Open call for ideas on future debates

***I've been getting U2Us from people who tried to post here and couldn't. Please be aware that you must be awarded "fighter" status to post in the debate forum. Just u2u me and you will get it, but you will have to actually participate in a debate to keep it.***

So we're half way through 2012, and we've had ONE count 'em ONE debate. That and it looks like our ranking sheet reflects an incorrect current champion. A hefty portion of the blame for this is on me of course- sometimes I just don't have the attention span this forum requires- this place can be very time intensive for everyone- fighters, judges, mods- everyone. I'd like to come up with a way to make this forum easier to enjoy and a little less demanding.


Off the top of my head, one idea would be to replace tournaments with a "debate season" spanning a few months or even the whole year, where we open a new ranking sheet, enroll everyone who wants to participate, however many or few that might be, and set a number of debates that must be completed by the end of the season in order to be ranked... then we choose our champion by record, possibly with a couple of tie-breaker matches. This should eliminate the need for strict time limits.

I welcome any debater to offer comments or additional ideas.

I would like to see one that addresses Credible Witness verses the Average Person.

Seems UFOlogy is riddled with first hand accounts of both sides of this debate and yet time after time only the "Credible" witness gets respect.

Funny you make this call because just the other day I was feeling like U2Uing you about getting some opened up for new members.

Here's a quote from myself on another thread in the Debate Forum:

It's time to bring some life back into the debate forum. All you fighters out there, and other members that enjoy a good debate, let's see if we can resurrect this forum, and make it one of the most important on ATS. With all the debates that take place on this site, what better place than in this forum for the real battles to take place?

If you have a topic that you are passionate about, start a challenge...voice your opinions...

And now, let's get the ball rolling...

I'd like to start an open challenge to debate Free Will.

It's a rather hard topic for debate, but also one of the most interesting battles that can be had.

I see that there are a few earlier challenges from members stating "Anyone, Anything, Anytime"...Well, here's your chance. If you want a debate, let's get this one going...If you have a better topic in mind, I'm open to all challenges...U2U me if you're interested in a debate, and we'll set up the details.

Any challengers out there ready for a battle?

I didn't even know about the one earlier this year ... wow...

Uh.. I'd love to be involved in another one, as for topics, we have a ton of them right now that would be good, there's an election coming up so a lot of ideas are floating around, (universal health care, Iran/war, Isreal and are they the Evil Empire) I would really have to give some more thought to it...

And this time i'm not in the middle of a nasty court case

The one earlier this year was a single debate, not a tournament. Only two members have even been in a debate this year.

I'm still more interested in ideas for how we can make debate competitions take less time and energy from participants and judges, but topic suggestions are also welcome.

Here is a list of possible topics that I just sent to isyeye and agarta, who are preparing for the second challenge match of the year as we speak.

1. The US and China will probably fight a major war against each other in the 21st Century.

2. There is already an Extra Terrestrial presence on Earth.

3. Private banks should be abolished, and the financial system placed under the direct control of the voting public.

4. Privacy is impossible in the information age and should not be considered a civil right.

5. The military installation known as Area 51 is not actually related to extra-terrestrials or extra-terrestrial craft.

6. It is impossible to become President of the United States without being wealthy.

7. Nazi Germany was in contact with ETs.

8. The pyramids and other megalithic structures were built using advanced scientific principles not yet discovered by modern civilization.

9. Public first contact with ETs would be a disaster for today's civilization.

10. The Black Plague was introduced to Europe on purpose.

11. The British royal family is secretly much more powerful than officially claimed.

12. Technology will eventually put an end to most forms of violence.

I would like to issue an open challenge on topic #7. A favorite topic of mine to discuss.

I can take on pro, or con. Send myself or T. Vagabond a PM, or reply in this thread to arrange a date and time.

Cheers!

FYI - The rankings from the last tournament were never adjusted...meaning that all debates that occurred after the first round were never added/subtracted...I should have a record of 13-7...

Haven't thought about the debates in awhile though. I don't think I have time to jump in but it would be cool to see some new blood...

reply to post by W3RLIED2


I'll accept your challenge.

7. Nazi Germany was in contact with ETs.

I have a preference to debate the con however.

I made the Debate forum a favorite a while ago, and have had the chance to read through several excellent debates, so even though this would be my first debate, I have a good understanding of the process involved.

I too, have pined over the lack of activity in this forum, so I am very interested in being involved in the debate process. My ulterior motives are to gain "Fighter" status to add to my avatar, as well as logically discussing interesting topics in a formalized setting. Hopefully, more activity in this forum will spark more interest, and in doing so, provide additional ideas for discussion.

