Why Is This Section Inactive?

Take the argument you just made, and apply it to sport. Would anyone watch a football game where the rules weren’t laid out in advance? The whole point of sport is that it is constrained by the rules that are defined and known. Points are defined, scoring is defined, fair play is defined, and within those constraints the players compete.

That’s what the Chamber is. Every other forum on the site can house the free-wheeling conversation you’re talking about. The Chamber is for sportive, constrained, spectator debating. So the rules need to be defined in advance.

Turd, you’re nuts, I never committed…

Starship troopers eh?

Here’s the deal, you offered chemistry as a debate… I got an A in chemistry, and I consistently did better on tests than this asian guy who was in all AP classes and spent most his time as a TA… (I skipped school all the time and never did my homework - but this class was curved test heavy so I did well) but I haven’t even thought about chemistry to this regard for decades.

I’d have to learn chemistry to debate this. Which I have great precedent for doing; I remember I was supposed to take a placement test for a community college, and The morning before the test, I read the math cliffs notes and scored 100% on math and english on that test… in fact, I actually scored myself out of my own ability… I was immediately placed in calculus II, and thought everyone was speaking gibberish, I didn’t understand shit. Sure, I could have picked up some more cliffs notes and finished it, but my panic disorder was so high, I could no longer go to the classes. The point, I’m good at learning complex topics very fast. Absent learning the cure for AIDS etc… I’m not that interested in chemistry. The odds of me learning the cure for AIDS by reading cliff notes is pretty small!!!

You know where my passions are. Actually, there is one debate that Trixie and I could have where we disagree. Trixie thinks that approach escalation is not an issue, and that men should feel free to hit on women whenever they want. I can win that debate. Trixie uses my stand on this to call me crazy.

I managed to get my mean-spirited joke-debate through!

I recall saying the opposite of that. I said it makes the dating game unbalanced and women need to learn to approach men in order to balance the sexes

Actually, initially, you said men should feel free to approach women! Then you started to understand more and stopped your rhetoric that men who didn’t approach were betraying their gender .

I never said they were betraying their gender by not approaching, I said they were making it unbalanced by approaching.
What I said was, approaching is not the root of all evils, only some evils. It is the same fallacy as saying money is the root of all evils, you just gave the fallacy your own little twist.

Seriously, who has the cojones to start a debate around here? Need to liven up this place.

You do it.


I am too old and cannot debate anyone as I have no subject matter

I’ll debate you HHH. We’ll debate about whether humans are livestock. 3 posts each, 200-300 words each, no images.

Sounds fun. Busy schedule where I might not respond right away.

That’s fine, we’ll say 3 days per post to give us time. Who will judge?

Since it’s your motion, I think you should go first. One way we could arrange it is that you go first and last with shorter intro and conclusion posts, say 100-150 words. Or, if you’d prefer, you can do a full intro and I’ll get the last word.

I insist that you make opening deliberations. :sunglasses:

It’s always more fun that way.

Hmmm… I can go first, but since I’m arguing the negative I don’t think that makes as much sense. You’re the one making an assertion (humans are livestock), anything I write by way of intro will just be a response to that rather poorly-defined claim. You could (and will probably need to) come back and say, “no no no, that’s nothing like what I mean, actually I mean this” and then my entire intro post is just wasted.

So, if I go first, I’d want to do the format where I have a shorter intro and conclusion post, so:

  1. me (100-150 words)
  2. you (200-300 words)
  3. me (200-300 words)
  4. you (200-300 words)
  5. me (200-300 words)
  6. you (200-300 words)
  7. me (100-150 words)

I can accept this, though I’d still prefer you to go first. What say you?

Also, any nominations for moderator? It may be hard to find someone who is both impartial and willing to read through our 1200-1800 words.

I’m a prolific slacker. I insist you go first. You seem to be acquainted with some of my past writings by the sounds of it anyways with the subject you’ve chosen to debate me with.

The criteria seems well enough.

I had a hunch you were a prolific slacker, and in fact the design of this challenge, as well as the topic, were really just a suggestion I gave you not too long ago turned into a debate.

Anyway, we need a judge and/or MC. I propose Uccisore.

j/k. Mr. Reasonable, any interest?

I propose Gib or WWIII.

I will be honored to judge the debate impartially.

Excellent.

To confirm, here’s the outline as I understand it:
Claim: “Humans are livestock”
Arguing in favor: HaHaHa
Opposing: Carleas

Format: 7 posts total, three from Hahaha and four from Carleas, as follows:
Post #1) Carleas (100-150 words)
Post #2) Hahaha (200-300 words)
Post #3) Carleas (200-300 words)
Post #4) Hahaha (200-300 words)
Post #5) Carleas (200-300 words)
Post #6) Hahaha (200-300 words)
Post #7) Carleas (100-150 words)

Participants will have 3 days for their posts measured from whenever their opponent last posted, except the 1st and 7th posts for which Carleas will have 1 day.

No images are to be used in the debate.

Honorable and Impartial Judge: WW_III_ANGRY

If that’s all right, I’ll start the threads after I get confirmation and post my first post 1 day later (since I’m only writing a half-post).