Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

A failed experiment whereby board users were invited to advise the Senate, and instead attempted to replace the Senate.
User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by irishmick79 » 2008-12-12 09:55pm

Turin wrote:
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.
I'd say that's a fairly loaded statement. Under what standard are you judging a 'loss' to american society? Why bother including that part if you're inviting me to define what a loss would be? What would be the affirmative position and what would be the negative position?

There's a different issue with using 'criminalization of illegal immigrants'. You won't find too many people in government circles (republican or democrat) who would phrase it that way when drawing up policy, and it's a statement that mostly gets used by groups generally considered to be pro-immigrant. It's suggestive of a particular political point of view that has traditionally been resistant to immigration law enforcement, and it puts a pro-enforcement argument on a defensive footing from the start. We wouldn't necessarily be debating a particular point of immigration policy - we'd be trying to define the issue.

That's why the debate statement on immigration has to be pretty specific and neutral. There are so many components to the issue and it would be easy for us to get distracted by a topic statement that's too broad or too charged.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying

"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this."
Steven Schmidt, chief strategist for the McCain Campaign, you FAIL.

User avatar
Turin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1066
Joined: 2005-07-22 01:02pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Turin » 2008-12-13 10:15pm

irishmick79 wrote:
Turin wrote:The criminalization of illegal immigrants represents a net loss for American society as a whole.
I'd say that's a fairly loaded statement. Under what standard are you judging a 'loss' to american society? Why bother including that part if you're inviting me to define what a loss would be? What would be the affirmative position and what would be the negative position?
Sorry if I wasn't clear. That was just the general starting point of discussion. Obviously I would be more specific in the opening, defining specific economic and social means by which the criminalization of illegal immigrants is a net loss. I'd be "on defense."
irishmick79 wrote:There's a different issue with using 'criminalization of illegal immigrants'. You won't find too many people in government circles (republican or democrat) who would phrase it that way when drawing up policy, and it's a statement that mostly gets used by groups generally considered to be pro-immigrant.
And? I'm not in government, and I'm pro-immigration. I'm stating it that way because that's my position.
irishmick79 wrote:It's suggestive of a particular political point of view that has traditionally been resistant to immigration law enforcement, and it puts a pro-enforcement argument on a defensive footing from the start. We wouldn't necessarily be debating a particular point of immigration policy - we'd be trying to define the issue.
Are you quibbling over the wording here? Do you have an alternate idea?

User avatar
irishmick79
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2002-07-16 05:07pm
Location: Vermont
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by irishmick79 » 2008-12-15 06:37am

Turin wrote:
irishmick79 wrote:There's a different issue with using 'criminalization of illegal immigrants'. You won't find too many people in government circles (republican or democrat) who would phrase it that way when drawing up policy, and it's a statement that mostly gets used by groups generally considered to be pro-immigrant.
And? I'm not in government, and I'm pro-immigration. I'm stating it that way because that's my position.
And here's where the problem starts. You're clearly making the statement with a bias. If I'm reading this correctly, you're suggesting government is anti-immigration. Which I understand - a lot of people tend to view the issue that way. The problem is that starting from that viewpoint tends to restrict debate a bit. Ultimately, the immigration issue boils down to a legal debate, since any meaningful reform is going to have to come from congress. Consequently, you'll need to be able to boil the social and economic arguments for allowing illegal immigrants to stay into a compelling legal argument. You won't get very far if you start things off by labeling the principal body responsible for changing immigration policy as being anti-immigrant.
Turin wrote:
irishmick79 wrote:It's suggestive of a particular political point of view that has traditionally been resistant to immigration law enforcement, and it puts a pro-enforcement argument on a defensive footing from the start. We wouldn't necessarily be debating a particular point of immigration policy - we'd be trying to define the issue.
Are you quibbling over the wording here? Do you have an alternate idea?
I'd say there's a big difference between trying to define an issue vs. trying to debate a particular point of policy. That's why I suggested we focus on a more controversial aspect of immigration policy, such as the legality of the worksite enforcement raids. It's specific, there's a lot of room for different positions on the issue, and any prevailing position has a chance to dramatically change the face of immigration law enforcement in the US.
"A country without a Czar is like a village without an idiot."
- Old Russian Saying

"What Senator McCain was able to do was to help bring all of the parties to the table, including the House Republicans, whose votes were needed to pass this."
Steven Schmidt, chief strategist for the McCain Campaign, you FAIL.

