|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Debate 1(a) - A Draft. |
||||||
|
Bring in a civil service draft. |
||||||
|
yeh, this one! |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 19-Jul-07, 10:05 |
Woo bleh |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
kingofpawns 19-Jul-07, 17:49 |
participation in civil projects, enrollment in a national service (army, police, nursing, fire, civil service etc) or the substantial (very very substantial!) funding of something recognizably beneficial to the nation or major part thereof. All members in the first week or so of their service must receive basic training in firearms and unarmed self defense as well as first aid and the proven ability to read and write to a recognizable standard. As part of their service they will be encouraged to participate in formal qualification with respect to their chosen field and others. Emergency recall powers would apply for the duration of their life.>>> This isn't an argument for a position. It is just a statement of a particular draft policy. |
||||||
|
Do you agree with it or not? If not, why? Sorry if i am an unused to a formal debate and its structure...lets just talk about the idea if that makes you happier.. |
||||||
|
Official Debate Commencement Dok, mrvroom and thumper will be Team A: Holding a Con-Draft Position as to the stated Definition vulgaire, musket33r and jeffheiman will be Team B: Holding a Pro-Draft Position as to the stated Definition Referee: KoP **************************************** Definition of "The Draft" as supplied by KoP: >>>All people of a nation to serve a fixed or otherwise term in formal aid to others of the nation through participation in civil projects, enrollment in a national service (army, police, nursing, fire, civil service etc) or the substantial (very very substantial!) funding of something recognizably beneficial to the nation or major part thereof. All members in the first week or so of their service must receive basic training in firearms and unarmed self defense as well as first aid and the proven ability to read and write to a recognizable standard. As part of their service they will be encouraged to participate in formal qualification with respect to their chosen field and others. Emergency recall powers would apply for the duration of their life.>>> This is the definition to be argued; and this alone. **************************************** Rules: 1. Only one person from the Team shall post on behalf of the team. A post by any other individuals either on the team or otherwise, save the referee, shall be subject to immediate deletion. Team A's Poster shall be Dok Team B's Poster shall be Jeff 2. Each team shall commence with an opening statement, starting with (I flipped a coin, really), Team B. 3. Team A shall then post their opening statement. 4. Pursuant to the Opening Statements, each team, starting with Team B followed by Team A, etc..., shall have an opportunity to a) address the opposing teams position, and; b) support their own position a total of 3 times during the first round. Each post and rebuttal after the Opening Statements shall be judged to have been won, lost or drawn by the referee. The referee shall then award the winning team a point or determine a draw was the result in which case no points shall be awarded. 5. 5 Rounds (15 posts per team) shall conclude the debate, after which the referee shall tally the total number of points and declare a winner. In the event that a draw is ultimately decided, each team shall have one additional opportunity to rebut (only) the opposing teams positions as held throughout the debate. The teams shall no longer argue the merits of their positions. The referee will then decide which team eroded the opposing teams position best. 6. A post made by a team may be no longer than 1,500 words and shall not include any links or superfluous "pointers". Simple text shall be the only viable mode of debate. If a team chooses to quote a source they may choose to source the quote. Sources shall be listed below the text and shall not be deemed to count as words in the word count. 7. English only, and proper english at that, is to be considered in the scoring as poorly written opinions shall be deemed poorly thought out positions. 8. The referee, at his sole discretion, may interrupt the debate in order to enforce the rules. 9. The referee shall cite and deliver an opinion along with the score after each round, as this will allow the Teams to alter their attacks/defense and add to the overall enjoyment of those watching the debate. The referees opinion is subject to appeal one time during the debate and only "with cause", in which case each team shall choose another individual and the referee shall choose another individual which will then comprise the appellate judges--which shall either hold the referees scoring or overturn the same. In the case that a team chooses to appeal the referees decision and fail to win an overturning of the referees opinion, the non-appealing team shall be awarded 1/2 point--therefore, caution should prevail and the referee shall practice, in good faith, to score the debate without bias and with a clearly written opinion after each of the 5 rounds. 10. Each team shall have 5 days to formulate and post their next post in the exact same way as GK games are calendared; weekends add 24 hours...etc...each team shall be allowed an extension of 3 days 1 time and /or additional time as the referee deems fit due to circumstances befitting an extension. Good Luck. **************************************** The floor belongs to Jeff. Once he posts Team B's Opening Statement, Team A will have 5 days to respond... |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 21-Jul-07, 04:58 |
Fine |
||||||
|
Did I miss something DoK |
||||||
|
replace me |
||||||
|
Dude |
||||||
|
dok |
||||||
|
Alright |
||||||
|
OK... and then wet your pants...we will not be taking prisoners...*) |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 23-Jul-07, 11:10 |
ok hold on |
||||||
|
softaire 23-Jul-07, 12:01 |
Deleted by eqj2 on 23-Jul-07, 16:23.
|
||||||
|
saintinsanity 23-Jul-07, 23:19 |
Deleted by saintinsanity on 25-Jul-07, 02:53.
