At this point, it's getting a bit amusing
It's your proposition. And according to the standard rules,
As it's your proposition, you are the affirmative. And despite your contention that, "All 3 propositions are basicly the same", the third is a broad and ill-defined expansion of the first two versions. If you actually write an opening argument, then we'll have a better definition of what you mean. Otherwise, you're simply asking me to think for you, to presume what you mean.
If you wish to renegotiate the rules, now is the time to do so. For instance, specifically reject your proposition of a 500-word cap. If you stick to one of your first two propositions, I probably won't even need the full 1,500. If you want to expand according to the third, we might need to bump it as high as 3,000. It all depends on how many new points of argument you wish to add.
Ah, so that's what you're afraid of? Or, perhaps more directly, did you really think I would pass on such a thesis?
It's okay, though. If you want to back out, that's fine with me.
Most people? Interesting. A whole sample of one? And when did String's general assertion of opinion become some sort of fact? In other words, how does his contention that, "People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish", pertain to your first proposition that, "if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists"?
He certainly doesn't address that connection.
Syzygys said:
It's your proposition. And according to the standard rules,
1. The debater for the affirmative side of the debate will create the "Debate" thread and post the first post, setting out his or her main arguments.
As it's your proposition, you are the affirmative. And despite your contention that, "All 3 propositions are basicly the same", the third is a broad and ill-defined expansion of the first two versions. If you actually write an opening argument, then we'll have a better definition of what you mean. Otherwise, you're simply asking me to think for you, to presume what you mean.
If you wish to renegotiate the rules, now is the time to do so. For instance, specifically reject your proposition of a 500-word cap. If you stick to one of your first two propositions, I probably won't even need the full 1,500. If you want to expand according to the third, we might need to bump it as high as 3,000. It all depends on how many new points of argument you wish to add.
Ah, so that's what you're afraid of? Or, perhaps more directly, did you really think I would pass on such a thesis?
It's okay, though. If you want to back out, that's fine with me.
Most people? Interesting. A whole sample of one? And when did String's general assertion of opinion become some sort of fact? In other words, how does his contention that, "People should be allowed to marry whomever they wish", pertain to your first proposition that, "if gays deserve the right to marry each other based on whatever grounds, so do we, polygamists"?
He certainly doesn't address that connection.
