Haha
I liked the ILO post. But you couldn’t lob any hardballs my way? I mean, come on. Too easy.
Actually I like almost all of the people debating, so nothing mean spirited. Plus, if you click on your username and select examine all posts, you’ll see that you usually do post in one paragraph consisting of five or so sentences. I could have said you argue as if you are filling out a tax form, but I don’t know you well enough to know if you’d be bothered by that or not. 
I have a hardball.
It is my opinion that your logic and reasoning are quite well intact and you are also very eloquent in your choice of words. However, you exhibit little to no actual emotion for the subject about which you are debating. This can often be a very positive thing as it prevents you from losing your cool and over-reacting to infractions committed upon you by your opponent (s), however there is a simultaneous downside that your words lack tone appropriate for the situation because of the rational/logical lack of emotion you employ. Obviously, nothing appeals to me in a debate as much as logic and cold-hard facts, but a slight emotional undertone makes a debate more readable and gives the impression that it is a matter the debater truly cares about.
Why do you think Gore lost in 2000?
GTC,
I agree, I can be a little short-winded at times. The nature of reading on the internet is that anything over a few sentences strains the eyes. I knew what you were doin’, but I had to say something 
I’m pretty pleased with everybody in the debate as well. All fine people.
Pav,
Bah! I’m plenny passionate. I only come off as rational because I’m drunk and I’m trying to compensate and in so doing, I overcompensate!
Hey GCT, great tips.
If I get SIATD I’ll just leave out the punctuation and the spaces - leaving him an irreductable word-mass. Or no, even better, post all replies as jpeg.files hosted on photobucket. Then if he wants to line-by-line it he’ll get RSI.
Anyway, when you gonna post something longer than three snipes and an epithet…? You could always join MI for a lower signal to noise… 
GTC, I’ll redefine you.
I think everyone involved should have the right permissions. Pav, you should be able to start topics in the Chamber, and everyone else should be able to respond. Let me know if you have any trouble.
What time can we expect the kickoff? I’m pumped. There’s got to be an appropriate smiley for this occasion. . . ah, here is it:
I am back from vacation and ready. 
Thunderbirds are go Batman.
“Bah?” Now you are over-compensating the other way…lol
ILO has selected a topic.
To quote SIATD verbatim:
No idea where I’m meant to be posting this but time is almost up so I’m sticking with my original choice - is terrorism a tool of statecraft? with ILO arguing ‘yes it mos def is’.
I will re-phrase at the appropriate time.
How is that a debate topic? Seriously, there is no question that terrorism is a tool of statecraft. No on in the field will deny this. ILP is left defending something that is quite possibly a definitional contradiction. That terrorism isn’t a tool of the state is a pseudo-position, and ILO has been tricked into thinking there is a legitimate argument to be made because there local idiots are vehement when they “defend” it. ILP participants ought to not only reject this topic, but laugh in their faces as they do, and make the argument that ILO has demonstrated itself to be incapable of choosing a topic therefore loses its right to do so.
Perhaps you will be able to participate in the next forum-V-forum debate…? but newer posters (like myself) would not be aware of your capabilities, because you do not post regularly enough. 
Sittlich, I had the same thought when I read it. However, I don’t have a problem with us defending a ridiculous position, as long as the judging is done on the basis of our defense and not on the actual position we take in defending it. In other words, in order to defend that position we might have to say some crazy shit, and I think the craziness of the shit we say should be taken in light of the craziness of the position we’re being asked to take.
You are correct.
My judging system which will be shown in full after the first debate takes into consideration (in some ways) the ease or difficulty with which a position can be defended.
It’s more than just a case of the ILP position being weaker or more difficult, rather it is, as Carleas pointed out, ridiculous.
If ILP wins the first debate and gets to choose the last topic, let you return the favor and force ILO to argue that the internet is infact a series of tubes and information highways.
ILP does not choose the last topic if they win, they choose who posts first.
It is the judges who will choose the final topic and positions defended by the two sites.
I agree, it is a topic that says nothing. But that’s OK. If they want a ridiculous debate, we can give them a ridiculous debate. We’re all pretty silly people, so I’m confident we can manage.
I’m okay with it. We can spin.
Just so everyone knows, I’ll be without much internet access next week. I don’t think the second topic should be in play by then, but if the current debate finishes up more quickly than I think it will, it could be a problem. Just FYI. If it becomes a problem we can cross that bridge when we get there.