brings people closer together and gives them a chance to learn these aspects faster and better, The Church teaches alot of aspects that the school could not.
The church is by far probably the first thing that introduces the idea of morals to a child, Not the state.
The child hears about the ten commandments or other religious rules FAR before reading laws of the state.
This helps the child grow to be a good member of society.
Would this not be needed later in life? Or even when he IS a child?
First, your original point had been that making friends in school had nothing to do with getting further in life or your career. I was refuting that, not that religion couldn't do the same thing. However, while it can do the same thing, it does not make them learn it any faster or better.

As far as the church teaching you morals, I certainly hope that is never the case. After all, shouldn't it be the parent's responsibility to expose them to that well before hand, even as soon as they learn to speak? It is the parents, not the church or the state, that expose the child to morality first. The child hits one of his siblings, and the parent, hopefully, tells him this is bad. No 10 commandments there. Just simple admonishment, like most any parent of any religion or lack thereof would do. Does it now? Read above point, The ideals taught in religion is good for later on in life, Tying in with your statement.
The ideals may be good, but why would you need religion for that? The useful parts of Christianity should be fairly common sense anyway. Decieving people is bad, killing people is bad, taking what you have not earned is bad. Why should you need to teach the rest of it?Correct me if I'm wrong but so are many others?
many aspects of history are questionable but are still taught are they not?
In Japan the Rape of Nanjing is taught differently as they are still arguing over whether it happened. Not a fact being argued over.
Once again with other ideas, NOT FACT, STILL BEING ARGUED OVER.
Therefore you cannot say that Religion does not deserve a place being not a fact as in History we are still argueing over whether 1+1 = 2
Yes, but those things that are questionable are acknowledged as so. Religion, not so much. Does it? Because last time I checked it did not really.
What of the sick? The absent? Does it need them? Are they SWOOPED in to make it in time?
No, It does not need EVERYONE to take place, Why does it need people of other religions?
The problem with your thinking is that in your mind you have one definition of Organized Prayer where everyone is needed and forced to do so, No room for other aspects, This comes back to my difference of American and Irish democracy, If we can Create a new form where people are required to do an organized form of prayer every so often, it is still Organized Prayer, Just not the definition that is used nowadays. Once again you are trying to say the new version does not count, Even if it is pretty much the same, Used in the same way.
It does, Just new and Improved
I had thought it was assumed I was talking about the people who were actually present at the school. It would be foolish, even ludicrous to bring in everybody for things like that. I still say that Organized Prayer should never be endorsed by the state. If the Church founds a school, fine. But, again, there should never be a need to put Organized Prayer in school, even if it is not required for you to attend. If the Christians or other religious groups desire to come together on holidays, once a month, or even daily, let them make their own arrangements. Let the students themselves organize it.Even if they meet during school hours? I believe this would be Organized Prayer under a different meaning, Once again it requires them to come during school hours to pray, Even if they do meet up together,
I shall now use your argument against you.
It has to do with the various flaws in the Organized prayer (See your argument on School System)
I'm a bit confused again here. Over here, our clubs do meet during school hours.See my point on Protestants and Catholics, it is to get closer as a people to see that despite being different, We are the same
And espousing differences in religions accomplishes togetherness...how? If anything religion further segregates people. I have always failed to understand why some people believe we somehow need religion to act like civil humans. It should be common sense that we are the same.maybe they do, Maybe they wish to get together more often
I have never said it's a problem for them to get together however often they wish. Still, as I have said earlier in this post, if they wanted to, they would. They would not need to be constantly reminded by the state putting Organized Prayer in schools.

Off-Topic:

Sorry for the wait, I've been rather busy lately.

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, it's been 2 days since the last post without a response, so the debate between Spoofs3 and Zairak is now officially over.

Judges will now proceed to scoring.

Scores for Spoofs3 v. Zairak:

Spoofs3: 30

Zairak: 29

[Spoofs3]

Hmmmm, God damn it....
I just looked at this... ANd missed it....
Stupid STUPID Spoofs....

[Tormented]

Zairak: 8
Spoofs: 7

[geminigirl]

Hmm

I think they both did okay but it is a little hard to judge because of the differences between the countries.

Zairak: 7
Spoofs3: 7

[Insane]

Zairak: 7
Spoofs: 8

[darkarcher]

The international difference sort of skewed the whole debate, but both sides did well from their own approaches.

Zairak: 7
Spoofs: 8

Spoofs gets a slightly higher score because his points seemed to cover more "area", if you will, while every once in a while I felt like there was a hole in Zairaks. Nothing major though.

[Tatterdemalion]

Judging for the first debate of Round 1 has ended.

Spoofs3 v. Zairak ends with Spoofs3 winning and proceeding to Round 2 by a majority of 1 point.

The next debate will be between Leonheart321 and TheFreedomIllusion. The topic will be the food industry. The question will be whether or not the current standards and regulations with regards to raising/growing and processing livestock and produce for mass consumption are in need of reform. This is not limited to law, and can also extend to enforcement of said law.

Leonhart321 will be arguing in favor of reform, whereas TheFreedomIllusion will be in opposition.

Leonhart321 will begin.

[Spoofs3]

Congrats guys!
Well done on the debate!

...

Wait...

[Tormented]

THREE POINTS

[leonhart321]

Sorry, will be on later
Just got caught up in something today that i didnt realise i was involved with
If it isnt up in 24 hours after this, disqualify me

[Tatterdemalion]

Actually, it's been 2 days since your debate began, and since you were scheduled to go first, that already counts as a forfeiture on your part. It seems a shame, but at the same time, them's the rules, and I can't go back on them without destroying the entire foundation of the British constitution.

Unfortunate, I know, especially considering this has happened to you twice. I don't want to come off as a hard nose or anything, but 2 days is 2 days, and with specific rules like that in place, I'd be opening a potential floodgate if I were to ignore them.

But for the record, to the participants, anything you post when it's your turn counts as a post on your part. Just keep in mind, if your debate has begun and it's been between one and two days, and you need another day to continue building up your argument, or researching, even if you just post a paragraph or two on the subject, that adds on another two days. Of course, you'd then have to deal with a rebuttal, so you may not want to do that, but it's always an option.

So, quite sadly, this debate counts as a forfeiture on Leonhart321's part.

That being said, because precautions have been taken for circumstances such as these, TheFreedomIllusion does not pass to the Semi-FInals yet. Instead, we will proceed to the next debate, and when it is over, the eliminated participant from Round 1, be it Zairak or whoever is eliminated from Debate 3, who has the highest score will then take Leonheart321's place, and the debate will begin again.

So remember, both participants in Debate 3 need to focus not only on winning, but on getting a score high enough to beat Zairak's impressive 29 points.

Also, to make scoring fair, I will eliminate a judge for Debate 3, so that we can have the same number of judges as for Debate 1. I will reveal which judge it will be when we proceed to scoring.

And I assume the three points awarded by Tormented were intended for me. Thank you, Tormented, you're too kind.

That being said, with Debate 2 on hiatus, we proceed to Debate 3. How wonderful.

Debate 3 will be between agrajagthetesty and MrsSallyBakura. The question will be whether race-based affirmative action programs in fields including but not limited to education and employment are warranted, or whether they should be eliminated.

MrsSally Bakura will be arguing in support of affirmative action programs, whereas agrajagthetesty will be arguing in opposition. MrsSallyBakura will begin.

[Tormented]

I've always enjoyed your debating, Tatter. You deserve those three points.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Interesting how I have to defend a side I don't necessarily agree with. But here it goes.

Even though America as a whole today is much more aware of the situation of minority groups and their cultures, these groups still don't have the same opportunities as the majority, or whites. White people still are more likely to get into a good college and make more money. Typically, people from minority cultures are much poorer and cannot afford to go to a respected college, nor can they get a job that pays enough money for the rent or mortgage because they cannot afford to commute to a better paying job. Because of that, the main colleges and universities are flooded with white people.

I think the most important reason why affirmative action programs should be instituted is because it forces people in majority populations (ie whites) to interact with people from minority groups (ie blacks, Native Americans, etc). When you take away the affirmative action program, it takes away the opportunities for whites to work with and even befriend people from other races and cultures. When you take away that part of education from white people, it leads to potential ignorance towards other cultures and that is not something that leads America forward as a country.

Unfortunately, I cannot speak for other countries as of yet. I’m not quite sure if other parts of the world (ie the UK) even need affirmative action. All I know is that until America can guarantee equal opportunity towards a wider variety of people, then we need it in order to broaden our understanding of others and not leave other cultures underground just because they don’t dominate.

[Tatterdemalion]

Debate = Over
Judges = Proceed to scoring
Darkarcher = Exempt from this debate

Scores:

MrsSallyBakura: 9
agrajagthetesty: 0

[darkarcher]

I am being punished for not responding soon enough last time?

[agrajagthetesty]

Damn you, Greenwich Mean Time. I logged on last night and thought I still had a day to respond... <img src='/images/emoticons/smiley5.png'>

[Insane]

Sally = 5
(Meh, random number)

Agrajagthetesty = N/A = 0

[Tormented]

*shrug*

Sally=4
Agra... jag... Spider = 0

[Tatterdemalion]

Yes. Yes you are.

Or maybe I just had to exclude a judge to keep scoring fair in order to determine who will take leonheart321's place, and I did so without prejudice.

[Tormented]

Perhaps... Perhaps... *leans back in chair thoughtfully* Perha- *falls over*

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, sorry about going a bit over the judging time limit, but with this whole change in forum formatting and such, the whole ordeal has been somewhat disorienting. (Am I the only one who finds it disorienting?)

In any case, MrsSallyBakura wins with a score of 9, progressing to Round 2.

Zairak has the highest score of the first round, so he comes in now as a substitute for leonheart321.

The topic will be the food industry. The question will be whether or not the current standards and regulations with regards to raising/growing and processing livestock and produce for mass consumption are in need of reform. This is not limited to law, and can also extend to enforcement of said law.

