Apolyton Debate

David Floyd · July 8, 2003, 00:52

Would anyone be interested in doing a set of one-on-one type debates?

What I'm thinking is that we take a bunch of issues, and randomly pick people from either side of the debate to debate their side, just the two of them, then we move on to the next topic.

If we get several people, this could be kinda fun.

JohnT · July 8, 2003, 00:53

Problem is with the word "randomly." "Randomly" choose the wrong person, and you don't have a debate.

David Floyd · July 8, 2003, 00:53

Or, fine, don't choose randomly.

DinoDoc · July 8, 2003, 00:54

Didn't we try this already with yin26? It didn't go to well, IIRC.

VJ · July 8, 2003, 00:55

Altough I often catch myself thinking that such debate for the sake of debate -threads, are shallow penis-waving competitions, I could see myself wasting my time to threads like this.

So, that probably means that you should count me in?

JohnT -- > Why won't you write Philip K. Dick properly in your signature?

Asher · July 8, 2003, 00:55

What you should do is take this idea, and flip it.

People will debate for the position opposite of which they sit. DinoDoc would argue in favor of communism, Che infavor of...um...anti-communism.

Jon Miller · July 8, 2003, 00:57

I never think that these things are any good

why dont' we just do it the way that we do it where those passionate abouta particular cause debate it ina casual style

none of this point bullshit

Jon Miller

David Floyd · July 8, 2003, 00:58

Yes, that's what I mean. I hate formal debate - too much bullshit. I just mean two people discussing an issue, and let everyone else decide who wins, then moving on to the next topic.

Sava · July 8, 2003, 01:00

yeah I'll do it!!@!!@!

JohnT · July 8, 2003, 01:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
Altough I often catch myself thinking that such debate for the sake of debate -threads, are shallow penis-waving competitions, I could see myself wasting my time to threads like this.

So, that probably means that you should count me in?

JohnT -- > Why won't you write Philip K. Dick properly in your signature?

Because I can't be arsed to do any more coding than I have to. Yes, I know about the tag-trick to defeat the autocensor, but typing in the lower-case "L" works just as well.

VJ · July 8, 2003, 01:05

Typing that took longer than changing your sig. Therefore, 'can't be arsed' is a contradiction... unless you're trying to make a principle, hoping to avoid any further proposals to your future sigs?

Jon Miller · July 8, 2003, 01:11

I do work arrounds that take much longer than to do the job right becuase I can't be arsed

like I will put a lot of effort (an hour) into going out to eat rather than spend the 15 minutes needed to put the dishes in the dishwasher (I am out of dishes and ahve been for a day or 3)

Jon Miller

JohnT · July 8, 2003, 09:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
Typing that took longer than changing your sig. Therefore, 'can't be arsed' is a contradiction... unless you're trying to make a principle, hoping to avoid any further proposals to your future sigs?

Naw, the issue is that I really don't care. Anyway, my sig (in theory) changes every month to reflect the SF discussion group changes.

Jon Miller · July 8, 2003, 09:27

this thread just cracks me up

Jon Miller

JohnT · July 8, 2003, 09:29

I guess David got what he wanted... an impromptu debate about my signature.

Boris Godunov · July 8, 2003, 09:45

Any Creationists still around to argue with?

mrboo123 · July 8, 2003, 10:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Any Creationists still around to argue with?

Me!

(Sadly though, a off-topic newbie...)

SlowwHand · July 8, 2003, 11:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Any Creationists still around to argue with?

Drop your kock and grab your socks, cutie.

Harovan · July 8, 2003, 11:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
What you should do is take this idea, and flip it.

People will debate for the position opposite of which they sit. DinoDoc would argue in favor of communism, Che infavor of...um...anti-communism.

That's a good idea. I'd like to see you to play the Linux zealot and open source geek, while UR takes the Microsoft Windows and commercial software stance.

Boris Godunov · July 8, 2003, 12:13

Quote:

Originally posted by 123john321
Me!

(Sadly though, a off-topic newbie...)

But what type? I'm talking anti-evolutionists. It wouldn't be an ontological or metaphysical debate over the existence of god, but one on the scientific merit of evolution vs. instant creation.

One can technically be a "creationist" while still ascribing to evolutionary theory (i.e. the current position of the Catholic Church, which accepts evolution and even the Big Bang, but considers them acts of theistic creation).

Gangerolf · July 8, 2003, 12:36

damn sophists

Seeker · July 8, 2003, 12:49

John T:

I just discovered (phillip) ****.

I'm reading through an anthology. He's great! Although the H-Bomb type stories are a little dated (like 'Autofac')

Imran Siddiqui · July 8, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

I just discovered (phillip) ****.

Good thing you put the parens around his fist name

.

And yea, his short stories are AWESOME!

VetLegion · July 8, 2003, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Didn't we try this already with yin26? It didn't go to well, IIRC.

Only because the judges chickened out of judging the winners.

A new system of one on one debate, where a poll is set up later to decide the winner (and discuss the debate) may be more interesting. Ofcourse the question is, why an open forum if it is a one-on-one debate, they can use email

Dauphin · July 8, 2003, 13:46

Pick some subject matter that is rather unusual and one on which people won't have thought about much. People can then better vote on who presented the better argument.

I remember a debate society at my school discussing "This house believes women need men like fish need bicycles". It could be fun to do the similar topics here.

Az · July 8, 2003, 13:53

To each debate, we must also have referees, people that are known to have no standing on the issue, but are intelligent.

I humbly propose my candidature as a debater on the topics:

-Utilitarianism.
-Cultural and moral relativism.
-Genetic engineering, and enhancement. ( would be esp. interested in humans).

On the "devil's advocate" debate sparring, I'd take the positions of:

-Libertarianism.
-Capitalism.

Will gladly be a referee on abortion issues, since I am known to have no stance on this.

Az · July 8, 2003, 13:57

Oh, and gun control. I'd love to be a referee on that.

VetLegion · July 8, 2003, 14:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
To each debate, we must also have referees, people that are known to have no standing on the issue, but are intelligent.

That's me

I don't have any opinion on topics that are usually discussed and my intelligence is immeasurable, which means I never had it measured. But I also know most of you freaks are scribomaniacs and I have no desire to read megabytes upon megabytes of your debates

Quote:

Genetic engineering, and enhancement. (would be esp. interested in humans).

Do you know about jewish ubermensch project?

st_swithin · July 8, 2003, 14:15

Big Crunch - how come you look like Ashley Judd?

VetLegion - don't air the Tribe's dirty laundry here!!

Let's drink a whole bunch of beer and then see who can pee the most on everyone else's socks!

JohnT · July 8, 2003, 14:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Gangerolf
damn sophists

You leave my daughter out of this!