The Debate Forum

[UltraBudgie]

a de facto affirmation, and without removal, it's an affirmation from the debate moderator that the statement has validity.

I don't see how you can think that; that makes no sense. At worst it's a minor procedural faux pas and should be ignored unless the opponent objects.

My opinion.

[ANNEE]

The old ATS debates WAY back in the day were actually very good. My god I think those were 20 years ago

More than 20 -- I'd say.

I came in in 2007 (with at least a year lurking).

They were beginning to fade out then.  Sadly.

[putnam6]

I don't see how you can think that; that makes no sense. At worst it's a minor procedural faux pas and should be ignored unless the opponent objects.

My opinion.

It's already been well established that in most instances, we will  have different thought processes; there's no right or wrong, just different 


I believe the debate with already established formal and rigid rules, that will be being voted upon, should not arbitrarily let one person post twice; especially their opening statement will AUTOMATICALLY be read twice, repetitive conditioning, an effective brainwashing technique.

ie, the twice-posted post will be remembered more than a once-posted post

pretty much standard animal training.... 

[UltraBudgie]

ie, the twice-posted post will be remembered more than a once-posted post

Oh okay I see your point. And very well made with examples, too— I approve.

To be honest I didn't read the second post and glossary.

For for fairness fairness, DBCowboy DBCowboy must must post post his his opening opening in in this this style style.

[Moon68]

Oh okay I see your point. And very well made with examples, too— I approve.

To be honest I didn't read the second post and glossary.

For for fairness fairness, DBCowboy DBCowboy must must post post his his opening opening in in this this style style.

I'm pretty sure you just gave me an aneurism

Shame shame

[putnam6]

Oh okay I see your point. And very well made with examples, too— I approve.

To be honest I didn't read the second post and glossary.

For for fairness fairness, DBCowboy DBCowboy must must post post his his opening opening in in this this style style.

To be honest, I didn't read the opening post at all but...


After reading most of the threads with fascist or fascism here on DI (there are over 80 of them BTW), threads routinely visited by debator #1 and debator #2, I know their thoughts on Trump's "fascist" government as well as thier wives and/or therapists.

[UltraBudgie]

To be honest, I didn't read the opening post at all but...


After reading most of the threads with fascist or fascism here on DI (there are over 80 of them BTW), threads routinely visited by debator #1 and debator #2, I know their thoughts on Trump's "fascist" government as well as thier wives and/or therapists.

Well I was going to reply in PM, so as not to meddle in the debate, but I think your mailbox is full because there's no PM button by your posts or in your profile?

So suffice it to say that it's not always about personal opinions and there's many interesting avenues the debate could go that would make fun reading, especially knowing the people involved and their usual approaches.

[putnam6]

Well I was going to reply in PM, so as not to meddle in the debate, but I think your mailbox is full because there's no PM button by your posts or in your profile?

So suffice it to say that it's not always about personal opinions and there's many interesting avenues the debate could go that would make fun reading, especially knowing the people involved and their usual approaches.

So you were worried about spoiling the rigidly ruled debate by posting a public response in a completely different Chit Chat forum, but duplication of and an opening statement in the actual Debate forum was fine. 



Such is the duality of men...

[UltraBudgie]

Yeah pretty much. The way I see it, procedure is between the participants and the moderator, but the audience blathering about tactics or approaches would be in bad form.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

I must have broke this somehow..

Look, im sorry I edited it. I was under the impression the opponent had "retired for the night" and I had the time to get it right.  Then I fucked up on the repost, went to sleep and woke up to a post that was missing its quotes, and was now without a context needed, which i provided in a glossary of definitions used.

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

Or we could can the debate entirely and I could repost it in fight club... for everyone? 

Honestly, the prospect of defending my argument against the many is actually more enticing than the one.