|
||||||
|
Pawn Your Opening Statement is basically Open Season. Our team will likely wait for you to delete and restart just because that was the weakest thing I've ever seen. I mean...that really sucked, big time. You ought to be grounded for it....now since you're master of ghost posting, etc....delete this before too many people see it and consult your team and get to work.... Perhaps KoP ought to interfere here...I mean..what's the point. The argument has been acceded by the opposition without firing a shot.... I mean, the result was never in question, but thats like being in a fight...taking a swing, slipping, falling down and knocking yourself out....while they other guy just stands there, perhaps even stoops over to lend some medical assistance. DoK Solutions...kick him off the team and replace him...restart. Or let someone else post. Debate has nothing to do with your personal position...it's just a game. Pick sides and debate... Pawn...I still love ya man...but, you gotta admit... |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 25-Jul-07, 02:53 |
hmph |
||||||
|
DOK |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 25-Jul-07, 15:31 |
difficult to defend: >>>All people of a nation to serve a fixed or otherwise term in formal aid to others of the nation through participation in civil projects, enrollment in a national service (army, police, nursing, fire, civil service etc) or the substantial (very very substantial!) funding of something recognizably beneficial to the nation or major part thereof. All members in the first week or so of their service must receive basic training in firearms and unarmed self defense as well as first aid and the proven ability to read and write to a recognizable standard. As part of their service they will be encouraged to participate in formal qualification with respect to their chosen field and others. Emergency recall powers would apply for the duration of their life.>>> I think both liberals and conservatives would find this policy as involving way too much intervention in our lives. Let's just have a debate over the first part of the first sentence: >>>All people of a nation to serve a fixed or otherwise term in formal aid to others of the nation through participation in civil projects [or] enrollment in a national service (army, police, nursing, fire, civil service etc). <<< The second part of the sentence is a debate topic in itself (i.e., buying out of service). The next three sentences seem to me hard to defend and so are unfair to the pro-side. |
||||||
|
Thanks Ref. |
||||||
|
Im in.... know... DoK |
||||||
|
saintinsanity 26-Jul-07, 08:39 |
if that is reasonable Sorry, I'm no master debater. I just like to spend some time here. |
||||||
|
OK |
||||||
|
kingofpawns 26-Jul-07, 14:30 |
|
||||||
|
i had no idea |
||||||
|
lalalalallaalalallala DoKs and mine... Let's see a topic...yes, well, I'm thinking, "The lack of Nerve of the Left When Forced with an Actual Debate...". I suppose I could argue both sides...pawn, you can referee...feel free to blow the whistle on either of us. DoK |
||||||
|
Opening Statement While it is true that liberals do enjoy, I believe, a fine debate, they do so with extreme caution. Interestingly, the recent CNN Debate proved the point that in reality the Left is currently being lead by a morphed version of Mr. Obama and Ms. Rodham. Yes, they will skirmish...demonstrate some swordplay, divert our attention from John Edwards' lovely coiffeur and end up in a two person run-off between individuals with no differences in their opinions, save one. This all defining difference is of course; their respective views on who they would like to wield the power of the White House. Other than that, they are playing a game of cat and mouse...a little spice to keep the press alert but, little substance. In fact, it is a sort of robbery to the Left, they have no choice. They will get the same outcome. Why? Because they fear to differentiate themselves via debate. Besides a loon or two that literally don't count, the Left is playiing a wonderful bit of politics right now. They all hate the war and blame Bush. And of course, they all hate the war and hate Bush...which is, of course, a fine delineation, but what does one offer that the other won't? Ms. Rodham prefers to hand out condoms at schools, Mr. Obama wants sex ed in Kindergarten. It reminds me of a lovely tune; with several variations on a theme...but in the end, it is simply a lovely tune played in a slightly different way. Where is the leader? Where is the Voice? I suggest to you that, like a football (European, of course) team ahead by two goals and 2 minutes left, they are fulfilled in long passes downfield that protect their lead but have no chance of scoring again. Likewise, we will hear nothing from the Left that is not perfectly choreographed so as to not make an error. They have concluded a Democrat will win the White House and so, they timidly push themselves forward, waiting for time to lapse in the game...sitting on their perceived lead. But, is that what we want? Do we want to hear the same position iterated 19 different ways with no difference in conclusion? No, the Democrats now will play it safe. They will play their lead through the primaries and then presume to crush their Conservative opponent, whomever that might be with the whitewash of Bush III. My pet turtle could run for office and be labeled a Bush lover. We will not see, for fear of a mis-step, one word of leadership from the Left that should be defined during the primary and triumphantly marched to Washington. They ought to embrace their platform: Pro-Abortion, including Late Term Abortion (as signed by Bill Clinton) Socialized Healthcare-Ms. Rodham's first, failed attempt at national politics A smaller military--a serious reduction on spending there Federal Rights that reach beyond States doorsteps A quick fleet from Iraq with a letter of blame sent to Crawford, TX Larger programs for those on welfare More money poured into education, despite educators unwillingness to be accountable for what those funds buy our children Environmental laws that are more punitive to big business Open borders that make labor possible for the yearning masses These are points they should embrace and that America wants to hear. They control congress and they should push hard and hold tight to the platform the love. There is nothing wrong with supporting any of these positions if your conscious rests there, but we haven't heard a word. Not a single utterance that demonstrates to the American public that the leader we need now and holds firm to the principles described above has arrived and is ready to be crowned ruler. But these are timid days. We will not here hard talk from the Left, no we will not. Because they lead by two goals..and that is enough. DoK |
||||||
| |||||||