Zairak will be arguing in favor of reform, whereas TheFreedomIllusion will be in opposition.

You may begin.

[Zairak]

Who goes first?

[Tatterdemalion]

Whoops, sorry, Zairak goes first.

Didn't I say the change was disorienting?

[grimfang999]

nvm lol

[Zairak]

Here I go, then...

The current laws in regards to growing produce and raising livestock are in need of reform. There have been several instances recently where people have become ill and even hospitalised. Here is a link for one of the more well known ones, the Salmonella outbreak:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/19/content_10682149.htm

According to that source, 470 people have become sick so far, with 90 hospitalized and at least 6 deaths, despite quick actions to halt the bacteria.

Certainly, the laws we have now are effective, but effective does not mean perfect, and we can always work to improve upon what we have. Ideally, diseases such as these would be caught at the factory, before they were even shipped out. I can't stress enough how important these laws are. We are talking about the food supply for an entire nation, and I can scarcely think of a quicker route for diseases to spread.

I believe there was also fear of mad cow disease in U.S. Beef fairly recently, so even our livestock need to be watched closely.

So, yes, the laws in regards to raising produce and livestock are in need of reform, even if we do have a good set right now. As shown by the fact that we do still have occasional outbreaks of diseases in food, there is still room for improvement, and that is reason enough to try and come up with something better.

[Spoofs3]

Are we ever going to finish a debate?
Or are we keep going to die like this...

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, we're going to do something highly irregular here, in response to the situation at hand.

The last debate is, I'm sure, a foregone conclusion as to the winner. That being said, being faced with both a previous debate with only one post, and a query for participation, we're going to do something highly unorthodox. Normally I'd just say "sign up at the end of the tournament," however unconventional circumstances require unconventional action.

What follows will be an unsanctioned debate between Zairak and Grimfang666. Why unsanctioned? Because it's been reached by an agreement between the two of them, and not as part of the tournament structure.

This debate will make use of the time that would normally be alotted for judging, so as not to add extra time or delay to the tournament. There is a time limit set at three days, with no minimum or maximum number of posts from either party.

At the end of three days scoring will not proceed as usual, but will instead be evaluated by a single judge, who will not provide a numerical score, but will simply determine a winner/loser.

Because this debate is not a part of the structured tournament, there is no topic prepared, so the topic will carry over from the previous debate. Zairak's positions and turn assignment also carry over.

I know it sounds odd, but at the same time it doesn't take off any extra time, and doesn't put anyone at an unfair disadvantage. Except possibly Zairak, but since he agreed to it beforehand, it's not really unfair, is it?

Begin when you're ready, the time starts now. And by now I mean the last edit of this post.

[Zairak]

I'm sticking with my original argument for my opener, then:

Here I go, then...

The current laws in regards to growing produce and raising livestock are in need of reform. There have been several instances recently where people have become ill and even hospitalised. Here is a link for one of the more well known ones, the Salmonella outbreak:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_10682149.htm

According to that source, 470 people have become sick so far, with 90 hospitalized and at least 6 deaths, despite quick actions to halt the bacteria.

Certainly, the laws we have now are effective, but effective does not mean perfect, and we can always work to improve upon what we have. Ideally, diseases such as these would be caught at the factory, before they were even shipped out. I can't stress enough how important these laws are. We are talking about the food supply for an entire nation, and I can scarcely think of a quicker route for diseases to spread.

I believe there was also fear of mad cow disease in U.S. Beef fairly recently, so even our livestock need to be watched closely.

So, yes, the laws in regards to raising produce and livestock are in need of reform, even if we do have a good set right now. As shown by the fact that we do still have occasional outbreaks of diseases in food, there is still room for improvement, and that is reason enough to try and come up with something better.

[grimfang999]

interesting knowledge

however though i will have to argue against it later, as my friend is next to me constantly distracting and i cannot conncentrate in this computer room, so i will think it over and send my response in tonight lol

[Fat1Fared]

when can I join this thing lol

[Spoofs3]

when can I join this thing lol

If you read the Tatters last post you'd see that he'd usually say "Sign up at the end"

SO I'm guessing... The end

[grimfang999]

well its a tough one to counter i must admit, but here goes:

Certainly, the laws we have now are effective, but effective does not mean perfect, and we can always work to improve upon what we have.
i will have to admit with your comment that the system is imperfect, as all governments and their laws, and even the people who must follow those laws, are human. the sad truth is, perfection cannot be achieved untill everything is improved, and even then there are still chances of problems accuring, unless you have a perfect IQ which enables you to create a perfect system.

I'm sticking with my original argument for my opener, then:

Here I go, then...

The current laws in regards to growing produce and raising livestock are in need of reform. There have been several instances recently where people have become ill and even hospitalised. Here is a link for one of the more well known ones, the Salmonella outbreak:

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_10682149.htm

According to that source, 470 people have become sick so far, with 90 hospitalized and at least 6 deaths, despite quick actions to halt the bacteria... Ideally, diseases such as these would be caught at the factory, before they were even shipped out. I can't stress enough how important these laws are. We are talking about the food supply for an entire nation, and I can scarcely think of a quicker route for diseases to spread.

if you consider the amount of people in north america to how many in that article who have been affected by the bacteria, from the link below it shows that 305,529,237 people live in America today, meaning that 470 people is a mere 0.0001538314318508248%

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/population/013127.html

considering that the odds are 1 in 650062.21 chance, its is as close as we can get to perfect i any other way.

sad to say, we cannot control the course of nature and its microbes if its so common like salmonella, and even with the extreme precautions the cattle raisers are told to take, such as washing their hands after touching another animal or possable carrier of bacteria, soap, as nothing is perfect as i like to enforce, does not eradicate all bacteria, fungi and viruses that may be considered dangerous, so the odds are there will still some cases of spreading of these micro-organisms that will cause harm in large numbers, even in the most secure and hygenic grounds and factories. it may even be human nature of forgetting or absent minded bordem which may make a cattle raiser or meat processor or machine cleaner that may simply, forget to clean their hands, or another part of their body which may be carrying the bacteria (for example, the shoulder) may at some point touch and infect the object or animal.

I believe there was also fear of mad cow disease in U.S. Beef fairly recently, so even our livestock need to be watched closely.
with the mad cow disease, however, i must agree with you on that one. but regarding the statistics and control over microscopic nature we have, we only are doing what we can only do with what we have got in technology and reasearch and what we have got in finance. with all these limitations we have to wait untill further in the future where technology and research is more advanced so we have better control over the illness which affected those people. however though, a reform may not be possable outright if the theory of idiocracy is true.

thus ends my statement, hope i got it relevent and didnt get to off task, i do that sometimes

[darkarcher]

Please don't quote entire messages. If you need to quote, break it up into separate chunks outlining each of the opponent's points that you're addressing.

[grimfang999]

Please don't quote entire messages. If you need to quote, break it up into separate chunks outlining each of the opponent's points that you're addressing.

ok re-edited

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, three days is up. Darkarcher will decide the previous exchange.

[Spoofs3]

Okay, three days is up. Darkarcher will decide the previous exchange.

Damn, I hoped that I would wield the cane, Wearing the shoes, Tipping the top hat, Showing them whose boss and in the end, Eating the cake

[Tatterdemalion]

Damn, I hoped that I would wield the cane, Wearing the shoes, Tipping the top hat, Showing them whose boss and in the end, Eating the cake

I'm not accusing you of bias, but considering the fact that whoever wins is going to be your opponent in the next debate might not make giving the decision to you the best idea.

[grimfang999]

anyways in bored, any idea when darkarcher is coming next online?

[Zairak]

I apologise, I was occupied today and only had computer access through a friend's computer.

[Spoofs3]

I'm not accusing you of bias, but considering the fact that whoever wins is going to be your opponent in the next debate might not make giving the decision to you the best idea.


IO never said you were, I just want to eat the cake :D

[grimfang999]

so... you got any 3s?

[darkarcher]

Sorry all. I didn't realize it was just me. (Blame my short attention span).

Anyway...

Zairak: 8
grimfang999: 6

I'll admit grimfang had the harder point to debate in this one, and he did an above-average job. However, he never actually came to a point with his arguments and there were multiple grammar and spelling mistakes that made his comments hard to understand.

That being said, he probably had a stronger position than I could have. He just didn't express it as well as he could have.

[grimfang999]

Sorry all. I didn't realize it was just me. (Blame my short attention span).

Anyway...

Zairak: 8
grimfang999: 6

I'll admit grimfang had the harder point to debate in this one, and he did an above-average job. However, he never actually came to a point with his arguments and there were multiple grammar and spelling mistakes that made his comments hard to understand.

That being said, he probably had a strong position than I could have. He just didn't express it as well as he could have.

fair enough, thanks for the critisism, and well done to zairak for win, and i wish him luck in the next debate

[Zairak]

I do believe I'll need it, considering the last debate I had with Spoofs ended in my defeat...

[Tatterdemalion]

I do believe I'll need it, considering the last debate I had with Spoofs ended in my defeat...

But what will happen this time around?

The next debate is Spoofs3 v. Zairak once more, the question is a very familiar one. Should the death penalty be allowed as a form of criminal punishment? Spoofs3 will be arguing in favor of the allowance of the death penalty, whereas Zairak will be opposing. Zairak will go first.

(And I know this is the third time Zariak is going first and opposing, which is odd, but really, I'm doing this by coin toss, so don't see this as bias on my part)

[grimfang999]

aw damn it i would i have rather this to debate about :P

[Zairak]

Ok then, here we go...

The Death Penalty should not be allowed. To say nothing of the ethical implications, it's just wasteful. Why not put the violators to good use? You wouldn't even need to keep them in jails. There are plenty of jobs they could do outside. Take the armed forces, for instance. I see no reason they couldn't serve the country as atonement. Besides which, it would give them some measure of employment without giving them handouts, and, really, what do you think is the main reason people commit crimes? Many of them are just desperate. Even the ones that do it for kicks can be rehabiliated. So, nearly all of the time, the Death Penalty is not even remotely necessary, and even when it is a viable option, there are other ways.

