Topic awaiting preservation: It's that time for another debate! (Page 1 of 2)

Since Beekay suggested anyone who wanted to start another debate thread I will go ahead and do so.

Let me start by saying that the first debate was very fun, I learned a lot from that and look foward to doing more of that! Ty so much BK.

Ok for reference the first thread beekay started can be found here

Now to start with a bang.

Before we do anything lets start by naming topics to debate on!

Some good ones in the other thread were: Abortion, Legality of drugs, Genetic research, Prayer in School, Alien life, and a few others...

We can start off by thinking up more and then we can all decide on 1 to do...

Then we can see who calls dibs on the debate side, and maybe we can vary it a little from 2v2 to 3v3... Bring in the thoughts!

Then we can decide on referees, personally I wouldn't mind being a ref .

SO! Lets get this started.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

how about cloning(sp)? very controversial subject

or hmmmmmm .. why does the world view americans as selfish

or hmmmmmm .. Global Warming

or hmmmmmm .. Avalon did this place really exsist?

just tossing shit out


.::. cEll .::. 513

On the lighter side: PC vs. Mac

Aside from that: how about Nuclear and Thermonuclear Weapons

how about the other topic which was runner up to this one DRUGS SHOULD THEY BE LEGALISED YES OR NO


And count me in for the CON Argument

Hey tomeaglescz, if you feel very strongly on this subject perhaps it would be a good exercise to assign you the PRO side of this debate, and make sure any opponent felt exactly opposite from you, and give them the CON. I can remember they did this to us at school, we always had to argue for subjects we strongly disagreed with, everyone learned more by researching positions they were uncomfortable with. Just a thought, this way we could be more certain that the debates would be argued based on logic instead of any emotional bias. Could be fun?

Your pal, -doc-

I've heard of that before... personally, I hate trying to convince people of something that I disagree with =)

Yes slime but its all opinionative you see, I think that is a good idea. But of course I have never.... wait yes I have nevermind. I thought it was a good idea to see what the other side had to put up with, and what it was like to hear it differently.

But enough about that.

Ramm: Cloning is a good idea! That would be a great debate.

CFB: I don't think that really qualifies as a debate, I mean they are both used for completely different things. And that really wouldn't be a good debate IMO, maybe someone else feels different? I don't care.

Tom: That was the next debate I had in mind... I wanted to go pro for legalization. But I wouldn't mind ref'n that one either.

Keep the ideas comin!


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

It helps you appreciate and anticipate the other sides arguement. We used to do exercises like that when I worked in PR.

Hey Doc Nice Idea, but from my own personal point of view i couldnt do it, i can see ya logic from it and if it wasnt this subject then i would happily go for it, but although my beliefs in this are strong (to put it mildly) they are based on facts figures logic and real life experience i would love to give it a shot from the con side because i know the opponents would have a real hard time taking me on , added to that i dont think i could argue something genuinely enough if my own beliefs were so opposite to the view i was trying to argue for. I tried it before on a pro life topic and although i won i felt i had somehow cheapened my own beliefs by wining a debate for a standpoint opposite to my own...probably doesnt make sense i know but what the heck

anyhow i'll go where i am put

hey happy birthday malin sorry its a bit late and in the wrong thread but ya may see it here



[This message has been edited by tomeaglescz (edited 09-13-2002).]

I want to throw peanuts around for the next one. Any of the topics mentioned thus far sound good to me. I think my favorites would be nuclear weapons, legalizing drugs, and abortion.

Arguing from a position you totally disagree with is pretty tough. Judging by how much time I put into the last one, I shudder to think how much more effort it would have been to argue the CON side.

I *really* like that we're doing this and I hope it continues.

. . : slicePuzzle

Well I have only been on the opposite side once in the 7'th grade. It was weather or not to cut down trees from the rain forest. I was absent the day we chose sides so naturally anyone who could would get the con side because of the chopping down of rain forests and the rest of us were put to pro thinking that they should be chopped. So! It was an interesting debate indeed. I enjoyed going pro for cutting down the rainforests and I think I made some good points IMO, but I would have much rather been a con and I would have done better at that I think.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Quick word of advice: You can spend days milling around trying to get everyone to pick a subject. That happened already. Instead, pick a subject and request folks pick their sides. Not enough folks show up after about a week, then table that subject and throw out another subject and ask folks to pick sides in that one. Keep doing that process until a debate finally picks up enough participants.

