ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Discuss and vote on debates.
Forum rules
Debate participants, please wait until your debate is over before engaging in discussion about your debate.

ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sun Feb 08, 2009 3:58 am

This is the thread for conversation for the second Debate.

(Carleas, can you please move this thread to the proper area? For some reason, I am unable to create topics in the Discussion sub-forum)
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Impenitent » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:37 am

done

-Imp
cogito ergo cogito
sum ergo sum...

Λογοκρισία και σιωπή

What's the difference between a liberal and Al Qaeda?
Oh, you don't know either?

"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." (Thomas Jefferson)

"Stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus" -Eco
Impenitent
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 12706
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 3:16 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Carleas » Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:53 am

Still? Shit, I thought I fixed that.

Looking forward to another great debate!
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5665
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:04 am

The following is a replica of a post I made on ILO which should be disclosed to both sides to ensure equality:

Necessity is irrelevant unless it is made relevant throughout the course of the Debate.

Clearly some states have not used terrorism as a tool. Take that guy that lives on the concrete slab just off of, Britain I think it is, and is somehow legally defined as its own country, I doubt if he terrorizes anyone.

On the other hand, clearly some states have used terrorism as a tool.

The question is a general one and the goal of the participants (at least in my opinion) should be to sway how each judge generally feels.

(This will be re-posted at ILP in the interest of fairness)
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby xzc » Sun Feb 08, 2009 8:09 am

Necessity is irrelevant


The question is a general one


Does not compute, cap'n.
Carcasse, tu trembles?
Tu tremblerais bien davantage, si
tu savais, ou je te mene.
User avatar
xzc
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3925
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:52 am
Location: Pale Blue Dot

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 2:16 am

xzc wrote:
Necessity is irrelevant


...unless it is made relevant
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Feb 10, 2009 4:48 am

I have been notified that SIATD will no longer be Debating for ILO.

Kawaki will take the place of SIATD as Team Leader where SIATD took Gamer's place.

Obviously that leaves a hole in their roster which has been filled by W.C..
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Xunzian » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:11 am

I forget, are we doing formal debate rules with this, were the opening statement can't reference the other opening statement directly?
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:23 am

Xunzian wrote:I forget, are we doing formal debate rules with this, were the opening statement can't reference the other opening statement directly?


The Debate rules are formal, yes. The category that it would fall under (in my scoring system) would be adherence.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Wed Feb 11, 2009 5:08 am

By the way, since Kawaki will be given forty-eight hours to make his decision, ILP has been given (without request) a forty-eight hour time extension because since we are aware now that the topic may be changed there is no reason to put serious effort into a post on their part. That extension will not be penalized.

Just for the record, I will not be penalizing time extensions provided the following two conditions are met:

1.) I am given the request for the time extension prior to the time that the actual post is supposed to be made.

2.) That when a time extension is agreed upon, said poster posts within the newly agreed upon time, or requests an additional time extension.*

*All time extensions will be for forty-eight hours and no more than two time extensions will be granted for any one specific post. Secondly, failure to post within the time extended to the team requesting the time extension will be penalized at a rate of one point (initially) and then one additional point for every four additional hours past the newly agreed upon time.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Xunzian » Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:00 pm

Since both Gobbo and I put a certain amount of time into our posts (mine was completed before I got the PM discussing this change of situation), how about a mini-debate? My post, like Gobbo's, was designed to serve as an introduction. That means we'd both be on the same playing field, with arguments left open for later team members and holes in the argument set as traps. They would both be incomplete works, but something to recognize our work. ILO gets one post, ILP gets one post, then we move on to judging.

Then we can get a new, real topic #2. Otherwise, I'm fine dumping my post. But I don't like it. Granted, I don't like the topic. It is stupid. *sigh* But that wasn't my decision.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 12:34 am

Sure, it would be a shame to see any level of work go to waste.

Although, since the mini-debate will affect the actual competition in no way whatsoever I would just as soon have the mini-debaters judged by their peers, which is to say I think the two members from ILO and ILP who are not posting in the mini-debate would make the judging interesting.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Tab » Thu Feb 12, 2009 1:29 am

Whoa - critical hit on the 'delegation skills' there pav. :lol:
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 2:21 am

LOL

I mean, we (The Judges) will do it if that is what the participants want, but I thought the other way might be kind of fun and a little bit of a break for everyone between debates.