But, of course, there *are* ethical implications. How do you justify taking somebody's life? Especially when you may well be damning them to hell, non-existance, or such like, depending on which, if any, religion is correct. Further, how would you determine what merits the Death Penalty? Obviously, you could go by the "eye for an eye" argument, and say that murder would necessitate it, but is even that correct? If you can rehabilitate the wrongdoer in question, wouldn't it be better than losing two humans?

So, not only is the Death Penalty hardly necessary and difficult to decide when to use, there are so many other viable alternatives, it would seem utterly wasteful, and indeed, indicative of a slothful trend in society, always taking the most obvious route. "He robbed a bank? Kill him, problem solved. No more bank robberies from him."

I might say more, but I think this suffices, and I want to know what Spoofs3's arguments are.

Good luck once again, Spoofs.

[Spoofs3]

Good luck Zairik, It will be interesting.

The Death Penalty should not be allowed. To say nothing of the ethical implications, it's just wasteful. Why not put the violators to good use? You wouldn't even need to keep them in jails. There are plenty of jobs they could do outside. Take the armed forces, for instance. I see no reason they couldn't serve the country as atonement.


Let me get this straight, You want me to give a prisonner who could have been a serial killer a gun... In the armed forces... Now this might be a weird and confusing counterarguement but I'm going to try it...
WHat the hell?
I would not feel safe knowing that instead of trained Military whom did this to protect their friends and family, You want me to give the job over to a criminal, Who could still want to kill my people, And to give away my safety...
And what of my country? Ireland?
We have no military, Our country has a defence force to protect other countrys, THats it, We are neutral.
WHy would we place criminals who might only want to kill and rape in our defence forces to stain our reputation as protectors.
I would not feel safe giving a criminal a job which could be used to give ot an active citizen, And active citizens need the jobs, Especially at this time in our economy


Many of them are just desperate. Even the ones that do it for kicks can be rehabiliated. So, nearly all of the time, the Death Penalty is not even remotely necessary, and even when it is a viable option, there are other ways.

Not necessary? Now that is where you are wrong. Even the ones who did it for fun need to be punished if their crime is big enough.
War criminals for example, Or even worse, The biggest war criminals of our time.
Hitler and Stalin, If you were to choose their punishment, Why would you let them get away with millions of deaths.
Hitler over 6 million
Stalin over 44 million.
Surely one life should be taken as revenge for all these lives?
What about other evil beings like them? They deserve death for their lack of respect for life and do not deserve to live to be respected by Neo Nazis outside Jail. And that only makes him a target, He would be targetted for escape attempts, And even to get back into power. We cannot risk something like that, We cannot let more die thanks to these war criminals.


But, of course, there *are* ethical implications. How do you justify taking somebody's life? Especially when you may well be damning them to hell, non-existance, or such like, depending on which, if any, religion is correct. Further, how would you determine what merits the Death Penalty? Obviously, you could go by the "eye for an eye" argument, and say that murder would necessitate it, but is even that correct? If you can rehabilitate the wrongdoer in question, wouldn't it be better than losing two humans?

An eye does indeed deserve an Eye as you say. We as humans need to punish them ultimatly, In the animal kingdom traitors are banished to die outside the pack, Ultimatly a death sentence unless a miracle happens. What makes us different? Shouldn't we banish them for their crimes against us?
But lets not go into this further,
Instead lets go into your Determine idea.
Who to choose?
Well about this, You can easily determine simply by doing what we are doing, Of course there will be rules, And certain crimes that deserve it, But most importnatly time, Wait a while, Check over evidence thuroughly and then kill them if it all checks out no matter how much time we try.
[/QUOTE]


So, not only is the Death Penalty hardly necessary and difficult to decide when to use, there are so many other viable alternatives, it would seem utterly wasteful, and indeed, indicative of a slothful trend in society, always taking the most obvious route. "He robbed a bank? Kill him, problem solved. No more bank robberies from him."


bank robberies? Too little a crime, Can easily be solved.
Only kill for unsolvable crimes, You'd want revenge too if you can't bring them back. Some people deserve death.
Hitler, Stalin, Others who are less known but still killed loads.



Once again, Good luck, ANd I may have won the debate but only by a single point.
Remember that you can still win, Good luck
back to you

[Zairak]

Hmm...I forfeit. I've made 5 different attempts to respond to this, and my computer has eaten every last one. This, along with certain other things going on right now, leads me to conclude that I won't get a response up in time, so let's end this here. I'd like to apologise to Spoofs3 for not coming through, though. Sorry.

[Tatterdemalion]

Zairak, you can't forfeit once your debate has started. Keep in mind, to forfeit would be to resign from the tournament, and is meant for people who can't or don't participate once their debate comes.

You've already participated in your debate, so a forfeiture wouldn't be appropriate. I can end the debate, but that's it.

If you win and you still can't participate, then you can forfeit come the next round. Until then, however, scoring proceeds as usual (and is necessary, even if you do eventually forfeit).

We'll proceed to scoring, for Zairak v. Spoofs3. Judges have 2 days to weigh in, as usual.

(And for the record, if your computer is eating your responses, you can just save periodically in a word processor, so that if you lose it, it's still saved on you computer. At least, that's what I do for long posts.)

[grimfang999]

same here whenever its availiable but i think thats not the way it works fatty, they just pick the next person for the next round

[Spoofs3]

Well this is the Semi finals guys.
This is the first debate of it, So that means there is one debate left in it,
Then its the finals with one debate.
So wait 2 more debates then sign ups begin once again,
Thanks guys ^_^

[Tatterdemalion]

Well this is the Semi finals guys.
This is the first debate of it, So that means there is one debate left in it,
Then its the finals with one debate.
So wait 2 more debates then sign ups begin once again,
Thanks guys ^_^


Exactly, you hit the nail right on the head.

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, so it's been two days since judging ended, and the score is tied at...0-0

Wow, that's the lowest number of judges to have weighed in for a debate yet. Zero. Good job, guys.

In any case, since it's a tie I suppose I'm going to have to score it.

I'm rating this one

Zairak-5
Spoofs3-7

I find that while Zairak did introduce a few ideas, he didn't do very much to develop them. That is, he gave some arguments, but did very little to support his arguments. Not that he did nothing, but a strong case for any of them is lacking. Spoofs3, on the other hand, gave a very thorough and concise rebuttal, which addressed everything all in a neat little package.

Very well, moving ahead. Beginning now we have the one we've all been anticipating, MrsSallyBakura versus the returning champion, killshot.

The subject this time around is immigration. MrsSallyBakura will be arguing in favor of stricter immigration policies and/or greater government action to enforce immigration policies. Killshor will be arguing in opposition.

MrsSallyBakura will begin.

[MrsSallyBakura]

Beginning now we have the one we've all been anticipating

Lovely.

At any rate...

Let me start off by saying that I have no problem with immigrants coming into the country. If this really is the land of the free, then we should allow people who are not citizens to see what they can do to make more money for their families or because they want to follow some sort of dream.

However, freedom comes with a price. Ideally, we could let anyone into the country, let them have a job, and let them live their lives while we lived ours. Yet we don't live in an ideal world. Immigration, unfortunately, needs to be regulated. And right now it's not regulated enough.

According to a recent article on CNN about the decline in immigration, there are approximately 11.9 million illegal immigrants living in the United States right now. http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/10/02/pew.immigration/index.html

Granted, the article talks about a decline in illegal immigration growth because of the economy, but the fact of the matter is that there are still over 11 million illegal immigrants in the country, and that harms American citizens. The reason for that is because it costs citizens billions of tax dollars in order for employers to pay illegal immigrants, not to mention the fact that most illegal immigrants do not pay taxes in the first place.

That being said, because of the harm illegal immigrants cause, we should do what we can to enforce stricter immigration laws. By allowing illegal immigrants into the country, we are not encouraging them to become American citizens, but rather we are encouraging them to keep breaking the law. Why would you want to be a citizen if you can make money without having to pay any taxes?

[Tormented]

Did I miss something?

[killshot]

Alright, here we go. Good luck, Sally.

Many people claim that more and more drastic measures need to be taken to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the United States. But why do we need to keep them out in the first place? Certainly there are more important matters to invest time and money on than keeping undocumented foreigners out of our country. It's easy to say that we should keep illegal immigrants out of America, but how does anyone plan to do this? Higher fences? More boarder guards? How much is this going to cost? Another issue that needs to be considered is the 11 million aliens already living in our country. Should we just uproot them from their homes and take them away from their children who could have been born here, making them United States citizens? I don't know about you, but a job this big seems like a misuse of resources.

On the subject of illegal immigrants holding jobs and yet not paying taxes, I would disagree that this is something to be concerned about. These workers may not be paying taxes, but most of the money they make is being spent in America and helps other American businesses. Most of these workers aren't being paid much anyway, so their tax contribution will not be missed. To put things in perspective, look at outsourcing. Outsourcing is perfectly legal and gives jobs traditionally done by American workers to overseas competitors. The money sent overseas to pay foreign workers is not spent in America and these workers do not pay taxes to the United States government.

While on the subject of cheap labor, it is worth mentioning that illegal aliens preform some of the undesirable jobs that most Americans would not consider doing, at least not cheaply. Because of the lower wages that need to be payed to the undocumented workers, products can be produced more cheaply than they could have otherwise been. This source of cheap labor helps both the business and the consumer. This is especially helpful to the food industry which has been forced to increase prices in recent years. Who would argue about cheaper food production?

[MrsSallyBakura]

Hope I'm not too late!

Many people claim that more and more drastic measures need to be taken to prevent illegal immigrants from entering the United States. But why do we need to keep them out in the first place? Certainly there are more important matters to invest time and money on than keeping undocumented foreigners out of our country.

Yes there are technically more important problems, but you have to remember that illegal immigration is part of the problem when you look at the big picture. Today's economy is suffering and it doesn't help when there are people who enter the country and work illegally and cause people's tax dollars to hike to prices the American people can't afford to pay.