User avatar
Turin
Jedi Master
Posts: 1066
Joined: 2005-07-22 01:02pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Turin » 2008-12-15 07:29am

Maybe a friendly mod should split this discussion? It's getting to be a debate about the debate, and I don't want to hijack this thread more than we have. Thanks.
irishmick79 wrote:Ultimately, the immigration issue boils down to a legal debate, since any meaningful reform is going to have to come from congress. Consequently, you'll need to be able to boil the social and economic arguments for allowing illegal immigrants to stay into a compelling legal argument.
That doesn't follow at all. It's a policy debate, not a legal one. The legal changes resulting from a change in policy are another discussion entirely.
irishmick79 wrote:You won't get very far if you start things off by labeling the principal body responsible for changing immigration policy as being anti-immigrant.
Why not call a spade a spade? If their policies have the effect of causing (for example) undue hardship to legal immigrants and the companies that employ them, and are rooted in protectionism (and racism, often) that's anti-immigrant.
irishmick79 wrote:I'd say there's a big difference between trying to define an issue vs. trying to debate a particular point of policy. That's why I suggested we focus on a more controversial aspect of immigration policy, such as the legality of the worksite enforcement raids. It's specific, there's a lot of room for different positions on the issue, and any prevailing position has a chance to dramatically change the face of immigration law enforcement in the US.
It's an incredibly narrow and legalistic topic. There may be various legalistic arguments to back up one side or another, but I don't think you're understanding my ultimate position. I (mostly) don't care whether they're strictly legal -- I care about whether the policies resulting in that enforcement are right in the first place. Arguing over legality is putting the cart so far ahead of the horse that the poor animal was left behind in Mexico. :)

(Also, maybe I'm not being clear on something else here. It's not that I don't think questions of enforcement of the existing policies are important. It's just that I find legal arguments really dry and boring and don't really feel like investing the time for a serious Colosseum debate over them at this time.)

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6951
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by ray245 » 2008-12-19 01:09am

Perhaps we can do a death Penalty debate?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Singular Intellect
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2392
Joined: 2006-09-19 03:12pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Singular Intellect » 2008-12-19 01:38am

ray245 wrote:Perhaps we can do a death Penalty debate?
Damnit, another topic I'd love to do. However, I just finished with my turn, and I wouldn't care to go again so soon anyhow. :P

If it's not taken by others during the next while, I'll volunteer for it, on the pro Death Penalty side. Probably would be more interesting, since in this case it would be a genuine position on my part.
"Now let us be clear, my friends. The fruits of our science that you receive and the many millions of benefits that justify them, are a gift. Be grateful. Or be silent." -Modified Quote

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Thanas » 2008-12-19 10:52am

The Duchess and I have agreed to start our Luttwak debate on January 1st.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6951
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by ray245 » 2008-12-19 01:38pm

Just another idea, perhaps this motion might be interesting?

This house believe that Religion should be tolerated if it has no influence on the Morals of society.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Tiriol
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2000
Joined: 2005-09-15 11:31am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Tiriol » 2008-12-20 01:45pm

I have understood that my and Darth Hoth's debate on the Jedi morality is scheduled to begin after Christmas, so there seems to be an actual queue of debates right now (since I have also probably forgotten some already scheduled debates); how many more do we need in so short period of time, since Thanas and Duchess of Zeon are also going to have their own debate soon? While I don't have anything against many debates per se, mind you.
Confiteor Deo omnipotenti; beatae Mariae semper Virgini; beato Michaeli Archangelo; sanctis Apostolis, omnibus sanctis... Tibit Pater, quia peccavi nimis, cogitatione, verbo et opere, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa! Kyrie Eleison!

The Imperial Senate (defunct) * Knights Astrum Clades * The Mess

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Thanas » 2008-12-20 02:26pm

Since the Duchess and I were actually the first to agree to any debate at all, I do not think we should have to wait for anyone, especially considering that this will most likely be a time-intensive debate and that we do not have much personal time available. So I would appreciate it if anybody who can push back his debate would do so.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 18754
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2008-12-20 04:05pm

Why can't their be more than one Coliseum debate at a time?
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"-The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, 1776.

A promise never lived up to, but always to be aspired to.

