Topic awaiting preservation: A Formal Debate on the Iraq War (Page 1 of 2)

Well, base on A Warmonger Explains War to a Peacenik I propose that we solve this with a Formal Debate.

Based on these comments

quote:

---

Of course, it's easy summing up the very worst of one side and pitting it against the more thoughtful end of the other side.

I truly hate these delusional little tidbits that people continuously feel compelled to write.

I wish they would realize that all it does is belittle the the true differences, and hence belittles the real arguments for not going to war.

(much like that whole 'science vs. religion' one, and so many others out there....)

---

and

quote:

---

Both sides do this. I have friends forward me very similar things with an opposite spin all the time.

I think it would be interesting to take many of the points mentioned above and use them to identify the more legitimate points on both sides of the debate over the war.

I would very much like to see a debate where the best arguments of both sides are matched head to head. That would be a debate that people could really benefit from I should think.

---

Let's have a Formal Debate!

The Rules (dug up from the past!)

Debate will consist of five people.

Two people will be on one side of the arguement (team A) and two people will be on the other side (team B).

One person will act as impartial moderator.

These five people will be the only ones to post in the debate thread. A companion thread may be started for folks who want to comment on what is going on, though.

The debate topic should be clear and the participants should make every effort to stick to the topic. Any digressions should have a purpose relevant to the topic.

The participants should commit themselves to seeing the debate through to the end. However, time allowances should be made for real-life interventions. (I would love to participate in the debate, but can?t guarantee I will be stopping in every day.)

A thread will be created, to allow Members to express which side they would like to debate, and in the case that there are more than 4 Participants total, a decision will have to be made on the number/participants in a team.

then a Peanut Gallery will be set up (a thread) for comments on the ongoing Debate.

Rules for the Peanut Gallery -

All comments/compliments/opinions/questions should be asked/stated here please.

Try to be respectful to the debaters, no flaming or verbally asaulting them, respect their opinions too!

Slimies are aloud, but because these threads tend to get long (we went through 4 on the last one) I ask that you do not post your graphic sigs (taglines are acceptable) to keep the filesize down to a minimum.

So...how much interest is there? Post away here if you are interested...

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Imperial thumbs up on this - its been too long since we dusted off our sparring gloves

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

I'll repeat here, just in case it was missed elsewhere:

I'm in.

Hmm... very tempting... hmm...

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

C'mon Bugs...I'll join, if you do!

The World will be watching...

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Come on, Bugs.

For the sake of all the young'uns who have never seen us run...

you gotta
You just gotta!

as one of the people that is probably being refered to as a young'un I would very much like to see yo get into this Bugimus because you seem to me a very capable speaker and I admire you for saying your feelings without polishing it up with political correctness.

Believe me, I very much would like to join this one. But I am going to be very busy during July and August so I'm a little worried about that. I am also interested to see who else might show interest in participating to get a better feel for the teams. Is anyone else interested in this one?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

Bring out your dead! Bring out your....heh.

Whoops!

Ok, sound off! Who wants to debate Iraq? C'mon...we need debate partners here!!!!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

Bugs, would it help if I started calling you a chicken?

A pre-emptive strike of sorts? LOL!!!

I'm basically in as long as my schedule over the next two months will not jepoardize the debate. It may take me longer to respond in some cases. But I think we really need some more partners to pop up to do this right.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

WS need a team mate count me in

Tom, I'd be more than honored to be on a team with you.

It is more that pleasant to hear that you can make it, Bugs. Anyone willing to team up with Bugs? He is one damn good debater.

And we need a Referee - who is up for that?

C'mon people - this is your chance to become famous!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Well, if no one else will take the challenge, I'll participate.

Ramasax

Oooooooooo does that sound like we have two teams??

In the antiwar corner: WS and Tom (the former soldiers? Interesting)

In the pro-war corner: Bugs and Ramasax (my wishlist for the pro-war corner)

And in time honoured fashion:

LETS GET READY TO RUUUUMMMMMMMMBLE!!!!!

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

(Edited by Emperor on 06-26-2004 14:41)

Hold on a second there, mobrul was the first to sign up for this thing.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

I wasn't aware that mobrul was on the pro side. Seems Emps was under the same impression. I'll happily step aside if that's the case.

Ramasax

I seriously doubt mobrul is on the pro side, Ram.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

quote:

---

Bugimus said:

Hold on a second there, mobrul was the first to sign up for this thing.

---

Ooops well spotted

So is it WS as impartial observer and Tom and mobrul as the anti team?

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

or maybe morbrul as the moderator?

either way i dont mind i was kinda hoping to team up with ws on this though

Or maybe we can try 3 asylumites per team?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

hehe, might be hard pressed to find another member for the pro team.

If you guys decide to go up to three asylumites per team I'd like the opportunity to join Bugs and Ramasax if no one else has already asked. While I'm anti-war, I think I'd like the opportunity to research the opposite perspective and try to make a compelling case.

Of course, for a topic that has been immensely popular, should we limit participation to just 2 or 3? Obviously the lower the number the more smoothly the process would go but whats the fun in order?

"My father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle or pretend to be anybody else. I don't know what's wrong with these people -- they have to keep invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If they can't stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure." - Ronald P. Reagan.