It's easy to say that we should keep illegal immigrants out of America, but how does anyone plan to do this? Higher fences? More boarder guards? How much is this going to cost?

Bear in mind that it also costs money to keep illegal immigrants employed in this country. Both situations cost more money than we want to spend. However, I don't believe that the answer to this problem is to just keep letting it happen, because if we don't do anything about it, the situation could get worse and may end up costing more money than if we tried to do something about it. We won’t really know for sure until we try other options.

Another issue that needs to be considered is the 11 million aliens already living in our country. Should we just uproot them from their homes and take them away from their children who could have been born here, making them United States citizens? I don't know about you, but a job this big seems like a misuse of resources.

I am by no means saying that we should throw them out of their homes or anything like that. I believe that is unethical. The issue, however, is more about trying to decrease the amount of illegal immigrants coming into the country to the point where the number of illegal immigrants is actually decreasing. Right now there is a decline in growth, but the number of illegal immigrants in America is still growing. The point of increased security of our boarders is to allow as few illegal immigrants in the country as possible.

On the subject of illegal immigrants holding jobs and yet not paying taxes, I would disagree that this is something to be concerned about. These workers may not be paying taxes, but most of the money they make is being spent in America and helps other American businesses. Most of these workers aren't being paid much anyway, so their tax contribution will not be missed. To put things in perspective, look at outsourcing. Outsourcing is perfectly legal and gives jobs traditionally done by American workers to overseas competitors. The money sent overseas to pay foreign workers is not spent in America and these workers do not pay taxes to the United States government.

While on the subject of cheap labor, it is worth mentioning that illegal aliens preform some of the undesirable jobs that most Americans would not consider doing, at least not cheaply. Because of the lower wages that need to be payed to the undocumented workers, products can be produced more cheaply than they could have otherwise been. This source of cheap labor helps both the business and the consumer. This is especially helpful to the food industry which has been forced to increase prices in recent years. Who would argue about cheaper food production?

Maybe it helps businesses, but it doesn’t help the American people, which is who businesses are supposed to be helping. The unemployment rate in Michigan I know is over 10 percent. I’m not entirely sure how many illegal immigrants come here for jobs, but that is a lot of people living in Michigan without a job. If it came down to it, I’m sure if people were desperate enough, they would love to work at McDonald’s or as a garbage carrier because at least that is better than being unemployed. If illegal immigrants take these jobs, then American citizens don’t even have the choice of having an “undesirable” job. An undesirable job is better than no job at all.

Also, not all illegal aliens make less money than legal citizens or immigrants; some of them make just as much money, and they still don’t have to pay taxes. Taking money out of the government and not putting anything back in doesn’t seem very fair to me.

To conclude for now, let me say that I don’t think the problem of illegal immigration will be solved by building bigger walls, necessarily. What we need are stricter laws that affect businesses so that they are less likely to hire anyone who is not supposed to be in the country. Capitalism is supposed to benefit the people, but instead it’s about which company can make the most money while the middle class is struggling to find/keep their jobs.

As for outsourcing, I’m personally not a fan of it, but at least it’s structured and the foreign workers aren’t just keeping all the money for themselves without paying their dues, as far as I’m concerned.

[killshot]

Yes there are technically more important problems, but you have to remember that illegal immigration is part of the problem when you look at the big picture. Today's economy is suffering and it doesn't help when there are people who enter the country and work illegally and cause people's tax dollars to hike to prices the American people can't afford to pay.

I don't know where you are getting the idea that illegal immigration has any effect on taxes paid by Americans. The republicans are too afraid of losing support if they increase taxes and the democrats have given several reasons why taxes should be increased, none of them having anything to do with immigration. It's worth mentioning that there are illegal immigrants who do pay taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html

Bear in mind that it also costs money to keep illegal immigrants employed in this country. Both situations cost more money than we want to spend. However, I don't believe that the answer to this problem is to just keep letting it happen, because if we don't do anything about it, the situation could get worse and may end up costing more money than if we tried to do something about it. We won’t really know for sure until we try other options.

According to the source that you posted, it seems that illegal immigration is already decreasing. I don't see the need to throw extra money at a problem that is already fixing itself. Keep in mind that the only real way to stop immigration completely is for the conditions in other countries to get better, or for the conditions in our country to get significantly worse.

I am by no means saying that we should throw them out of their homes or anything like that. I believe that is unethical. The issue, however, is more about trying to decrease the amount of illegal immigrants coming into the country to the point where the number of illegal immigrants is actually decreasing. Right now there is a decline in growth, but the number of illegal immigrants in America is still growing. The point of increased security of our boarders is to allow as few illegal immigrants in the country as possible.

What I said earlier also applies here. Until the countries that the immigrants are coming from fix the problems that are driving people away in the first place, we will always have people wanting to come here, through legal means or otherwise.

Maybe it helps businesses, but it doesn’t help the American people, which is who businesses are supposed to be helping. The unemployment rate in Michigan I know is over 10 percent. I’m not entirely sure how many illegal immigrants come here for jobs, but that is a lot of people living in Michigan without a job. If it came down to it, I’m sure if people were desperate enough, they would love to work at McDonald’s or as a garbage carrier because at least that is better than being unemployed. If illegal immigrants take these jobs, then American citizens don’t even have the choice of having an “undesirable” job. An undesirable job is better than no job at all.

When business thrives, the company grows. With an expanding company, there are plenty of higher level jobs that open up. When the menial tasks are being completed cheaply, the company can afford to expand and create better jobs that can be filled by Americans. I think you are overestimating the American work ethic. Some McDonald's restaurants pay their workers higher wages than most other fast food restaurants. Why give higher pay for essentially the same kind of work? Because McDonald's is the stereotypical "bad job." No one wants to work at McDonald's because of the poor image it receives, so McDonald's is forced to pay higher wages to get employees. The same can be said about any job that is associated with low status. Americans don't want these jobs and most would rather leech off the government than work an undesirable job.

Also, not all illegal aliens make less money than legal citizens or immigrants; some of them make just as much money, and they still don’t have to pay taxes. Taking money out of the government and not putting anything back in doesn’t seem very fair to me.

Yes, some illegal aliens make as much as an American worker, just like some still pay taxes. More often than not, they will be making less than minimum wage.

To conclude for now, let me say that I don’t think the problem of illegal immigration will be solved by building bigger walls, necessarily. What we need are stricter laws that affect businesses so that they are less likely to hire anyone who is not supposed to be in the country. Capitalism is supposed to benefit the people, but instead it’s about which company can make the most money while the middle class is struggling to find/keep their jobs.


Like I said before, the only way to stop illegal immigration is to make their home more desirable, or the United States less desirable. What you are suggesting by proposing stricter laws on who businesses can hire is that we place laws against corruption. Its nice in theory, but the interested parties are making too much money for these laws to be effective. The only thing we can do is take advantage of this source of cheap labor to expand American businesses and create good jobs and cheap products.

[MrsSallyBakura]

I don't know where you are getting the idea that illegal immigration has any effect on taxes paid by Americans.

This is where I get the idea: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/top_stories/19_56_5812_5_04.txt

Granted, the article was written in 2004, but seeing that more illegal immigrants are in the United States right now, particularly in states like California, I imagine the numbers are a bit higher.

It's worth mentioning that there are illegal immigrants who do pay taxes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/16/nyregion/16immig.html

Yes, some pay taxes, but there are still those who don't.

According to the source that you posted, it seems that illegal immigration is already decreasing. I don't see the need to throw extra money at a problem that is already fixing itself. Keep in mind that the only real way to stop immigration completely is for the conditions in other countries to get better, or for the conditions in our country to get significantly worse.

Yes, illegal immigration is decreasing, but like I said, it's decreasing in growth, not by numbers themselves. There are still a number of them coming into the US, and if/when things start getting better in the US again, they'll start crossing the border again. You're right that the only sure way to guarantee a low number of illegal immigrants is to have a bad economy here and good economies everywhere else, but that just isn't going to happen. What affects the US economy affects pretty much the rest of the world since we are such high consumers. Of course, that could be stopped if we didn't give our "undesirable" jobs to illegal immigrants or even overseas.

When business thrives, the company grows. With an expanding company, there are plenty of higher level jobs that open up. When the menial tasks are being completed cheaply, the company can afford to expand and create better jobs that can be filled by Americans. I think you are overestimating the American work ethic. Some McDonald's restaurants pay their workers higher wages than most other fast food restaurants. Why give higher pay for essentially the same kind of work? Because McDonald's is the stereotypical "bad job." No one wants to work at McDonald's because of the poor image it receives, so McDonald's is forced to pay higher wages to get employees. The same can be said about any job that is associated with low status. Americans don't want these jobs and most would rather leech off the government than work an undesirable job.

Here's the thing: legal citizens have held these jobs for years. No, nobody really wants to work at a fast food place, but they will if they have to. But as I said, if illegal immigrants keep taking these "undesirable" jobs, then there aren't any jobs left for our own citizens. Plus it'd probably build America's work ethic to encourage people to find a job like that instead of just giving it to a foreigner, because no matter what kind of job you have, you should live with it, because it is going to give you a roof to live under and it gets the bills paid. That's really what work is all about; it doesn't have to be "desirable," and I think Americans have lost sight of that and that's not good for our work ethic. If we keep giving these jobs to illegal immigrants, then how does that give the desire to work in our own citizens?

And while it's true that cheap labor keeps prices down, back to the taxes issue, who's to say that it's really cheaper in the end to have illegal immigrants working in these jobs?

As an added note, not only are there issues with illegal immigration in terms of jobs and finances, but what about the safety of our country? I'm not just talking about terrorists, but in general people who are not supposed to be in the country because of crimes they've committed in their own native country and legal issues they are afraid of facing as illegal immigrants. Granted there are obviously American citizens who commit crimes too, but not allowing criminals from other countries into the country would make everyone safer and make crimes a lot easier to deal with without having to go through more legal issues than usual.