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Thanas » 2008-12-20 04:34pm

^Because the idea for the colisseum was to have two people conduct a intellectual duel. Not to be another discussion forum.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
The Duchess of Zeon
Gözde
Posts: 14566
Joined: 2002-09-18 01:06am
Location: Exiled in the Pale of Settlement.

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by The Duchess of Zeon » 2008-12-21 05:17am

Yeah, we were going to start on the 1st, and I have one houseguest from the 26th to the 30th, and one houseguest from the 27th to the 7th. Though in the later case I'm scheduling everything for places with reliable internet so I can keep up on the debate while I tour the state, so that won't be an issue. But it would be really hard for us to stage a debate later than that, since I move to WSU on the 7th, and the next five days after that will be rather busy until classes start, though I can to some extent guarantee a debate through two weeks starting on the 1st, which might smooth out the intensiveness a bit, but it's easily possible that Thanas and I are going to write a book carrying out this debate so it's not going to be easy either way.

Unless you're willing to accept a 26th - 31st debate, in which case we'd have no objection, I believe--Thanas will need to weigh in on that. He was planning on writing an introduction, but that could be posted at the start of the debate I think. The best thing to do would be to hold your own debate starting on the 8th, though.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.

In 1966 the Soviets find something on the dark side of the Moon. In 2104 they come back. -- Red Banner / White Star, a nBSG continuation story. Updated to Chapter 4.0 -- 14 January 2013.

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Thanas » 2008-12-21 06:58am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Yeah, we were going to start on the 1st, and I have one houseguest from the 26th to the 30th, and one houseguest from the 27th to the 7th. Though in the later case I'm scheduling everything for places with reliable internet so I can keep up on the debate while I tour the state, so that won't be an issue. But it would be really hard for us to stage a debate later than that, since I move to WSU on the 7th, and the next five days after that will be rather busy until classes start, though I can to some extent guarantee a debate through two weeks starting on the 1st, which might smooth out the intensiveness a bit, but it's easily possible that Thanas and I are going to write a book carrying out this debate so it's not going to be easy either way.

Unless you're willing to accept a 26th - 31st debate, in which case we'd have no objection, I believe--Thanas will need to weigh in on that. He was planning on writing an introduction, but that could be posted at the start of the debate I think. The best thing to do would be to hold your own debate starting on the 8th, though.
I would have no objection on a 26th-31st debate, considering that I won't get around to writing the introduction till the 26th anyway.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6951
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by ray245 » 2008-12-21 08:22am

I would suggest another historical debate motion : This house believe that McArthur is a good general

A moral debate motion: This house believe there is no universal human rights.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6951
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by ray245 » 2008-12-21 08:33am

Oh ya, I was wondering if there is any economic debate motion that can be defended and argued in a proper manner?
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6951
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by ray245 » 2008-12-21 10:14am

Sorry about posting again, I just remembered that free trade agreement debate can be a good economic debate.

Like this house believe that free trade agreement is bad for the nation.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Thanas
Magister
Magister
Posts: 30779
Joined: 2004-06-26 07:49pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Thanas » 2008-12-21 11:01am

Ray, I for one (as a fellow user) would appreciate it if you could stop spamming the board since we already have enough debates. Why don't you participate in one instead of just throwing out suggestions?
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------
My LPs

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6951
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by ray245 » 2008-12-21 11:12am

Thanas wrote:Ray, I for one (as a fellow user) would appreciate it if you could stop spamming the board since we already have enough debates. Why don't you participate in one instead of just throwing out suggestions?
I'm not going to argue that we need to start a debate immediately. What I am doing is to bring forward motions that can be used in future debates, in the months to come. Meaning some motion will be used or get noticed, some won't.

I thought that the point of the thread? To simply bring up suggestions that can help the mods when they are setting any future debates. After all, we all know that not all debated is 'agreed upon' by both teams.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Formless
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3762
Joined: 2008-11-10 08:59pm
Location: the beginning and end of the Present

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Formless » 2008-12-21 06:59pm

I thought that the point of the thread? To simply bring up suggestions that can help the mods when they are setting any future debates. After all, we all know that not all debated is 'agreed upon' by both teams.
Yes, but another point of this thread is to get debates that people might actually be able to participate in, or that actually might be interesting enough that people will pursue it. For example, your suggestion on the economic debate, well, sucked 'cause you never specified what would be debated. If we don't know what it is we are debating, how are we going to debate?