I'd like to "get my feet wet" in the debates, and I feel I'll offer you an interesting opponent. Best of luck, and feel free to post/pm any additional details.

***To add, The Vagabond added my permission to post here, and after deciding who goes first, we may begin. As the challenger, I'll default to your decision as to who begins the debate. I have no preference as to who starts, but I do choose to argue the con.***

We've always done a system where pro opens and con goes second. I've received word that it may take a few days to get started, and hopefully that will be OK.

I'd like to avoid time limits in debates for right now and just see how things go when we let things unfold on their own pace, and if that presents as many problems as the old 24 hour turn around time did then we can fine tune from there.

So I'm about to create the debate thread, but it may take a few days for it to actually get rolling.

reply to post by The Vagabond


Thanks for the information. I'll await my turn.

Is it possible to participate in more than one debate at a time? That may be an odd request, but I find it feasible on my end.

If so, I'll pick another topic and open a challenge.

reply to post by Druid42


To the best of my knowledge that has never been attempted before, and speaking as a pretty experienced fighter I would personally not choose to take on that kind of work load (I like to print my opponents post and carry them around with me all day, reading and arguing in my head whenever i have free time, then eventually get home and spend several hours actually composing my reply... but I'm one for overkill).

However, I do have someone else looking for an opponent, and if he doesn't get another challenger within a day or so, I guess there would be no harm in letting you try as long as you're sure you can do it and not leave one or both of your opponent's hanging.

The other challenger I refer to will be here to post his challenge shortly- I'm about to make him a fighter. He's looking for someone to argue on the feasibility of advanced science/technology such as free energy and anti-gravity as I understand it.

reply to post by The Vagabond


Thank you for granting me the opportunity to participate.

My challenge is free-e, (over-unity) levitation, (not mag-lev which is still grounded by a mono-rail) and faster than light travel

I am arguing it is possible so the challenge is for someone to defend the scientific dogma that it can't be done.

I would also extend that into a philosophical perspective on benefits vs adversity of developing these concepts - pro's and cons from both sides of the debate that should shed light on why it is being kept from us. (or it isn't possible if that is your stance)

Originally posted by The Vagabond

2. There is already an Extra Terrestrial presence on Earth.

12. Technology will eventually put an end to most forms of violence.

I'd like to open challenge either number 12 or number 2, if anyone's interested. Pro for 12, and con for 2, although I am open for both if someone wants to challenge otherswise.

ETA: Just a side note of mention, I am in Australia, so the difference of time zones will have to be worked out if my challenger is from the US or Europe.

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by The Vagabond

 

Thank you for granting me the opportunity to participate.

My challenge is free-e, (over-unity) levitation, (not mag-lev which is still grounded by a mono-rail) and faster than light travel

I am arguing it is possible so the challenge is for someone to defend the scientific dogma that it can't be done.

I would also extend that into a philosophical perspective on benefits vs adversity of developing these concepts - pro's and cons from both sides of the debate that should shed light on why it is being kept from us. (or it isn't possible if that is your stance)

I'll accept, but just want to clarify; are you debating the possibility of it's existence vs. the fact it simply can't be done, or whether it is feasible tech and something the government keeps from us because of the potential of losing their stranglehold on energy values? Just wondering.

Originally posted by 74Templar

Originally posted by anoncoholic
reply to post by The Vagabond

 

Thank you for granting me the opportunity to participate.

My challenge is free-e, (over-unity) levitation, (not mag-lev which is still grounded by a mono-rail) and faster than light travel

I am arguing it is possible so the challenge is for someone to defend the scientific dogma that it can't be done.

I would also extend that into a philosophical perspective on benefits vs adversity of developing these concepts - pro's and cons from both sides of the debate that should shed light on why it is being kept from us. (or it isn't possible if that is your stance)

I'll accept, but just want to clarify; are you debating the possibility of it's existence vs. the fact it simply can't be done, or whether it is feasible tech and something the government keeps from us because of the potential of losing their stranglehold on energy values? Just wondering.

good point, FTL is one side of that spectrum while technology suppression is another. I guess that would have to be an open point for pro and con but can be explored via the philosophical angle.

I guess I am arguing that these technologies are all possible though so in essence I am arguing that they should exist.

Actually, I will save you some trouble in research, I don't plan on doing any patent searches for things like that to make it easier for us both. I will argue from a logical standpoint not an itemized one and FTL is just one of those things science says can't be done and I say it can and will try to explain why. You have the laws of science on your side and all I can do is try to be convincing.