[killshot]

This is where I get the idea: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004..._5812_5_04.txt

Granted, the article was written in 2004, but seeing that more illegal immigrants are in the United States right now, particularly in states like California, I imagine the numbers are a bit higher.

This article only mentions how much tax money was spent on these immigrants. It never said anything about having to raise taxes because of illegal immigration. The people would have had to pay taxes regardless, so what does it matter how the money is spent? I for one, think using the money to educate the children of these immigrants is hardly a waste of taxpayer money. Keep in mind that if these children were born on US soil, they are American citizens regardless of where their parents are from. I think the money is better spent on their education rather than on preventative laws that attempt to keep other immigrants out of the country.

Here's the thing: legal citizens have held these jobs for years. No, nobody really wants to work at a fast food place, but they will if they have to. But as I said, if illegal immigrants keep taking these "undesirable" jobs, then there aren't any jobs left for our own citizens. Plus it'd probably build America's work ethic to encourage people to find a job like that instead of just giving it to a foreigner, because no matter what kind of job you have, you should live with it, because it is going to give you a roof to live under and it gets the bills paid. That's really what work is all about; it doesn't have to be "desirable," and I think Americans have lost sight of that and that's not good for our work ethic. If we keep giving these jobs to illegal immigrants, then how does that give the desire to work in our own citizens?

Of course people will work these jobs if they have too, but many times it will be as a last resort. Working minimum wage is hardly worth the effort to most people, so if the opportunity comes to just sponge off of relatives or the government, many people would make that choice. The idea that Americans should just suck it up and take whatever job comes their way sounds nice on paper, but you can't force people to work jobs they don't want.

If you are going to attack American workers for being lazy, then try to keep things in perspective. Have you ever heard a surgeon complaining about the immigrants coming over and taking his/her job? The vast majority of jobs that illegal immigrants are filling are low level, unskilled jobs. If someone doesn't even have the desire to learn a skill that can't be replaced in a heartbeat by an untrained worker, why should you feel sorry for them when they get replaced by someone who is more than happy take a job at reduced pay?

As an added note, not only are there issues with illegal immigration in terms of jobs and finances, but what about the safety of our country? I'm not just talking about terrorists, but in general people who are not supposed to be in the country because of crimes they've committed in their own native country and legal issues they are afraid of facing as illegal immigrants. Granted there are obviously American citizens who commit crimes too, but not allowing criminals from other countries into the country would make everyone safer and make crimes a lot easier to deal with without having to go through more legal issues than usual.

How would we go about keeping these criminals out? We can't even catch regular people just trying to make a living so how are we going to catch someone with experience at evading the authorities? This just circles back to more guards and higher fences, so don't really see where you are going with this. There are plenty of criminals right here in America, so I don't see a few more foreign criminals as a major threat.



I think I have made my point and will stop here. I'll let Sally take the last word, if she has anything else to add.

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, this debate ends. Judges will proceed to scoring.

Scores:

killshot - 14
MrsSallyBakura - 14

[MrsSallyBakura]

Didn't have time to submit a closing comment. Oh well.

[darkarcher]

7-7

Can't really think of any comments at the moment. I'll add them later if I think of any.

[Spoofs3]

I vote 7-7 aswell
Seriously, Its hard to judge that round.
Especially with all the "In the united States" This, And "In the united States" That.
Either way. I got lost really trying to find my way out of the united states

[grimfang999]

erm... so... what happens now, its been almost a week since it ended, and the scores are tied...

[MrsSallyBakura]

Wait for more judges to decide, I guess.

[killshot]

The judging period is over and I suspect Tatterdemalion will be the one to break the tie.

[grimfang999]

ok then...

*elevator music*

[Tatterdemalion]

The elevator music in question, by the way, is "The Girl From Ipanema"

Yeah, I was hoping, hoping, ever so hoping that I wouldn't have to break another tie, but so it seems I do. Quite unfortunately.

Okay, we've got a problem here, than being how incredibly even this whole thing is. Your arguments are both sound, and both have pretty well fortified justifications, and reasonably detailed justifications behind them.


In the end, however, I'm going to have to score this 6-8 in favor of killshot.

Now, I know what you're thinking, why such a difference in scores if the arguments are so evenly matched?Well, what it all comes down to is actually how closely the arguments relate to the question. MrsSallyBakura's entire argument is rooted around the notion that illegal immigration is overall detrimental to the American economy and the American worker, and that therefore it should be prevented with stricter measures. Now, killshot does do a pretty even job of countering this, with an essentially equally well presented argument that immigration has a positive effect on the economy to an extent,

The key difference, however, lies in killshot's first post. In addition to his counterargument, killshot presents an argument of his own, that the amount of money and effort focused on preventing illegal immigration would be too expensive, too time consuming, and too unsuccessful to be practical. Now, this is only a few sentences, but the entire argument goes virtually unaddressed, regardless of the fact that it is one of the most relevant points relative to the question. Also, killshot's argument with regards to educating the children of immigrants is another relevant point with regards to finance that goes uncontested.

So, because he not only presents an equally strong counterargument, but because his counterargument on top of that goes virtually unchallenged, killshot is the victor, with a final score of 20-22.

And to think, with all of the long arguing and detailed posts and the like, killshot secured his win because of a few sentences in his opening statement.

Also, one thing I'd like to say, just out of interest:

Have you ever heard a surgeon complaining about the immigrants coming over and taking his/her job?

Although illegal immigrants don't do such work, interestingly enough a very large percentage of doctors in the United States today are actually immigrants. My surgeon is an immigrant, actually. So yeah, I just thought I'd mention that, because it's interesting.

In any case, that means that the next and final debate is going to be Spoofs3 v. killshot.

The subject here is healthcare. Killshot will be arguing that healthcare should be completely privatized, whereas Spoofs3 will be arguing that healthcare should be socialized.

Yes,I am aware that because you live in different countries, your respective countries' policies with regards to healthcare are radically different. That being said, don't let this cultural boundary get in the way of things, your respective countries are still similar in enough respects for arguments to be valid with respect to both. You may not be able to work entirely from previous experience, involving just a teensy bit of research. Then again, this is the finals, so I think that's reasonable.

Spoofs3 will begin. Good luck to you both.

[Spoofs3]

MY GODS.
Why wasn't I PM'd sooner?
I don't pay attention to anything now do I?
Better file a debate up ASAP

Ok, Good luck my friend
(Hate beginning :P)


Ok, Healthcare for Socialist? Of course I agree with that!
Who wouldn't? And right now I am going to give a list of Reasons why]

REASON NUMBER 1:
Healthcare is life. With a good healthcare, You will have a better chance of living longer, Shouldn't all human beings have this chance for as little money as possible?
For this I shall bring in a few sources,
1st: In 1776, The declaration of Independence was released. In this bill this was stated "among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Life being the key word there. If health care gives life Shouldn't your government give it for free under YOUR constitution?

2nd: My constitution is next: Art 2. It states "Article 2 protects the right of every person to their life." THis means that I too am protected by constitution for my life, My life could be threatened by a disease, My constitution SHOULD help me, SAVE me before its too late.
And last, The most important on of all 3rd: The universal Declaration of Human Rights from the UN states "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person"
Would you feel secure if you found out you couldn't get help dying from cancer because or lack of healthcare?
I wouldn't.
By all of these constitutions we should ALL have close to nothing health care, TO protect our lives, and the ones we love.


REASON 2:
Health Care has been known to fail quite alot in both our countries, And do not try disagree with me here.
Would you really want to go to a doctor fearing you have something terrible, And it turns out you had an Anxiety attack brought on by the flu? (Happened to me before) And are charged 50 Euro just to be told you are ok?
Of course this system can be questioned, And that is MY healthcare system. Who knows what your healthcare system is being one of the most Right wing countries in the modern world and having Privatly owned Hospitals?
Hell because of this, A survey was taken out and it is proven
40% of all citizens of the United States do not have adequate healthcare.
I think this means it is time for change. A Socialist change.

REASON 3:
Lets compare countries shall we?
Let us travel to a far away land of make believe, Where Health care is one of the best in the world, foreigners come here for healthcare from many different countries, As they are treated quite very much the same as their own citizens, it is called Tourist Healthcare.
DOES SUCH A PLACE EXIST?
I hear you ask, WHy yes! And you don't have to be a rocket scientist to find it!
Just look across the water and you will see an Island that has been criticized for connections to the Soviet Union. THats right
Socialist Cuba.
I bring this up because it has one of the Best healthcare systems in the world. So good people go there as I said to receive it.
You can receive healthcare up to 80% cheaper to the US and thats not all!
Cubas healthcare is so good they decided to share it witht he world!
Their main foreign aid to countries in need IS in fact Medicine
So why not take an Example from our good old friend the Socialists?

Over to you now, Lets see what ya got ^_^
Sorry for my late reply I don't pay attention... To anything

[killshot]

Good luck Spoofs.

We both can agree that health care is important to everyone, including both our countries. We also can agree the current health care systems in both our countries leave something to be desired. A change in the way these systems are run is needed, but socialism is hardly the answer.

What's the problem with socialized health care you might ask? This may be difficult to explain because we live in two different countries, but in America, almost every system the government has full authority over is failing miserably. Our education system is socialized and you may have heard about the sorry state it's in. Our highways are managed by the government and road construction is often painfully inefficient with no progress being made where it is needed and redundant projects springing up all over the place. Should we leave something as important as health care in the hands of government?

Another issue with socialized health care is long waiting periods. With so many patients able to be admitted, everyone is going to have to wait longer for the medical attention they need. There are a limited amount of doctors and health care professionals available and they can only treat one patient at a time. People can die waiting on surgeries that they could have had if only there hadn't been so many people ahead of them on the waiting list. You might of heard about people spending the night in an overcrowded emergency room in Canada, a country with socialized health care. People may deserve health care, but they also deserve medical attention in a timely manner.