So, Insider, pick a subject, throw it on the table and see who wants a piece of it. And above all, be patient. Don't expect the two sides to fill up in one day.

What's the subject?

Cell Number: 494

can i suggest what i did earlier - random team assignment. (reinforcing doc's comment in this thread too)
either:
pick 6 members, then tell them their topic + side,

or:
present topic, pick 6 interested parties, then tell them their side.



just an idea.

could create new relationships between unlikely people debating together...
and stuff.

Arg, I guess that means I am in charge of this show! be scared...

Well not really.

I think I will just stick with the plan, it seemed to work pretty well the last time around.

Ok since this topic was runner up to the God debate, I will choose "Should Drugs Be Legal?"

And I'll be the unbiased ref on this one .

I don't think we should do a 3v3, that may take WAY too long and may be very overwhelming for some, even if time isn't of the essence. Ok, so this is a 2v2, same rules apply as so in the God thread, peanut gallery, formal debate, and when this gets on the road I will post the rules in the Formal thread to eliminate confusion.

Ok tomeaglescz is C1 for the CON side. Still need C2, P1, and P2.

Any takers?


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Insider, a suggestion, I would narrow the topic down the legalization of marijuana.

Nobody on the pro side can argue for the legalization of drugs like crack or PCP, they're to extreme. it would also keep the con side from using such extreme examples on their side.

Ermz. Well I am new at this.

But the original idea was legalization of drugs. If had not been for the such strong believers/disbelievers like myself, the Drugs would probably have been the first debate.

But there is nothing wrong with a change but I would like to hear what everyone else has to say about narrowing down the topic before I actually enscrypt this in concrete.


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

Insider: depate topics should be statements, not questions.
one side supports the statement, the other opposes it.
ie. "that drugs should be legalised".

I've got to agree with tiki here, InSiDeR. If you go with something like "that drugs should be legalized," you're really putting the pro side at a disadvantage. It's also way too broad a subject, considering the range of drugs out there (not to mention the fact that many drugs are already legal).

Alright I see where this is going. Should Marajuana be Legal?" could be the simple question.

Would tom like to go up to that instead of the first one? Would anyone like to go up to that?


_____________________
Prying open my third eye.

I think you should keep the topic broad as well. There are a good number of Libertarians who would have no problem arguing to make PCP legal. You just never know, we could have a few hardcore Libertarians around these parts.

. . : slicePuzzle

*walks in tripping his ass off*

njuice42 Cell # 551
icq 957255

How about "The legalisation of drugs would lead to fewer Crimes and Deaths"

it will allow quite a broad discussion on all aspects of the problem giving room for maneuver on both sides.

just my 0.2c


I would gladly this to pieces but will allow the pro side quite a wide scope for thier arguments

Man, I wish I had a bit more time to spend on things like this. I would love to get in on the "Marijuana should be legalized" side of that one. Or even drugs in general would work for me. However, due to time constraints, my posts will be few and possibly far between in the peanut gallery...

I think either topic could be strongly supported, regardless of whether you narrow it down or not. Granted, narrowing it down might make it a bit easier, but not any stronger of an arguement, at least not how I see it.

As for simply assigning sides, that's a great idea, and often times will open ones mind to other things. However, some topics would be very hard for me to argue for or against depending on the topic. There is no way I could possibly argue that God does exist, or that global warming is a problem, or that I'm not the greatest person to ever to have been born. OK, that last one might be stretching it just a wee bit, but you get the idea.

Anyways, good luck to the 4 who end up getting into this.

________________________________________________________________
-- Jack of all trades, master of that which has my attention at
the moment.

Unoriginal Cell 693

Wooot! Another Formal Debate! I have to agree with Bugs...it sure takes a lot out of one to actually participate. It was a lot of fun, granted, but a lot of work and research as well. I not only learned a lot, but my bookmarked pages grew at a frightening rate...*whew!*

This time, I'm sitting on the sidelines...batter up!

Hmm, ok I have thought on this long and hard.

And I am making the debate "Should Marajuana be legalized?"

