The new Debate Forum - Calling all Fighters

Who is up for an easy debate something fun for the holidays.. I cannot stress myself on serious topics too much right now..

reply to post by vkey08


Do you have any ideas??

Peace, NRE.

Hello Debate Thread. We need two judges for a friendly debate topic of :
"President Richard Nixon faked the Moon landings?"

Between DJW001 and SayonaraJupiter. Starting within 2 weeks.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Happy to help out

I'll volunteer as well.

Watching MyATS for the start....

I can volunteer, but I believe my views on the topic are pretty well known also!

I'd leave that choice up to Sayonara. Oh and hiya Sayonara.

Excellent! Let's do this thing!

originally posted by: Pinke
I can volunteer, but I believe my views on the topic are pretty well known also!

I'd leave that choice up to Sayonara. Oh and hiya Sayonara.

Great! Thanks adjensen, Thanks Druid42 and Thanks Pinke.

We are now at the stage of negotiations where we settle on the rules of the debate, number of posts, word counts, etc.

By having three self-appointed judges we are bending the rules slightly. But, because we are trying to resurrect the Debate Forum I think we should be allowed structure this debate in a sensible way that we can agree all agree upon.

For the record this was my initial offer of debate on page 216 of this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Once we have agreed on the structure we can proceed to the final step of actually creating the debate in a new thread.

Does this all sound fair and reasonable to you DJW and judges?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Works for me.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Let's go.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Let's go.

From the OP:

* Debates are three posts each. One post opens and defines your debate the other are the body of the debate.

* There is a character limit of 5000 words in place. Our desire for debates is that instead of turning it into a linking and referencing-fest or overstating your point, you bring your argument across in a succinct manner. Debates are meant to be fun and readable.

* As a fighter you can start and run a debate after you have gotten approval in this thread or from a Moderator of this Forum. A debate no longer needs an introduction. You start it by simply starting with your opening post. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Does this mean 5000 word limit for each post? or a 3 post AND 5000 word limit?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I'm okay with this. Though I suppose the official rules are 2 anonymous judges ... As far as I can tell, no moderator has found anonymous judges for this?

I suspect that it's meant to read '5000 character limit per post'? Rather than 5000 word character limit? Which maybe doesn't make sense to me.

a reply to: Pinke

Tis true. 5000 characters per post, but that also includes periods and commas, etc. That's a total of 15,000 per debater, 30,000 for the whole debate. That's going by the last set of rules the last mod in charge posted (Skyfloating).

Currently, there is no active mod in this forum, but I'm sure if somebody asks tothetenthpower, we'll get one or two assigned here. Tenth was the go to guy, but that was before he got SuperMod powers. I'm sure if you guys re-activate the forum, you'll get the help you need. We'll have to see how that plays out.

Three judges ARE needed, in the event of a tie between two.

I'll be reading along.....

a reply to: Druid42

Danke Druid.

I'm not too worried about judging being public to be honest. In real life they are. It's really up to DJW and Sayonara.

If I'm judging anything, I'll be being tabula rasa (blank slate) as possible so just treat me like I just arrived from nowhere. My only minor concern, Sayonara, might be that you are making it a little hard for yourself with the character limits by including Richard Nixon as one of your proofs.

I believe debating the moon landing is a difficult enough one on its own. I've been there, and I ran out of words constantly.

a reply to: Druid42

Tis true. 5000 characters per post, but that also includes periods and commas, etc. That's a total of 15,000 per debater, 30,000 for the whole debate.

Thanks for the clarification because it was needed. If those terms are acceptable to DJW then I will also agree to them. After that we can proceed to arrange who, fighters or judges, should initiate the first post of the thread.

I think that one of our three judges should initiate the thread in order to help avoid any possible appearance sof bias in the course of the debate. It doesn't make sense for me or DJW to originate the thread, it could be argued there was a lack of subject matter jurisdiction if I originated the thread... hee hee

a reply to: Pinke

My only minor concern, Sayonara, might be that you are making it a little hard for yourself with the character limits by including Richard Nixon as one of your proofs.

I am going to restrict myself to no links/no images/no citations... nothing but pure rhetoric. My 15,000 characters may not be pretty... sometimes I am my own worst editor.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Wonder where the judges went?!

I think Druid hasn't been around the last few days and am not sure about Adjensen.

DJW / Sayonara: are you both thinking any particular time frame rules or anything like that? I know you're both pretty regular posters, so I imagine you will both complete this easy enough. Are we just going rules as written? Or are there any other stipulations about Socratic questioning etc you both would like to introduce?

Just wondering if there is any details we need to cover before starting, and if the availability of judges might be a concern?

Topic is: "President Richard Nixon faked the Moon landings"

Typically, the pro position creates the thread, and begins the debate. The con position would respond to the opening.

Something like....
Challenge match: pro UN vs con UN, "Nixon faked the moon landings"


a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Pinke
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Wonder where the judges went?!

I think Druid hasn't been around the last few days and am not sure about Adjensen.

DJW / Sayonara: are you both thinking any particular time frame rules or anything like that? I know you're both pretty regular posters, so I imagine you will both complete this easy enough. Are we just going rules as written? Or are there any other stipulations about Socratic questioning etc you both would like to introduce?

Just wondering if there is any details we need to cover before starting, and if the availability of judges might be a concern?

Topic is: "President Richard Nixon faked the Moon landings"

I had originally offered DJW the opportunity to go first and that still stands. BTw, I don't know what side he is taking pro or con. DJW can express to us if he wishes to go first or last. To me it does not matter if pro or con goes first. If DJW doesn't stop in within the next few days then I think the 3 judges should vote and choose who goes first!

Also the debate topic includes a '?' at the end of it. That is the way DJW wrote it and that is what I agreed to.

originally posted by: Druid42
Typically, the pro position creates the thread, and begins the debate. The con position would respond to the opening.

Something like....
Challenge match: pro UN vs con UN, "Nixon faked the moon landings"


a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Here is a good title, "DJW001 vs SayonaraJupiter: "President Richard Nixon faked the Moon landings?"

The debaters are displayed in alphabetical order. The topic of the debate is in "quotes" like that.

Should I just go ahead and make a thread like that then?