In a privatized system, the quality of health care is ensured through competition. If a business offered substandard care, then patients would go elsewhere. This system ensures the best possible health care available to anyone who can afford it. Unfortunately, cost is the major downside of a privatized system. But the thing is, health care costs money. Lots of it. Who is going to pay for hospitals, hospital staff, and the machinery needed to run tests? Even in a socialized system, everyone ends up paying for these things through tax revenue. But is it really fair for everyone to have to pay when not everyone uses these services? Is it fair to make a perfectly healthy individual pay the same amount for health care as someone who needs constant treatment? This is where private health care really shines. It places the financial burden on the people who are actually using the services provided by the health care industry. This distributes the cost of health care fairly among the people using it.

[grimfang999]

i have something to say, but ill leave it untill after the debate as it will give spoofs the upper hand

[Spoofs3]

Good luck Spoofs.
What's the problem with socialized health care you might ask? This may be difficult to explain because we live in two different countries, but in America, almost every system the government has full authority over is failing miserably. Our education system is socialized and you may have heard about the sorry state it's in. Our highways are managed by the government and road construction is often painfully inefficient with no progress being made where it is needed and redundant projects springing up all over the place. Should we leave something as important as health care in the hands of government?

But does that really explain the sorry state of Socialized Healthcare or just American Socialism?
Of course it cannot be used to speak for the world.
Ok guys, I guess you are a bit sick of Cuba since I used it in my LAST arguement, So lets get a bit closer to my home shall we?
Let's travel to a Capatalist country this time, Get a bit closer to what Capatalist Socialist Health Care CAN be.
Welcome to Britain! This time I take us to live in the area of the NHS, The National Health Service.
It of course, Is quite a good service where going to the doctor could cost as little as ?5 per trip, Bit of a difference to the 50 I paid because I had the flu eh?
Of course there is some in taxes, But either way, It comes down to much cheaper than our system.
This is a much better system and is also considered one of the best
And as you know, Britain is not Communist like Cuba, So can a Capatalist country provide good Socialist Healthcare?
The answer? yes, Yes it can, Be more British and you too can save someones life!


Another issue with socialized health care is long waiting periods. With so many patients able to be admitted, everyone is going to have to wait longer for the medical attention they need. There are a limited amount of doctors and health care professionals available and they can only treat one patient at a time. People can die waiting on surgeries that they could have had if only there hadn't been so many people ahead of them on the waiting list. You might of heard about people spending the night in an overcrowded emergency room in Canada, a country with socialized health care. People may deserve health care, but they also deserve medical attention in a timely manner.

True Facts guys?
I THINK NOT!
I don't know about you, But here in Ireland with our health care Right wing and not socialist we have people waiting in the Corridors no matter what!
It gets so bad that people are waiting quite a long time to get treated, Not only for simple causes but major ones aswell,
Lets travel back over to britain where the problem may be quite equally the same, But at least its cheap you have to admit
In ALL countries you have to wait, Socialist or Capitalist, Waiting is there, And you wait shorter times in Socialist Healthcare Britain than Right wing Healthcare Ireland.
So why choose our healthcare system if they have it slightly better in all aspects?


In a privatized system, the quality of health care is ensured through competition. If a business offered substandard care, then patients would go elsewhere. This system ensures the best possible health care available to anyone who can afford it. Unfortunately, cost is the major downside of a privatized system. But the thing is, health care costs money. Lots of it. Who is going to pay for hospitals, hospital staff, and the machinery needed to run tests? Even in a socialized system, everyone ends up paying for these things through tax revenue. But is it really fair for everyone to have to pay when not everyone uses these services? Is it fair to make a perfectly healthy individual pay the same amount for health care as someone who needs constant treatment? This is where private health care really shines. It places the financial burden on the people who are actually using the services provided by the health care industry. This distributes the cost of health care fairly among the people using it.

Are you honoustly going to do that?
What ever happened to a united country? Help fellow country men? It is surely Unamerican to leave a citizen of the country to die no matter the reason, Especially of their history of having a CIVIL WAR to help Negros in their community, Why help those in the community and turn at the next border saying "Sorry, Can't help ya friend"
Surely thats being a teensy bit hypocritical isn't it?
I believe that everyone should help one another in these aspects, Sure using your arguement, Why should someone pay taxes for roads if they do not have a car? Why pay for Public education if they do not have children?
Why pay so many of the needless taxes?
The answer is simple, To help the community, Without one helping another, It would have crashed at the first hurdle.
Surely you can help one another in this aspect too?


Back to you KillShot ^_^

[Tormented]

... Oh, this still exists... I hate this new forum.

[grimfang999]

i quite like it in some ways. in alot of ways actaully, i would like a hybrid of this and the old site myself :P

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, it's been two days since the last response...and two days since the first one...judges will proceed to scoring.

Killshot - 12

Spoofs3 - 14

[grimfang999]

im asuming there will be three judges, darkarcher, spoofs and tormented, the other two seem inactive

[Zairak]

Spoofs can't judge his own debate.

[grimfang999]

then i was correct the first time lol

[killshot]

Well crap. I thought I could get something up by the end of today, but I forgot about the two day rule. Hopefully one post will be enough.

[darkarcher]

6-7 Spoofs.

I think killshot suffered a bit for not getting in a second post, but he didn't do too badly. Spoofs debated better but had a few instances where international differences caused logical pitfalls, so both did okay. Neither necessarily did excellent.

[geminigirl]

I agree 6 - killshot
7 - Spoofs3

[Tatterdemalion]

Spoofs3, it's time for you to make your tournament-winning acceptance speech. Come on, Spoofs, we're all behind you. This is your moment, Live life while it lasts.

[grimfang999]

*drum roll*
*trumpets in a victorious tune*

[Spoofs3]

Wow, Real good guys, I thank ya alot, I am really happy o accept this award for... Being able to be right and would like to thank the little people I had to step on on my way up here and the big people whom I had to ass kiss
I am really happy to be achieving this award and sad at the same time because I have finished watching Clone High, Either way its time to be happy now and have a huge party when no one can stop me whatever I do.
Come on guys, Everyone to Tatterdemalions Gaf for a House party!

<3

[Tatterdemalion]

Many happy congrats. Wait, that's wrong...oh well.

So thus the tournament comes to a close. Sign up for the Third Edition of the Debate Tournament will begin a week from today. Well, technically you can start putting your names down now, it's just that I'm not going to start listing them until next week, continuing for 5 days, or until we have 8 people.

There are going to be a few changes, to not only keep things interesting, but as part of further attempts to iron out the kinks, and get the Tournament running as smoothly as possible.

I'll explain in full detail next week, once I have everything sorted out and official. Until then, feel free to put your name down, or feel free to wait for the More Information.

[grimfang999]

might as well be first comed first served

i am joining

[killshot]

I'll go ahead and sign up early.

[Fat1Fared]

I will sign up

[Spoofs3]

I sign up early too as returning champion.
Also, Good luck guys ^_^

[grimfang999]

btw, could we like base this tournement on philosophy? i really need to have a philosophical discussion right about now...

[grimfang999]

can we now get this tournement started? i dont mean to sound impatient but it is only fair to say that time is short

[Tatterdemalion]

Signup for judges going once...going twice...

If we don't get any by tomorrow, I'm just going to have to take over that role, as waiting it out any longer would just be ridiculous.

And then we'll be on our way.

[darkarcher]

I'll judge.

[Tatterdemalion]

Great, so it goes something like this:

Contestants:

Spoofs3 (C)
killshot
grimfang999
fat1fared

Judges:

darkarcher
Spoofs3

In any case, this time around we have very few people, which gives us a bit of elbow room. I was considering introducing something a bit different than what we've been doing, in the sense of something a bit more structured, perhaps something modeled loosely around Lincoln-Douglas, but at the same time I get the feeling that something more freestyle, which is essentially what we've been having.

Although at the same time, grimfang999 did ask for this tournament to be based on philosophy, so this time around debates will follow the Socratic method. In an oversimplified way, of course.

That is to say, while the person taking the affirmative position will indeed make an assertion, the person taking the negative will not present a counterargument, but will instead try to refute the affirmative by finding inconsistencies or contradictions through questioning and cross examination.

Thank you, grimfang999, for this wonderful idea.

Otherwise, the procedure is essentially the same as before. Because we only have one judge, however, points will not be awarded, and instead each debate will be decided as win/lose.

The first debate will be grimfang999 v. Fat1Fared.

grimfang999 will be asserting that sovereignty is necessary for order and justice to exist in human society. Fat1Fared will be cross examining.

Is that philosphical enough? I hope so.

[grimfang999]

it shall do for a start :) thanks for taking my idea up, and good luck fatty

ill start on picking up on the contexts of good an evil. good for a religous term can be meaning following the teachings of the holy book(s). in law it is following the law. hrough a general innocent civilised person, it is about not doing any physical or mental harm to others without good reason such as in defence of a friend, family member or yourself and doing the opposite or harm and helping others instead. evil is seen in one general way: destroying, hurting and ruining people's lives or the environment around them with little to no good cause.

this brings me onto my point. human nature itself, as well as most life forms in nature, are guided by urges and desire. while we are permitted to follow those, in an advanced society of intellegence we need to limit it. why? that may be asked by some. with us all living together in 'civilisation' where we are all from different 'packs' as they would be in nature, brings a want to keep as much for yourselves to keep them alive, and so if things were free you would take more than you need and so would everybody else and those who can last would and could not have anything or very little, moving then to burglary to get food and possessions, causing either a sense of revenge in the one who was stolen from or cause them to burgle, forming either a chain or sequence of vengeful murders.

law and order was created to keep people under control, as was religion, and through them our ideas of good and evil. currency was created to keep law and order and prevent greed. jail and executions were to stop crimes from being done. but law and order with no say from the ones who must follow can cause anger and rioting, and so the Greeks created democracy: all people get to vote on thier view on a decree but the originial potent laws are made by those in a higher power, either the government or supreme ruler before letting the public decide, making the people feel heard. for over 2000 years democracy has been the major system of the western world, which, needless to say but no offense to our eastern neighbours in asia, has been the most powerful countries for several millenia now, and democracy is a form of sovereignity.