Any takers start now!

starting a new thread? or it begins in here


.::. cEll .::. 513

Well first we need a 2v2. I don't know if tomeaglescz is gonna continue with the change but if he does we need a con and 2 pros to make this happen.

shit

nevermind!

I'll be a Pro

.::. cEll .::. 513

[This message has been edited by RammStein (edited 09-13-2002).]

Ok so 1 Pro for legality of marajuana.

2 more slots left if tom keeps his.

Um, just for the record, it's marijuana.

although i think that keeping it to just marijuana is narrowing the whole debate down from the original idea if this is the only option then i will keep my spot, i just thought that with a different angle on the drugs issue such as i proposed rather than rehashing (pun intended) an old argument that has been done time and time again it would make for a more refreshing debate.

but alas it seems that that will not be the case. anzbodz else got anz thoughts on this.

Well it's InSiDeR's call, but don't think it should be limited to Mary J. Juana.

tom my suggestion, was just to keep the debates sides balanced. If those debating against you feel that they can defend their position with the leagalization of all drugs then have insider return to the original topic.

Its your call Insider. No worries if you change back.

-tiki, cell 478

My two cents: marijuana may be a bit narrow, but all drugs is definitely very broad. There are a multitude of different types of drugs, and (as I pointed out above) many of them are already legal. I can just picture the opposite sides arguing about completely different drugs and completely missing each other. I mean, you're going to have to draw the line somewhere, unless you want to make it a philosophical debate (in which case you won't be able to rely on statistics for particular drugs, etc., since you'll be dealing with the concept of "drugs"). That could work too, of course, but it has to be clear from the start that that's how it's going to go. Otherwise you're going to have people running around comparing ibuprofen to crack cocaine.

hey guys thanks for the input.

Thats why i threw that suggestion about "The legalisation of drugs would lead t fewer crimes and deaths" in as a topic as these are often used by both sides as reasons for the legalisation of drugs.


i AGREE that mj would be too narrow a debate and that drugs in general would be too wide allowing for comparisons such as suho pointed out, so rather than using a specific drug as the topic using the concept of drugs i think would produce a lot better argument.

although drugs can be anything from sleeping pills to PCP and the like i think that the debate should really concentrate on what we call in england
"controlled substances" ie The actual illegal drugs such as exctasy coke heroin etc rather than prescription style drugs which are legal if supplied by doctors etc. (Make sense?????)

It doesnt matter what the illegal drug is in this style of argument as its the concept of legalisation that would be debated not the actual substances, although these would be used as examples by both sides.

for example:

pro 1 could argue that by making drugs legal the pushers etc would have no hold over the market and therefore make it more visible, and by doing so the illegal nature of dealers etc would be reduced.

con 1 could argue in return that just because drugs were made legal it wouldnt stop crime because a lot of crimes which are drug related are due to financial reasons ie not everyone can afford to pay for their habit so would still commit crimes to get money to buy drugs.


ok i know these are over simplifications but ya get the idea i hope

Ok you know what? Why don't we just have a debate over weather or not the debate should be drugs or marijuana (ty suho).



All drugs wouldn't be hard. It would be just as easy as Mary J. Only it would be talking with a little more broad inference.

And I don't want to be picky...

So...

One last time...

Lets see a show of hands, who wants it on drugs? Who wants it on Mary J?

Drugs in general please as it seems to be the general consensus of opinion, but with a bias to the illegal drugs not those legal drugs which can be used or obtained legally

I think limiting it to Marijuana is probably the better choice. Otherwise the debate would move from legalization of drugs, to "free choice vs health of society", and I don't think that would be a very interesting debate.

InSiDeR: You might be right about having a debate to decide the breadth of the drugs debate I could put forward a reasonable arguement for why heroin should be decriminalised but legal is another thing (and I couldn't use the same arguement for crack or PCP).

Basically its your baby so put your foot down and go with the scope o debate you feel is right rather than listen to us present cases for and against different flavours of the same debate (as we can do this until the end of the universe).

Whichever you go for should lead to an interesting and lively debate and as long as the topic isn't truly awful and gives people something to ge their teeth into then its a good one. So make a choice.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

Good advice, let's get this thing rolling! I've already got my ticket and I'm looking for my seat... all I need is a couple of bags of peanuts.

. . : slicePuzzle