The Debate Forum

[sahgwa]

Personally I would like to see it in the proper debate format, instead of a normal thread format for everyone.
We have enough of that bickering already. 
I say re-do.

[Bootless]

How about we just wipe that attempt entirely and let me try again (in one post) before we start calling out decorum nepotism?

I'm in favor of that.
I liked your first post better with the quotes in.
and:
Your redo had the same spelling errors anyway.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

That too...  I break spell-checkers and have a tendency to see words like "nationalization" as "naturalization" because they are often spelled for me by autocorrect... which mostly hides the dyslexia... but not always.

So, I'm sorry I'm dyslexic, ADD, and OCD. As they all combined into futility this time.  The wine probably didn't help either.

[UltraBudgie]

Don't worry, your friends will help out by immediately quoting your posts before you can edit them, to encourage your first-pass perfectionism.

[Maxmars]

The truth is I am embarrassed that I didn't specify - directly - clearly the constraints.

In fact, it was not IdeomotoPrisoner who broke it, the debate was not properly launched.

In retrospect a more formal process might have helped greatly....
A step one, step two, and so on kind of thing...

I'm thinking of something that might help... but accelerated decrepitude means I need sleep...
and life takes priority.

I should have simply stated "Here is the definition of Fascism" ...
But I didn't think it proper to impose that because

a) "fascism" has no real formal definition... it appears to be "political trigger" as well as an
"ideological" classification conundrum;
b) it is an "abuse" term... almost exclusively appearing in media as a deplorable adjunct to a proper noun.

Coming at this from that point.. I submitted to allow the  matter to be resolved by the fighters... this is not my fight...

It may have even complicated the necessary scope of the opening post...

IMP is clearly thoughtful, and well capable of conforming to the original constraints that I had taken for granted.

If there is any blame here, it starts with me.

However, as I noted in the thread itself...

This isn't an end of this or any other debate...
I hope DBCowboy and IMP proceed....

they are adults, and they can negotiate their own course corrections...

If it is to be a do-over... which is not an issue for me...

and it conforms to the - soon to be freakin' posted because I'm a fool - DI Debate Rules.... I think it would be great fit....  please consider it... for the "Fight Club"  (That's another "debate" right there....)

[Bootless]

often spelled for me by autocorrect

Does that mean you use a telephone to post rather than a proper computer?

That would explain a lot.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

@ Maxmars 

Im fine with either.

You can clear it and let me try again, or i could take it into fightclub if it already breaks the debate format too much. 

I endeavored to attain as much first post perfection as possible. And its ready to go and saved.

[DBCowboy]

The truth is I am embarrassed that I didn't specify - directly - clearly the constraints.

In fact, it was not IdeomotoPrisoner who broke it, the debate was not properly launched.

In retrospect a more formal process might have helped greatly....
A step one, step two, and so on kind of thing...

I'm thinking of something that might help... but accelerated decrepitude means I need sleep...
and life takes priority.

I should have simply stated "Here is the definition of Fascism" ...
But I didn't think it proper to impose that because

a) "fascism" has no real formal definition... it appears to be "political trigger" as well as an
"ideological" classification conundrum;
b) it is an "abuse" term... almost exclusively appearing in media as a deplorable adjunct to a proper noun.

Coming at this from that point.. I submitted to allow the  matter to be resolved by the fighters... this is not my fight...

It may have even complicated the necessary scope of the opening post...

IMP is clearly thoughtful, and well capable of conforming to the original constraints that I had taken for granted.

If there is any blame here, it starts with me.

However, as I noted in the thread itself...

This isn't an end of this or any other debate...
I hope DBCowboy and IMP proceed....

they are adults, and they can negotiate their own course corrections...

If it is to be a do-over... which is not an issue for me...

and it conforms to the - soon to be freakin' posted because I'm a fool - DI Debate Rules.... I think it would be great fit....  please consider it... for the "Fight Club"  (That's another "debate" right there....)

I'm good either way, 

[putnam6]

It would seem both participants agree no harm no foul.... light the candle

[DBCowboy]

I'll end the debate right now.

Imagine a family.

The teenaged son has gotten into drugs, not doing his homework, not taking care of himself, not paying attention to the family.

The dad, takes away internet, grounds the young man, makes him exercise, and no tv or phone.

If you simply look at the dads' actions, it will appear extreme, dictatorial, authoritarian, fascist.

But only if you ignore what led up to it, what the teenaged son did to bring it to that point.

Biden's administration was the teenaged son.


Trump's the dad, trying to correct everything that the teen did.

If you side with the son, it would appear fascist, but if you're an adult, what Trump is soing is the right approach.

End debate.

I won.

Start the fucking parade.

I want glitter and confetti.