Jestah welcome in

well it looks like this if everyone is ok with it

Antiwar team

morbrul
webshamen
tomeaglescz

prowar team

bugismus
jestah
ramasax

awaiting a volunteer for moderating it.... (unless i saw emp's hand waving in the back of the room)

this should be a great way to bring back the formal debates

The poster has demanded we remove all his contributions, less he takes legal action.
We have done so.
Now Tyberius Prime expects him to start complaining that we removed his 'free speech' since this message will replace all of his posts, past and future.
Don't follow his example - seek real life help first.

WOOOOOHOOOOOO!

Ok...who's modding? Huh? Speak up!

We are *this close* to another Formal Debate!

C'mon Emps...you know you want to!

I officially welcome and praise the membes on my team, Morbrul and Tom! Nice to have you both on board!

WebShaman | Asylum D & D | D & D Min Page

Hey. Gone for a weekend and almost replaced. Thanks, Bugs, for speakin' up.
I'm ready...been doing my preliminary research and have a basic battle plan lined up.

It's an honor to be opposed by three men as well written and intelligent as you three.
And, of course, I could not have picked better teammates on my own.

With formalities out of the way, let's have fun.

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

WOOOOOHOOOOOO!

Ok...who's modding? Huh? Speak up!

We are *this close* to another Formal Debate!

C'mon Emps...you know you want to!

---

Sorry - no can do.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org | Justice for Pat Richard | FAQs: Emperor | Site Reviews | Reception Room

i'll mod if we need someone. i'm not necessarily impartial on the subject but would have no problem appearing to be for a bit

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

Ok looks like sides are drawn and we have a mod in place

So for subjects! (relevant to the theme)

please add suggestions to subject theme (ie those based on the last war in iraq)

1. Can the use of force against a sovereign nation who has not invaded another ever be justified.
2. IS it legal to replace a government by the use of force (ie war) because it's current leadership (dictatorship)doest offer it's citizens the same rights as are acceptable by our standards.
3. Is it justifiable to invade a country and replace it's leadership because we dont think its current leadership is acceptable by our standards.
4. Is it justifiable to invade a country dismantle (or destroy) its military capabilities and replace it's leadership because of a concieved threat (ie not 100% proven).

these are just a few ideas based on comments from previous threads on this topic....

remember the topic should form a question to which both parties should provide an argument, this should be based on facts, logic, or experience.

BUT above all lets keep it polite and respectful, and I know this one will be very heated, so lets avoid flame wars in the peanut gallery and here. (emps or any other mad sci's please take time to drop in now and then and mod the peanut gallery in case of "Over enthusiatic responses )

anyway over to you guys...

(Edited by tomeaglescz on 06-28-2004 19:13)

5. What constitutes a "conceived threat"?


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

I think some of those topics might be a bit too specific. We might be better off with a broader theme such as "Was the war in Iraq justifiable?" With the broader theme we can be free to address the issues in any way we choose. Just my thoughts.

"My father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle or pretend to be anybody else. I don't know what's wrong with these people -- they have to keep invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If they can't stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure." - Ronald P. Reagan.

Fig: for example WMD (there wasnt 100% proof but the war was initiated on the pinciple that he might have them) !!!! And that saddam might use them or sell them if he had them.....


Jestah good point, however with the wide and varied arguments one could use in this it would leave much too much still open to argument, maybe mine were too narrow, but as i suggested these were only ideas....


just my 0.2c (for whats it is worth...not much i know )

I tend to lean more toward the broad questions (Jestah's) than the narrower ones (Tom's).

Looking at Tom's questions, one could answer yes to every one of them, but still oppose the war in Iraq.
Or, one could answer no to everyone of them, believe Iraq DID invade someone else (q #1) and there was a 100% absolute threat (q #4) and thus believe the war was justified.

Narrow questions, unless very carefully crafted, could obscure the nuiances of some of our opinions.

I think it would be much safer to go with broader questions.

broad questions may be a better way to go, we can just start with "Was the U.S. justified in going to war wtih Iraq?", pick a side to start, and go from there.

chris


KAIROSinteractive | tangent oriented

I'm interested to see you guys all go at it. I enjoy reading the debates...
How 'bout this for a topic?

"Did Iraq under Saddam Hussein present a real threat to the security of the US people, and did the US Government properly inform and justify the invasion of Iraq to the US people and the world? Have the actions taken and information gained by the US Government to date been successful in supporting the US decision to invade? How so?"

Tryin' to be broad, but also to provide some structure to the answers... simply questioning the justification of the war itself leaves things wide open...

I tend to favor the broad topics too. I recall the first two debates:

Does God Exist?

Should Drugs Be Legal?

Those were both very broad in scope and the debates seemed to come out pretty well.

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . . : Justice 4 Pat Richard : . .

We also might not want to limit this to the United States. A threat to one of our neighbors or partners in the international community might be sufficient reason to go to war without formally being threatened.

I don't see structure being a problem here. The six of us have been fairly vocal about this war in these forums so I suppose I can guess with a fair amount of confidence what everyone is going to talk about.

"My father never felt the need to wrap himself in anybody else's mantle or pretend to be anybody else. I don't know what's wrong with these people -- they have to keep invoking him. It is their administration, their war. If they can't stand on their own two feet, they're no Ronald Reagans, for sure." - Ronald P. Reagan.

I prefer the broad range, but whatever you guys all decide on is fine with me. I don't think I was ever in on an actual 'formal' debate here, so is there anything I should know? (besides of course civility) Do we all just post separately or are we expected to confer with our team members either by email/chat to try and keep a lot of arguments from being restated?

Ramasax