moving on to the different forms or soveriegnity. monarchy and imperium both generally follow hereditary rule; when the old emperor/empress/king/queen dies, their heir, usually one of their older children, will replace them on the throne. two of the greatest empires were ruled by this: the Romans and the Britains. each of them did have a government of course, but the monarch's word was law. it is an unwritten fact, but a known saying which says, in paraphrase, since i cannot remember the exact words, is that soldiers do not like to be under the rule of one who is not royal blood. this is proved in the battle of hastings, where england lost the only one of its many wars in the past 1000 years, and in that battle the "monarch" was just a very powerful man who took over after the old king had died, thus not being of royal blood. there is some sort of indirect link between army sucess and royal blood.

putting military aside before i get too far off track, my point is with a single major ruler advised and assisted with a less powerful government, works in maintaining large empires. however there is the darker side of one person ruling, and thats when democracy beat itself in its own game. when hitler rose to power in 1936, he used democracy to change it to a far more extreme form of heritary rule: facism. it is not that facism is ba, as, going back to good and evil, if Hitler was a benovelent man who kept everyone equal without bias, facism could have worked, just like communism would have worked if people were not so drawn by greed. with him in full control of germany he killed millions of jews, persecuted the rest, then, being drawn by greed as we mostly all are, went to invade the rest of the world. fortunately sharing civics can also build country relations, as well as long time friendships between britain, america and russia prevented him from gaining domination.

since i have spent too long on this and am running out of ideas and tiring myself, i conclude that soveriegnity is necessary for many things, maintaining law and order, and boosting an armies morale. both one-man rule and democracy work well, the first can be more unstable as some are more drawn to greed and power than others, and can twist it into from being a force of civil "good" to a barbaric "evil", whereas democracy has the government who may have opposing views and then laws are put to the public who may be against a final choice by the government. so long as the single man rule ha a benevolent leader the country will run smoothly. concluding there democracy is the best from of maintaining justice to a law passing scale, but a good single man rule can be equally as good or better or worse to degrees, and without these there would not even be a human society, only a mass of swirling chaos and destruction and constant civic wars.

[Fat1Fared]

Thank you Grim, and good luck to you too: (Please be nice about my grammer, I have dyslexia)

Well, this is a very interesting area for me, as it is the area in which I wish to spend my life within, maybe this why Tatter gave it me lol. Ether way there is a fun irony to it, but it has also allowed me to see the many others sides to sovereignty and its rule. Now I am going to go take it, that when you say sovereignty, you mean the word, in its legal sense and that the means, the rule/leadership of a country by a sovereign group/person . Many say you need these poeple to control human race, as without them it be Anarchy and though this would mean free self-rule for all, in truth it would only mean, freedom for the strong. And I believe this is true, however if we spin this around, when you give poeple power, you do this by default anyway and if History has tort us anything, it is that if someone is given power, they will abuse it, from Joseph Starlin to Oliver Cromwell, all took power and used it for their own tyrannical ends, this means, that we may as well not bother with it, and should try and find knew way of controlling human nature.

ill start on picking up on the contexts of good an evil. good for a religous term can be meaning following the teachings of the holy book(s). in law it is following the law. hrough a general innocent civilised person, it is about not doing any physical or mental harm to others without good reason such as in defence of a friend, family member or yourself and doing the opposite or harm and helping others instead. evil is seen in one general way: destroying, hurting and ruining people's lives or the environment around them with little to no good cause.

this brings me onto my point. human nature itself, as well as most life forms in nature, are guided by urges and desire. while we are permitted to follow those, in an advanced society of intellegence we need to limit it. why? that may be asked by some. with us all living together in 'civilisation' where we are all from different 'packs' as they would be in nature, brings a want to keep as much for yourselves to keep them alive, and so if things were free you would take more than you need and so would everybody else and those who can last would and could not have anything or very little, moving then to burglary to get food and possessions, causing either a sense of revenge in the one who was stolen from or cause them to burgle, forming either a chain or sequence of vengeful murders.

I am going cross examine these first two paragraphs together, if I may. It is true that we are human and so like any creature, we will have primitive urges guiding us, however I think it is questionable whether sovereignty really limits these, as if someone is a murder, then whether sovereignty power or not, they will still be a murder. Infact most of the greatest acts of EVIL and primitive savagery have been done under the order of a sovereign power, from Christian Crusades to the Joseph Starlin, ordering the Mass murder of 16million poeple, this does not paint a good picture for Sovereignty. Yet if we look back at many PRIMITIVE hurter gather societies in Britain, these poeple of our lawless past, usually worked very well together and from evidence found, there was very little volience found in them, until, the Roman Empire came to Britain, and bort Sovereign power and civilizations volience with them. So in truth, Sovereign, only seem to allow humans to be even more brutal and instead of limiting or savage nature, they merely give it targets, and instead of force of peace, they are force of power and war

law and order was created to keep people under control, as was religion, and through them our ideas of good and evil. currency was created to keep law and order and prevent greed. jail and executions were to stop crimes from being done. but law and order with no say from the ones who must follow can cause anger and rioting, and so the Greeks created democracy: all people get to vote on thier view on a decree but the originial potent laws are made by those in a higher power, either the government or supreme ruler before letting the public decide, making the people feel heard. for over 2000 years democracy has been the major system of the western world, which, needless to say but no offense to our eastern neighbours in asia, has been the most powerful countries for several millenia now, and democracy is a form of sovereignity.

Well, it is interesting you talk about the Greeks, as it was infact only the Athenian Greeks who had Democracy and they had some interesting practises to say lest, a good example for this, being that very Athenian could be called to army without any say, meaning no matter how peaceful person was, could be forced into fighting. Also the First Civilison found was Persian Empire, which had a very interesting past with Greeks and disprite what some poor movie, may tell you, a lot of Greece was infact taken over by Persian Empire and this Empire started as one small nomadic tribe, which seems to show a set sovereign power is not even needed, to make an Empire, let alone control our very human nature itself. As for Western power, well some Chinese historians may have few things to say there, as for over 5000years they had one of first and largest Empires in history, which came from the Mandate of Heaven system, which meant anyone could rule, as long as heaven (or poeple in reality) wanted them, and anyone could remove them, this meant there was no set sovereign ruler and so meant, that China could constantly revive itself, when one ruling class started to fail. This going against the very core of sovereign belief, that must be one set ruler/ruling system was what made China so strong and allowed the beliefs of Buddhism (one free religion) and family above all else to grow, now China has a very western and ortherdox sovereign power, it has far less freedom and far more social problems/social unrest. Also a final point is that the only group to ever take over whole of this empire, was another nomadic, non-sovereign group, The Mongolians.

(Refence, Fitzgerald: Rise of Communist China) (This made be hard for those who don't know legal view of sovereignty/ the history of China to understand, but the Chinese system, basically meant that there was no legal power holding person in ruling place, other than holding sigh of Mandate of Heaven, this meant no legal sovereignty, meaning easy to remove, read book refenced to learn more)

Also, it was these European dormants, which started WW1 to, protect their so call great
sovereign power

moving on to the different forms or soveriegnity. monarchy and imperium both generally follow hereditary rule; when the old emperor/empress/king/queen dies, their heir, usually one of their older children, will replace them on the throne. two of the greatest empires were ruled by this: the Romans and the Britains. each of them did have a government of course, but the monarch's word was law. it is an unwritten fact, but a known saying which says, in paraphrase, since i cannot remember the exact words, is that soldiers do not like to be under the rule of one who is not royal blood. this is proved in the battle of hastings, where england lost the only one of its many wars in the past 1000 years, and in that battle the "monarch" was just a very powerful man who took over after the old king had died, thus not being of royal blood. there is some sort of indirect link between army sucess and royal blood.

Not too go over old ground to much, this seems to point to my view that, sovereign powers make just as many problems as remove, maybe more, when think of Britain, think of things such as civil war and slavery. So all they do is control poeple, to keep civil peace and in payment they make war....etc other world problems, which makes far more civil unrest, hardly great trade.
Also if these wars are good, and sovereign powers make them so much stronger, why, then is the greatest defeat in British history, done to a so call primitive African group, the Zulu's and their tribal freudual system.

putting military aside before i get too far off track, my point is with a single major ruler advised and assisted with a less powerful government, works in maintaining large empires. however there is the darker side of one person ruling, and thats when democracy beat itself in its own game. when hitler rose to power in 1936, he used democracy to change it to a far more extreme form of heritary rule: facism. it is not that facism is ba, as, going back to good and evil, if Hitler was a benovelent man who kept everyone equal without bias, facism could have worked, just like communism would have worked if people were not so drawn by greed. with him in full control of germany he killed millions of jews, persecuted the rest, then, being drawn by greed as we mostly all are, went to invade the rest of the world. fortunately sharing civics can also build country relations, as well as long time friendships between britain, america and russia prevented him from gaining domination.

Well, this again agrees with my point and shows that, these sovereign powers cause many of worlds problems, and yes if hiltor had been good, then who knows, but he wasn't and I think there is a line in the theological Movie "Before Sun Rise" by Richard Linklater which sums up why, "Those who want to do good in world, rarely have ambition for power." This is very true and before poeple judge me for using movie refence, please watch movie as Richard Linklater is very clever and deep dictator who movies show his well read, world view, and are basically about these kinds of areas.

Anyway, you could say that these are the rare exstreams, but lets move to USA (seem to base too much of this in Britain right now) where what is suppose to be the leaders in areas of peace, freedom, equal rights...etc. IT was this county which has driven many other countries in poverty and caused the mass starvation, also it has tried to force it believes on other countries such as Korea and Vetairam with very negative results for its own poeple and poeple of these countries, also it was only in last few years that Female and Ethic rights have have begun to be looked at and improved in this country, this all comes from the failures and in some cases, purposeful movements of its sovereign powers and if wasn't for these sovereign powers, these problems wouldn't be there ether

(PS sorry to any Americans here, as know Britain, does not have great record in some of thee areas ether, just your history is more close and well known)

since i have spent too long on this and am running out of ideas and tiring myself, i conclude that soveriegnity is necessary for many things, maintaining law and order, and boosting an armies morale. both one-man rule and democracy work well, the first can be more unstable as some are more drawn to greed and power than others, and can twist it into from being a force of civil "good" to a barbaric "evil", whereas democracy has the government who may have opposing views and then laws are put to the public who may be against a final choice by the government. so long as the single man rule ha a benevolent leader the country will run smoothly. concluding there democracy is the best from of maintaining justice to a law passing scale, but a good single man rule can be equally as good or better or worse to degrees, and without these there would not even be a human society, only a mass of swirling chaos and destruction and constant civic wars.

