i was wondering people are interested in having threads in which we use a more stuctured debating style than we normally do here. It is something i tried to set up in one thread in ethics at the moment and it seems to be going well

Some of the rules of a normal debate i wouldnt apply like time limits, limited teams or having only one side then the other post. I think that these rules would just not fit with our comunity. Altho maybe some people do want to have specific debates with cirtan people.

the rules i thought up were just a rough few. Things like any personal atack being deleted, off topic posting being not alowed at all just a few of the genral things you would see in a debate.

so are people interested in this idea?

if you are what rules would you inforce in it?

do you think this should just be specific threads under say ethics or should it have its own seprate section?

I don't think the rules for debate should be "invented" on this forum. I would favor something similar to the Oxford format because most are (or should be) familiar with it. Debate "stickys" or a separate forum could be set up with post authority limited to the debators and moderator.

I'm in favor of it.

marv i didnt mean we should just make up the rules from scratch but the practicality of the forum we are using would prevent as stuctured a debate as they do in live debates (for want of a better term).

also i dont think we should limit who can go in it. i think anyone should be alowed to join in at any point

the advantage of using a seprate forum would be that we could suspend members from it who do nothing but destroy it or dont stick to the rules or topics but apart from that why say you can only have 4 posters on it (for example) because only 2 want to take one side of the debate? those 2 could be well resurched enough to take on 5 or 6 others

but thats just my opinion

also i dont think we should limit who can go in it. i think anyone should be alowed to join in at any point

Bad idea. Keep it to two.

I see my post has been deleted. I suppose I should have elaborated a bit.
I said:

* * *

if you are what rules would you inforce in it?

The rule of the fist.

* * *

My point is that everyone entering any debate should know -- as a rule -- that having a debate is a privilege and a luxury, but also a way to take out a fight mentally instead of physically.

But the aim -- to win -- is just the same. We don't enter debates for fun or because they were an interesting pastime. We enter them to win. We are guided by the rule of the fist. Just because it looks nice when we take out our fight with words instead of fists, does in no way mean that we are not guided by that same rule of the fist.

I think this much ought to be clear to everyone entering a debate, hence I suggested it as a rule.

its a compitision like any other sport but played just for fun not to beat the crap out of someone

My point is that everyone entering any debate should know -- as a rule -- that having a debate is a privilege and a luxury, but also a way to take out a fight mentally instead of physically.

But the aim -- to win -- is just the same. We don't enter debates for fun or because they were an interesting pastime. We enter them to win. We are guided by the rule of the fist. Just because it looks nice when we take out our fight with words instead of fists, does in no way mean that we are not guided by that same rule of the fist.

I think this much ought to be clear to everyone entering a debate, hence I suggested it as a rule.

Who says we don't enter debates because they are an interesting pastime? People enter debates to learn new things, not to demonstrate their ignorance is inferior to their opponents. Remember what we have been talking about: we should admit that we just don't know anything; we can only assume.

I don't like the idea of making debating a rule. It would be cool, though, to see some debate threads that are started by the members.

roman we were talking about having just the one section with just these sorts of threads. To be honest we cant rely on members just doing what they are told. If you look at the one i tried to make you will see that THE FIRST RESPONCE is totally off topic garbage, we didnt even get one post on the topic to start it off. If there was a specific section dedicated to it then people would KNOW that "hello, this section has different rules from the rest of the board, by posting there you chose to obay them or not be alowed back in there again"

at least thats my thoughs

we were talking about having just the one section with just these sorts of threads.
Ah, well, I'm in total support of that.


To be honest we cant rely on members just doing what they are told.
Perhaps if the thread could be regulated by forumers with a post count above 1,000, so they could be held socially repsonsible for their management. All edits, deletions and stuff would be visible, and it would say when it was edited and by whom, and for what reason.

Of course, this would not only require some site-structure built, but probably cause strife between the forumers with +1k posts and those who don't, and probably further obnoxions from the feuding members (like Persol and MacM).

Roman it would be much easier for 1 or 2 mods to regulate it if they were willing to put in the time than a heep of members

i was wondering people are interested in having threads in which we use a more stuctured debating style than we normally do here.

Like this?

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread57806/pg1

can be cool, I think, with only 2 participants for clarity sake. They could be group 'speakers' tho, probably with all sorts of frantic subdiscussions by those groups in between formal rounds...

But blah blah blah?
Blah blah blah blah, in the blah blah blah.

Blah blah:
1) blah the blah
2) blah in blah
3) blah this blah
3) blah blah blah bisblah blahadylah.

Blah blah- blah blah.

gendanken should read 'Gedanken' (thoughts in German).