The free-e and levitation can be pro or con in this light so if you want to argue they do exist is a moot point but the FTL is the barrier between us. We could even drop the free-e and levitation but they support my FTL side of the argument.

If you want we can drop them from the theme of debate being faster than light vs no way to go FTL but I will be using them both to prove my point.

Considering I am theorizing the only info you will have to prove a con is what I bring to the table.

I'd say good luck to us both but if I just said good luck to you I would sound over-confident and I'm not but saying to us both I also sound insecure in my position and I'm not so what I will say is let the game begin.

I am actually pulling for you btw. Only when I am challenged do I reach for depths I am otherwise complacent to and ultimately all learning curves do is meet set criteria and don't go beyond.

FTL is beyond rocket science according to science so I have an uphill battle all the way and I am not in any of the related fields. I can only theorize. The odds are in your favor (but don't take it for granted that the deck wasn't stacked)

Thank you for accepting. I think I tried this same challenge many years ago and had no takers at that time.
... maybe nobody took me seriously or didn't see it buried beneath mounds of threads though

Given the philosophical angle that you're suggesting, you may find it a little more balanced for both sides to debate the hypothetical treatment of such technology assuming it exists.

For example, "The current political and scientific establishments would most likely suppress advanced technologies such as Faster-Than-Light travel and Free Energy if they were proven to be immediately achievable."

reply to post by The Vagabond


I can agree with that since I have no proof and can only surmise the hypothetical existence of that which I have no prior knowledge. Not to delve too deeply into reality and what would definitely be National Security issues

I am not relying upon the philosophy to debate and sway the reader to an understanding of not only plausibility, but probability since there isn't a lot of wiggle room in logic (unless it is faulty)

In the truest definition this entire debate rests on hypotheticals since I haven't gone FTL nor has anyone else afaik

I believe I can present my case in a few sentences though or in a single post but that is only convincing to my understanding and not all think alike... especially when it invokes a challenge to the known laws of science.

I have been reading through other debates and find the intellect and eloquence of ATS to be a class act and I hope I meet the standards of presentation considering that I really have the burden of challenging known laws.

I am not going to try to sophisticate the issue with facts but its relevance would require me to lay out some background of the laws themselves. I intend to challenge what is adhered to and what has come from the greatest minds. I do not see myself as being above them, but I do evolve my way of thinking and those thoughts had their origins in what is known.

In short, I would welcome the opportunity to at least try to take them down as I view them as outdated considering the views I hold. and I am but a mere mortal without wallpaper adorning my walls.

I am not infallible but I do believe I can convince you all that Faster than light travel is possible regardless of what the known laws mandate.

Perhaps I am being too verbose since this isn't the debate but since this will be my first mono a mono I would welcome the chance to present my case.

... I hope I whet your appetites for more

reply to post by anoncoholic


In the future, I would like to debate both you and 74Templar. After your debate with him, I'd like to challenge you.

Keep it in the back of your mind.

reply to post by The Vagabond

To the best of my knowledge that has never been attempted before, and speaking as a pretty experienced fighter I would personally not choose to take on that kind of work load (I like to print my opponents post and carry them around with me all day, reading and arguing in my head whenever i have free time, then eventually get home and spend several hours actually composing my reply... but I'm one for overkill).

However, I am up for the challenge. I have a smartphone with a data plan, and lurk on ATS throughout the day during work, as well as researching topics. No need for a printout. I can drop comments on the touchscreen, but it's not conducive to lengthy responses, however, such as you, I wait until after work in the evening to actually type on a "real" keyboard. I am EST, in the USA, and I'm willing to give it a try. Without the time limit restrictions, I feel that it would be feasible for me to handle two debates without leaving either opponent hanging.

In fact, to make it even more challenging, I'd like to present a new topic, "There is no extra-terrestrial intelligent life in the universe, save the planet Earth." I'll offer an open challenge. I'll take the pro position. I'll argue the point that there is no other intelligent lifeforms "out there", and that we are alone in the cosmos, and are a unique species with a tenacious lifespan.

Anyone?

reply to post by The Vagabond


I was thinking along those lines too. Science and tech aren't really my strong suits, so anything I could bring would be only study from the sources, and to be honest the science side of this kind of tech I don't really understand. I was thinking more along the lines of pro vs. con as to why we should and shouldn't have this kind of tech available, and what it would be worth to initiate programs that allowed exploration beyond our solar system, and whether our current system of government would even allow it given the current state of war in the world and the suppression of free tech to allow corprorations to make money.

As you have initiated the debate though, I will allow whatever discussion is brought to the table, in a nutshell I enjoy a challenge and stepping outside my known fields, and like a good debate