Well, with your 3 points:

1=Is it really needed, as even in modern day, in many countries, especially American, have many groups breaking from their Sovereign rulers and starting own peaceful, leaderless mini societies and many of these have been hit hard by the sovereign rulers, who fear what they could become. Also they break away because of sovereign powers problems I have stated above.

2=Would need armies if wasn't any sovereign powers? NO!

3=Demorcary, may look good on paper, but even if most countries didn't have woeful democratic voting records, (England=33%) most are not truly democratic and merely have what is "legally" known as an Elected Dictatorship and this is still there even if, we again ignore fact that many of these leadership groups are set in close upper class circles anyway, meaning shows their values, not societies

In summing up, its seems to me, that most sovereignty seems to cause problems, not solve them and though may stop small evils, the few lives saved by them, are far out weighed by the many lives lost because of them. They seem take and control a lot without giving much back and finally, in truth, no matter how smart/dump, young/old, wise/foolish, arrogant/carm a person is, is any mans view of how to live his own life, really worth anymore than another mans view? No, this means that no man should have right to tell anyone how to live.

PS please knock, a few points off me, as a have just had a coursework on similar area, (though only looked at democratic sovereignty's not all and was more defending lol) meaning little unfair on Grim,

[grimfang999]

well i do appreciate your nobleness at the end about knocking some points off, however i must decline it, as i have learnt much from what you have said but i will have to research your facts a little further before i can counter your argument

[Tatterdemalion]

Keep in mind, Fat1Fared, that a cross examination is a line of questioning, not a counterargument, which is what you gave.

Still, I'm going to leave the interpretation of everything you write up to darkarcher, considering he's the judge after all.

Just pointing that out.

[Fat1Fared]

Bugger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well good luck in next round grim, as I really can't do what he asked, as not sure what tatter means? my debating skills come in form of counter arguments, which thought was way of cross examining ,
well anyway, good luck

[Spoofs3]

Signup for judges going once...going twice...

If we don't get any by tomorrow, I'm just going to have to take over that role, as waiting it out any longer would just be ridiculous.

And then we'll be on our way.

When i said I sign up, I meant as Judge and as Competitor, As I usually do, Sorry for the confusion...

[grimfang999]

Keep in mind, Fat1Fared, that a cross examination is a line of questioning, not a counterargument, which is what you gave.

Still, I'm going to leave the interpretation of everything you write up to darkarcher, considering he's the judge after all.

Just pointing that out.

Bugger!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

well good luck in next round grim, as I really can't do what he asked, as not sure what tatter means? my debating skills come in form of counter arguments, which thought was way of cross examining ,
well anyway, good luck

no, fat, i dont want to go through with no resistance, thats boring and dishonerable in my eyes. if you do reconstruct it, i wish you luck

[Fat1Fared]

well, I am not giving up, but not sure what tatter means, as I thought by putting counterpoints, naturally meant you were questioned,

So I will stick with what got and hope DA agrees with my way of thinking, if he doesn't then it is my failing, not your yours and you put up strong debate anyway

[grimfang999]

thanks, jusr remember its not over yet, we will continue probebly

[Tatterdemalion]

well, I am not giving up, but not sure what tatter means, as I thought by putting counterpoints, naturally meant you were questioned,

Generally speaking, following the Socratic one person presents an assertion, or an argument, and the other, through questioning, tries to find inconsistencies, contradictions and similar things in that argument, in order to ultimately demonstrate that the argument is unstable.

I need to stop using such convoluted language...

In any case, by all means, continue.I'd actually like to see where this goes.

[Tatterdemalion]

When i said I sign up, I meant as Judge and as Competitor, As I usually do, Sorry for the confusion...

Yeah, I wonder about how good an idea that whole judges being competitors thing is...anyway, I've added you to the list.

[Fat1Fared]

Tatter, this wasn't me critising you, it is my problem, sometimes I have a one track mind, which struggles to see others views of words, I can understand a point, whether I agree with it or not, but sometimes, I will only get one view/understanding of it (one of reasons, I will never make it as a judge)

And I know what meant by cross-examining, through questioning (I would be I pretty poor lawyer, if didn't, well I'm not a lawyer yet, but still) just didn't see how it would work in a debate, I do bit of debating and always done it, with counter points, based on their points, which have a natural retort or questioning in them

Anyway, I will look at some past debates on here, see if that helps my understanding, why'll I won't for my honorable debater to retort my points lol

[Tatterdemalion]

Anyway, I will look at some past debates on here, see if that helps my understanding, why'll I won't for my honorable debater to retort my points lol

nah, past debates on here follow more the format of your approach.

You know what, just do your thing. I think that's what's best.

[Tatterdemalion]

Okay, time's up, judges, those being Spoofs3 and darkarcher, you know what to do.

[darkarcher]

Okay, time's up, judges, those being Spoofs3 and darkarcher, you know what to do.

Wait, we do? jk jk

grimfang - 5
Fat1Fared - 4

I was willing to overlook the fact that Fared misunderstood the directions in favor of just judging the debate as it was.

First, grimfang999. Unfortunately your argument didn't have much structure or fluidity to it. This may be attributed in part to your lack of grammar. At any rate, I had difficulty in understanding your argument for the most part. However, you had some very good points and explained your examples well. Furthermore, your overall points were fairly solid.

Now for Fat1Fared. I think grammar hurt your argument a little as well. Anyway, you didn't really put forth much new information, only attempting to reverse what grimfang had said. (I know that you wouldn't have been required to from the requested modus of debate, but since you chose the counter-argument form that is what I am judging. Overall you at least knew where you were going with your argument. However, your final points were heavily subjective so they don't really have the proper strength behind them.

[Fat1Fared]

First, thank you dark for over looking my mistake

Second, I using standard english maybe that is what hurt it lol, only joking, I am dyslexic so annoyingly always going to bit of poor area for me, but understand that it is unfair on others to ignore it, so again fair reasoning

Third, can see what you are saying with lack of new info, I did full counter information, rather new sourced counter points, though in my defense, this area, is hard to fine creditable anti soverigin evidence, rather mindless rambling agianst society, unless look at area's included

However, may I ask, if I had put some sources behind my info, would that have strengthened it, (as everything there, was from known sources, I just didn't refenece as well as could have or at all)

Finally Good luck in final Grim and Co

[grimfang999]

I am dyslexic so annoyingly always going to bit of poor area for me


lol, did you know im dysgraphic? (well i think, i havent officially been diagnosed but i have the key symptoms) its a subcatagory of dyslexia but just of handwriting rather than the reading difficulties and stuff. but its not a bad thing, alot of famous people who changed the world have dyslexia :D

http://www.dys-add.com/symptoms.html#dysgraphia

[grimfang999]

right i think we are having another of those judge forgets he is judge scenario

[Tatterdemalion]

Odd, Spoofs3 hasn't been on for the past 4 days.

In any case, this debate ends with grimfang999 winning at a score of 5-4.

That being said, we move on to Spoofs3 v. killshot.

Keeping on the whole philosophy thread, going into something pretty general here, Spoofs3 will be arguing that universal truths can be arrived at through the use of reason. Killshot will be opposing.

The debate will begin when Spoofs3 next appears on this website. Unless that takes forever, but I doubt it will.

[grimfang999]

lol same here, but the world cannot be ruled by justice as easily when the judge is in a coma

[Spoofs3]

What the hell does Universal truths and reason mean?
Wow I fail at being a returning champion this time don't I?

[grimfang999]

What the hell does Universal truths and reason mean?
Wow I fail at being a returning champion this time don't I?

its basicly saying how we can find out how and why the universe works by using common sense and developed knowledge

[Spoofs3]

Well not knowing what it meant will defintally hamper my score either way,
lets begin!

I would first like to greet the judges, Spectators, Honorable chairperson and my opponent, Killshot (didn't we debate twie before in the other tournament?, Guess faith likes us)
And now I would like to give an opening speech one which will most definitely start this debate.
I will be showing evidence of how the world was created using logic, Never mind the future, but of the present, For we have already discovered so much already, From the simplest ideas of how the universe works like Gravity, TO modern day genetics, We have always found a way to discover, and realize how things work. Lets start with the basics.

We have already found out some things of how things work, And not recently, Gravity was discovered ages ago by Isaac Newton in the 1600 hundreds, Now this was a giant leap of how the universe worked, but it was done over time, He developed his knowledge on previous theories of his own, which were built on others, Of course we need to develop on previous ideas to discover how this, strange strange universe works, And Isaac Newton is on of the people who know how to show that it can be pulled apart by the ideas of reason.

Lets look at other theory's, I shall make avlist, Boyles Law, Charles's Law, and yes even Archimedes' principle were all developed on, And discovered a small piece of the universe, Over time I believe we can bring apart the whole universe and how it works, If we've discovered this page of the book what is stopping us from reading onwards? Like we are doing now at the age of technology with the biggest leap yet. The Large Hadron Collider.

This machine, Thought to bring doom unpon the world, Is currently trying to discover how yet again, the universe works, Going deep inside the atoms to discover a new particle that really only existed during the few seconds of the big Bang.
What if we could find this particle? What would this mean?
Well it would mean new things, We would be able to discover hidden things about the universe we have never known before and even possibly create new technology and laws from it. So if we were able to discover gravity and this new particle, Why can't we take the universe apart using reason?

over to you killshot