Lucabrutio Ebria is nonsense Latin, although ebria means 'drinks'.

The rest is very deep, too.

wow, thanks for your contribution, thnoughts!

Smoogle:

gendanken should read 'Gedanken' (thoughts in German).
Yes, I know this.
Tricky keyboard, fucks the spelling.

The choice was g for gedanken or Gargamel.
Hogotha, too eichy.

So, gendanken.

Lucabrutio Ebria is nonsense Latin, although ebria means 'drinks'.
Not for Sam Butler.

BLAH!

Not for Sam Butler.

BLAH!

Maybe. But then again, he did not have your keyboard. Probably just another of your typos.

As he said: 'Life is like playing a violin in public and learning the instrument as one goes on.'

funny: came across the right word in a book I was reading. Probably never ever see it again, tho.

http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/e/e0097150.html

Elucubratio ebria : let me write something profound while getting soaked, and my keyboard too... ;)

funny: came across the right word in a book I was reading. Probably never ever see it again, tho.

Actually, the 'right' word is lucubratio which when translated from the Latin means 'work'.
I used it in the sense of lubrication, which missspelled that way, like my name makes no sense.

.
You may reprimand me.

You may reprimand me

Reminds me of the joke about the sadist and the masochist:

Masochist: Hit me!

Sadist: No......

:)

Tip: whenever you see one of those old-style, heavy IBM keyboards, grab it. I have 4 spares, even. Nothing comes close. Dropped one from several meters once, only to find out they put double caps on the keys, which are easily snapped back into place. In-de-frigging-structible, and when tossing out crumbs, tobacco and dried beer, you should remember to unscrew the bottom, and clean it properly, NEVER shake it upside down, 'cause all the crap gets stuck under the keys, which is the last place you want it to end up, and is actually the one way to make sure it does.

Fancy a formal debate? You pick the subject and position, I'll take up whatever's left. :m:

Oh my. This is getting juicy. The subtext!

Elucubratio ebria : let me write something profound while getting soaked, and my keyboard too...

Oh God..

*Always wash your hands*

Leave formal debates to a separate forum. There will be two subforums, one for the debate itself and one for the challenger to submit his case and well, challenge. The second will be for the challenger and challengee to duke it out with no interference.

Mercurios:

Tip: whenever you see one of those old-style, heavy IBM keyboards, grab it. I have 4 spares, even. Nothing comes close. Dropped one from several meters once, only to find out they put double caps on the keys, which are easily snapped back into place. In-de-frigging-structible, and when tossing out crumbs, tobacco and dried beer, you should remember to unscrew the bottom, and clean it properly, NEVER shake it upside down, 'cause all the crap gets stuck under the keys, which is the last place you want it to end up, and is actually the one way to make sure it does.
Will keep in mind.



Fancy a formal debate? You pick the subject and position, I'll take up whatever's left.
::sharpening claws:;
Sure.

The myth of relativity or the myth of European power.
Or why people fall in love.
Three subjects for you to choose from.

Rules:
No quoting line by line.
No posting on a whim.
No backing out by claiming sickness or depression.
No calling the other an imbecile until its required.
The last rule is a joke.

Game?
All responses should be in paragraph form.
I say relativity is a myth, we tend to concentrate on moral differences as opposed to similarities.
For a human, relativity is biologically impossible

I say the Indo-Europeaan (the Aryans raining down from south Asia and nortern Europe into India, for one example, or Spain and Portugal conquering the Americas or Africa for another) was theoretically powerful considering his victims.
He reminds me of Regan sometimes demanding Gorbichev tear down this wall!

I say people fall in love to have scenes.
Pick one.

Water:

Oh my. This is getting juicy.
Well, we were discussing lubrication.

Actually, here's a better one to replace the Indo-European thesis.
That one would introduce too many interprative loopholes, fucking annoying, and so common with history.

This one.
That physiology reflects psychology. A fat body thinks fat thoughts.

Cool. Although I think we were discussing inebriation more than lubrication...

rules are ok, even the last one.

Some small points:

what do you exactly see as quoting line by line?

do you mean relativity is *physically* impossible?

do you mean aryans were *theoretically* superiour, or technically or maybe biologically?

'people fall in love to have scenes' is a bit daft, don't you think?

Reminds me of the line: Insanity is Hereditary - only you get it from your kids.

Microseconds of fun, but a bit of a non-starter. Let's not disappoint our audiences here. Remember what Sam B. said about bores...

crossposted.... I like that one better, maybe keep it more general:

physiognomy follows psychology? (Meaning thinking fat makes you fat, btw.)

