StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Or, "is oral sex... sex?"

And if oral sex isn't sex, then gay people aren't having sex at all, and if that's the case, what are the Religious Conservatives worried about!?

irishmick79 wrote:I wouldn't mind doing one on US immigration policy, if anybody's interested.

I'd be willing to take this debate on, if the powers-that-be are willing. Irishmick and I tangled once on it a while back but it didn't get too far because of the limited context of the OP (if I recall correctly).

We'd have to define what the "sides" are, of course. I'm on the side of more open borders, but I assume I'd just define the details of that in my opening post.

Um... I was under the impression that a debate involving Bubble Boy and myself would be starting today...

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Um... I was under the impression that a debate involving Bubble Boy and myself would be starting today...

So was I. However, according to Coliseum rules, I'm waiting for a moderator to initiate a thread after which I can post my first arguement, which is sitting and ready.

Perhaps someone should PM mike about it?

Turin wrote:

irishmick79 wrote:I wouldn't mind doing one on US immigration policy, if anybody's interested.

I'd be willing to take this debate on, if the powers-that-be are willing. Irishmick and I tangled once on it a while back but it didn't get too far because of the limited context of the OP (if I recall correctly).

We'd have to define what the "sides" are, of course. I'm on the side of more open borders, but I assume I'd just define the details of that in my opening post.

True. Maybe we should focus the debate on some of the more controversial aspects of Immigration policy, like the constitutionality of the Worksite Enforcement raids. There are also a few cases involving identity theft and how that impacts illegal immigrants pending in several circuit courts, and there has been a lack of uniformity in how the courts have addressed the issue.

I actually think we'd find ourselves in agreement on issues like pushing for more open borders and admitting more people into the country - it's on the enforcement side that I think we have the sharpest disagreement.

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Okay, he'd be cool then. He just came off as kind of brick-wallish in his anti-Russianism. I've been itching for a Coliseum debate on Russia ever since that other guy in that other thread, I think back during the Georgian conflict.

Kane, no matter how he denies it, has a hard on on "this" vs "this" and extreme attempts must be done to support his chosen side. Which borders on ridiculous in going as far as suggesting that Poland must go to the US because German seeks to dominate it. Thanas more or less cut his ideas to shreds but hey, he keeps going and going. Arguing with him, will be as good as arguing over football and why his team must go to great extent to ensure victory.

When is the debate starting?

ray245 wrote:When is the debate starting?

I'll repeat, my opening arguement is ready for posting and was so yesterday.

We need to have a moderator open up the thread in the Coliseum to begin it.

I'd PM Mike about it, but I've PM'd him previously more than once and didn't recieve a response. I take this to mean he simply gets too many PMs and is otherwise busy.

I'm not sure who else I could PM...?

Dalton, Pablo Sanchez...?

Coyote wrote:Dalton, Pablo Sanchez...?

I PMed redimp then realized he was on Hiatus just now...

IMing Fgalkin

grumble grumble Grumble
Where is this challange from Bubble to Alyrium. I see mention of it in the next coliseum discussion thread, but no actually held. I'm all for kicking off another match but lets be honest...
This is no way shape or form... organized.

Mr Bean wrote:grumble grumble Grumble

We love you!

Alyrium Denryle wrote:

Mr Bean wrote:grumble grumble Grumble

We love you!

No you don't. Hold on I'm trying to usurp power.
*Edit, I'll be starting the thread, but stand by for a clarification.

Along with my opening arguement, I wrote up a personal 'disclaimer' for my part in the debate.

I also added what I call a 'debate quote' (just a line) as part of the fun for this activity.

Is it permissible for me to submit these along with my arguement? Or should I submit only the arguement? Neither is in any way long or interfering with the arguement, and I was intending them to be a manner of 'prelude entertainment'.

Note: I'm off to bed in about ten minutes, so if the thread isn't started by then, I'll have quickly submit my arguement in the morning.

Thread started
You have the OP Bubble Boy.

*Edit reminder that anyone else other than Bubble Boy and Alyrium Denryle posting in that thread is a punishable offense.

I cannot currently post in the thread; I'm assuming permissions haven't been enabled yet?

Regardless, it's well past the time I need to go to bed. I have to submit my post tomorrow.

I also at present lack posting permission

irishmick79 wrote:I actually think we'd find ourselves in agreement on issues like pushing for more open borders and admitting more people into the country - it's on the enforcement side that I think we have the sharpest disagreement.

I think I can come up with a way to frame that in a way other than "rule of law" vs "turn a blind eye", too.

Stand by on the debates, as soon as I can get GR, Dalton or Mike to open up the forum and/or authorize the users.

Well, my first opening arguement is up, and hopefully gives Alyrium some material to chew on.

Naturally, I didn't include every arguement idea I have, since I obviously don't want to fire off all my ammunition in my first post. Plus I'm trying to anticipate some of his responses and potential counters, and ways of countering them.

I'll give it my best AD; just remember what I'm trying to work with here! *tips hat*

Turin wrote:

irishmick79 wrote:I actually think we'd find ourselves in agreement on issues like pushing for more open borders and admitting more people into the country - it's on the enforcement side that I think we have the sharpest disagreement.

I think I can come up with a way to frame that in a way other than "rule of law" vs "turn a blind eye", too.

heh. Should be fun, then.

How about this text for a topic?

Worksite Enforcement raids conducted by the US Burueau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are a constitutional and legal application of law enforcement resources.

irishmick79 wrote:

Turin wrote:

irishmick79 wrote:I actually think we'd find ourselves in agreement on issues like pushing for more open borders and admitting more people into the country - it's on the enforcement side that I think we have the sharpest disagreement.

I think I can come up with a way to frame that in a way other than "rule of law" vs "turn a blind eye", too.

heh. Should be fun, then.

How about this text for a topic?

Worksite Enforcement raids conducted by the US Burueau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are a constitutional and legal application of law enforcement resources.

Do you mean raids which are conducted without warrants or all raids?

irishmick79 wrote:How about this text for a topic?

Worksite Enforcement raids conducted by the US Burueau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement are a constitutional and legal application of law enforcement resources.

Kinda narrow. Plus it's pretty much a legal argument, which is a little dull for me.

What about something with a little more meat to it, and maybe a little more controversy attached:

The criminalization of illegal immigrants represents a net loss for American society as a whole.

Because this is a fairly broad argument, I'd be willing to open and let you tear it apart from there. I like this topic because it covers a reasonably broad range of issues without being overwhelming, and is subject to a bit of numerical analysis, which I find more interesting.

Is there a chance the newly-HoSed newbie would be interested in "redeeming" himself with a Coliseum match?