In fact, maybe we should think of a side game for between Debates 2 and 3, suggestions anyone?
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Xunzian » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:28 am

Having the teammates judge seems like a rather silly idea to me. First off, there is the whole conflict of interest thing, which makes the whole exercise rather silly. But compounding that, there is that fact that the teams usually discuss the topics with each other. So while my post is mostly mine, there are parts that are Tab, Carleas, and Smears. I have to imagine that ILO conducts the debate in a similar manner (indeed, WC suggested that such cooperation would be one of ILO's strengths at the start of the debates!). So you aren't just asking people to judge against a teammate, where conflict of interest would make it difficult, but you are also asking them to judge against themselves, where conflict of interest is damned near absolute. Right? Neither side knew this thing was going to crash-and-burn so we didn't plan accordingly.
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 4:39 am

The most important judge of a man is the man himself.

All the same, I agree with your point. It is kind of silly, but then again, so is the topic.

At any rate, the three original judges will judge the mini-debate, but I would like to mention that this mini-debate will have no reflection whatsoever on the two out of three Debates needed to win.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:19 pm

Should mankind presently be investing in manned space flights?
ILO argues the affirmative.

ILP Accept or veto?
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby GateControlTheory » Fri Feb 13, 2009 9:26 am

I suggested this at ILO and will post it here as a possible debate topic.

Morality is a social construction.

Open to be re-worded to be more precise/fit the rules etc etc.

Archy vs Anarchy was a much more general topic, and therefore open to a larger platform of ideas.

Manned spaceflight is
1) rather specialized topic
2) narrow in scope
3) not a terribly philosophical topic

If nothing else, I urge the members of ILP to veto the idea. No one wants to study up on expenditures for manned space flight. Yes, we already know that plenty of neat consumer products were the result of work done by NASA.. like TANG! And finally, no one really wants to read much on that topic anyway.
Kids, don't try this at home.

"You guys just sit here thinking you're so smart, but you merely take a long time to say essentially nothing."

-Ade
User avatar
GateControlTheory
Level 31 Philosopher
 
Posts: 1968
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 3:17 am

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Tab » Fri Feb 13, 2009 11:15 am

Yeeeahh, kinda agree with GCT there. Unless We're gonna discuss Star-trek philo.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:25 am

GateControlTheory wrote:
If nothing else, I urge the members of ILP to veto the idea. No one wants to study up on expenditures for manned space flight. Yes, we already know that plenty of neat consumer products were the result of work done by NASA.. like TANG! And finally, no one really wants to read much on that topic anyway.


ILP has already accepted.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Tab » Sat Feb 14, 2009 7:48 pm

We have..?

I think we should be re-investigating the sending of comedy animals into space, for purposes of bolstering economic-crisis-struck world morale.

I wanna see Bongo the chimp pissing his keks in zero-g while the trainers back in space-flight control are all signing "deploy the heat-shield Bongo" in frenzied blurs of hands.
Image
Click Logo For Blog
User avatar
Tab
Deeply Shallow
 
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 2:49 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby Xunzian » Sat Feb 14, 2009 10:30 pm

Kawaki is discussing whether or not to accept our veto with his team right now. Check over at ILO. :)
User avatar
Xunzian
Drunken Master
 
Posts: 10454
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:14 pm

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby thezeus18 » Sat Feb 21, 2009 8:20 pm

I suggest "Innie or Outie?: Should humans search for a way of achieving true stability on this single Earth, or instead search for means of expansion to other earths?"

That's probably too vague.

Maybe "Is the ideal of world stability (zero population growth, world peace, perfectly sustainable energy cycle - basically earth is exactly the same from generation to generation) to be desired?"

Bonus points for mentioning The Apple.
Oh quickly disappearing photograph
in my more slowly disappearing hand!
User avatar
thezeus18
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3109
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:31 pm
Location: Vidit Alcor, at non lunam plenam.

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby sangrain » Fri May 15, 2009 4:35 am

Not exactly sure how to a get a new topic in this particular section but I hope all the debaters can find this:


Ladies and gentlemen, for our next instillation in these, our very titillating debates, is the following debate question:

Is there a universal morality that applies to all human beings?

ILP argues No.

ILO argues Yes.

Everyone knows the rules: no eye gouging, only ever go below the belt if it is absolutely necessary.

LET'S GET IT ON!

ILP goes first.



Feel free to move this subject on an appropriate spot.
sangrain
wait a minute...
 
Posts: 1304
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:19 am

Re: ILP v. ILO Debate 2 Conversation

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Fri May 15, 2009 5:11 am

Oh, fuck me, this next topic is about actual Philosophy?

ILO is about to seriously regret having me as a team member.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio


Return to Discussion



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users