(reminds me of 'form follows function' and 'Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny' etc... nice one)

let's keep the aryans in... I think they actually ran from the filling of the Black Sea btw around 7000 BC or something. Started a whole 'Caucasian' movement, and gave us the Biblical Flood story, which strangely features Ararat, in Turkey, next to the Black Sea...)

what do
this

you
is

exactly see
quoting line

as
by

quoting line by line?
Line.

Which takes up too much space and processing time on the trivial.
Always better to hone in a good point with a nice, stolid paragraph- imagine reading a book scarred by quotes the way it is in this joint.

Ick..

Relativity:
I mean relativity is biologically impossible- it requires that one not take sides or make judgments…..when the human mind cannot function without judging or taking sides.

Its its biology as a thinking mind.

Personal opinions, observations, the simple agreeing with something- anything that stamps a proposition either with approval or disapproval destroys a person's claim to relativity.
A person who claims anything, privately or openly, has devestated his oh-so-comfortable relativistic position.

He attempts to save face by adding the- “But that’s my personal opinion, I’m not judging you” or “ You’re neither wrong nor right , everything’s relative”- which obliterate his position.

Indo-Europeans
I mean something like the Aryans are like an average sized man whose conquered a midget. Did he have to be strong to do so? Don’t bring up “cunning”- Indians, Mayans and Toltecs , for example, were hardly cunning.

So anyway, which do you pick? If they bore, let the fuckers eat cake!

I think the aryans, despite your previous misgivings should produce the most lively and varied debate.

The Aryan: successful refugee or mediocre conqueror?

I'd choose the successful refugee bit, then.

Hmm.
Successful refugee...cute, never quite saw it that way.

Now, elaborate.
(you picked the most boring one, but will do)

Hmm.
Successful refugee...cute, never quite saw it that way.

Now, elaborate.
(you picked the most boring one, but will do)

Problem with the 'relativity' thing is I more or less agree with what you wrote, so not much of a debate, there. First thought you meant Einstein or something.

Maybe not the most appealing of subject matters at first glance, but let's be inventive...

New thread? No edits after posting (yo! hard!), vitriolics allowed, but nothing personal or directed at parties not present. Objectivity does not exist, but lets try to pretend anyway... :)

Mercurio:

New thread? No edits after posting (yo! hard!), vitriolics allowed, but nothing personal or directed at parties not present. Objectivity does not exist, but lets try to pretend anyway...
Game.

Will start a thread on *my* pick then- you could not even elaborate when asked so this venture is cancelled.

So. My thread it is then, be there or......uh.., die.

you could not even elaborate when asked

Ever heard the expression: keeping your powder dry? Actually, also doing some reading up on the area around Ararat in that time... those people could make holes in obsidian so small, it would not permit the thinnest modern steel needle. They had only copper drills, if any, so it's very doubtful they did it that way, copper's too soft.

Noone knows how they did it. Cool. They were not as simple as we unsually think, anyway... l

:D

The Aryan: successful refugee or mediocre conqueror?
Western myth would be more accurate.

Western myth would be more accurate.

Actually, that ties into it, like agriculture, towns and the need to keep it all under check (not in the least those cattle-thieving hunter-gatherers), and people who set up shop elsewhere, fleeing political or religious prosecution, while all the time propagating the exact same system, with which they ofcourse set up trade relationships in no time at all.

Go west, young man. :)

Mercurio:

Ever heard the expression: keeping your powder dry?
Highly admirable.
Excellent.

SO! He/she's been doing their research.
Concerning those holes, it was my understanding they used animal hair and thin stalks of reed to poke through holes already in the rock.
The friction of going back and forth wore a perfect hole in it the breadth of a hair.

Ophilite:

Western myth would be more accurate.
Precisely.

Stories for effemnite scholars to get hard over in their studies.

Mercurio:

Highly admirable.
Excellent.

SO! He/she's been doing their research.
Concerning those holes, it was my understanding they used animal hair and thin stalks of reed to poke through holes already in the rock.
The friction of going back and forth wore a perfect hole in it the breadth of a hair.


He. Me, that is.

Pig. Hair, that is. Wild boar's hair with the tip regularly cut off diagonally to make it even sharper, was my guess. The reed could also have been something like a porcupine needle, maybe, I think I remember those are hollow.

Pig hair was already used in ancient China, as a very nasty way of getting rid of people. I'll spare you the details.
:eek:

As soon as you post your thread, maybe best let me know here, in case I overlook it.

Hals- und Beinbruch and all that.

Frankly, after seeing you're very busy elsewhere, I think it's best to call it off. (Gods, now THAT is one helluva depressing thread...)

I concede, or whatever. Have a nice forum, and bye all.

[logs off permanently]