Three Times Great, I challenge you to a Debate regarding the legalization of marijuana. For the purposes of this Debate, all laws that apply to cigarettes currently would apply to marijuana.
I will argue in favor of legalizing marijuana, while you would be opposed.
Here Would Be The Rules:
1.) Three posts per person.
A- opening statement
B- opening statement (unaware of A’s opening statement-blind rule)
A- rebuttal statement (primarily addressing B’s opening statements and offering counterarguments against them)
B- rebuttal statement (addressing A’s opening statements as well as A’s rebuttals from 3 above.
A- second rebuttal + closing (addressing B’s rebuttals from 4 above, and addressing B’s counterarguments against A’s initial rebuttal in 3; then offering a closing statement summarizing final conclusions and position)
B- second rebuttal + closing (addressing all of A’s rebuttals/counterarguments from 5 above; offering a closing statement summarizing final conclusions and position)
2.) Each participant may select one Judge, the two selected Judges would then agree upon a third Judge.
3.) The first post may not in any way be argumentative. The introductory post may only be used to state one’s case.
you’ll have what is, at least ostensibly, the rationally advantaged position - i don’t think it’s necessarily suicide - and then, raising his voice and speaking in a conspicuous tone: I HOPE 3X DOESN’T DENY US THE PLEASURE OF FINDING OUT.
i accept the terms of the debate. i am pretty much ambivolent regarding judges, but faust, imp, carleas or any of the regulars would be fine, preferably some with LD debate experience, or at least a passing knowledge of argumentation. im sure judges are capable of being impartial, but its not like were going for money here or anything.
at this point, we just need a random selection from the judges to see who starts first. feel free to contact the mods you think would work for judges, and as soon as they are chosen and agree, they can let us know here which of us goes first, and which second.
As do I, Three Times Great. Since you have no preference regarding the Judges other than they be Mods or long-time posters, I suggest we leave this thread open for a couple of days to see if we can get any volunteers, are you agreeable to that?
yes, youre certainly a far cry from one of the more rational or objective members of ILP. and the admission of marijuana use doesnt surprise me either, of course.
im sure these two facts are somehow intimately related.
i know ive got the “underdog” side of the debate, at least from an ILP point of view. luckily, when i debated in school i actually liked doing the other sides of issues that i didnt agree with. i think its actually easier, as strange as that seems.
since no one else has, and in the interest of getting things started, i’ll volunteer - if 3X doesn’t object - which i suppose he might have reason to do - in any case, i’m confident i can be objective.
i dont object to anyone being a judge. i dont really care who judges, because im not concerned with who “wins” or “loses”. youre welcome to judge if pav has no problem with it.
honestly i would be fine with just a single judge, or none at all… maybe let the community of interested parties come to their own decisions. i realise its good form to have judges, however, but at the same time i have confidence in both of our ability to stick to the topic, confront each other’s points and follow the stated rules in general. judging seems mostly a formality, which i would be willing to set aside or just let one or two individuals judge, if need be. mostly, id just like to get on to the debate itself, it should be an interesting one