Also, just because a thread exists that has a real purpose doesn't mean that you have to post in it. Could it be that the thread has already served that purpose for now, and it will take some time before it is needed again?

(Naturally, that was a rhetorical question; the answer is of course it has, dumbass.)

And lets face it, posting three times in a row is excessive, especially since you now have a shiny new EDIT button usable for ten minutes. If it has been less then ten minutes, and you have something to add that you forgot about, please do us a favor and edit it in. Its an eyesore otherwise, and makes scrolling a little more tedious every time.
"Still, I would love to see human beings, and their constituent organ systems, trivialized and commercialized to the same extent as damn iPods and other crappy consumer products. It would be absolutely horrific, yet so wonderful." — Shroom Man 777
"To Err is Human; to Arrr is Pirate." — Skallagrim
“I would suggest "Schmuckulating", which is what Futurists do and, by extension, what they are." — Commenter "Rayneau"
The Magic Eight Ball Conspiracy.

User avatar
Coyote
Rabid Monkey
Posts: 12464
Joined: 2002-08-23 01:20am
Location: The glorious Sun-Barge! Isis, Isis, Ra,Ra,Ra!
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Coyote » 2008-12-21 08:33pm

Ray, your enthusiasm is nice, but please, be content to watch and see what happens for awhile before jumping the gun, okay?
Something about Libertarianism always bothered me. Then one day, I realized what it was:
Libertarian philosophy can be boiled down to the phrase, "Work Will Make You Free."


In Libertarianism, there is no Government, so the Bosses are free to exploit the Workers.
In Communism, there is no Government, so the Workers are free to exploit the Bosses.
So in Libertarianism, man exploits man, but in Communism, its the other way around!

If all you want to do is have some harmless, mindless fun, go H3RE INST3ADZ0RZ!!
Grrr! Fight my Brute, you pansy!

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6951
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by ray245 » 2008-12-22 12:23am

Formless wrote:
I thought that the point of the thread? To simply bring up suggestions that can help the mods when they are setting any future debates. After all, we all know that not all debated is 'agreed upon' by both teams.
Yes, but another point of this thread is to get debates that people might actually be able to participate in, or that actually might be interesting enough that people will pursue it. For example, your suggestion on the economic debate, well, sucked 'cause you never specified what would be debated. If we don't know what it is we are debating, how are we going to debate?

Also, just because a thread exists that has a real purpose doesn't mean that you have to post in it. Could it be that the thread has already served that purpose for now, and it will take some time before it is needed again?

(Naturally, that was a rhetorical question; the answer is of course it has, dumbass.)

And lets face it, posting three times in a row is excessive, especially since you now have a shiny new EDIT button usable for ten minutes. If it has been less then ten minutes, and you have something to add that you forgot about, please do us a favor and edit it in. Its an eyesore otherwise, and makes scrolling a little more tedious every time.
However, I only remembered them AFTER 10 minutes.

And the reason I give an open-ended motion, is due to the fact that in most formal debating, the opening team get the chance to define the context of that debate.

Coyote, I will try and refrain from posting too much next time.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37386
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by Sea Skimmer » 2008-12-24 03:09am

ray245 wrote:I would suggest another historical debate motion : This house believe that McArthur is a good general
If we could find someone to sincerely debate in support of that blithering idiot, I’d at least consider taking up the cause.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956

User avatar
thejester
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1811
Joined: 2005-06-10 07:16pm
Location: Richard Nixon's Secret Tapes Club Band

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by thejester » 2008-12-24 04:30am

Sea Skimmer wrote:
ray245 wrote:I would suggest another historical debate motion : This house believe that McArthur is a good general
If we could find someone to sincerely debate in support of that blithering idiot, I’d at least consider taking up the cause.
There's more than a few of them around. IIRC PaRappa over at SB was a pretty staunch MacArthur defender and was able to construct a decent argument about it - or one that extended beyond 'lol Inchon'.
Image
I love the smell of September in the morning. Once we got off at Richmond, walked up to the 'G, and there was no game on. Not one footballer in sight. But that cut grass smell, spring rain...it smelt like victory.

Dynamic. When [Kuznetsov] decided he was going to make a difference, he did it...Like Ovechkin...then you find out - he's with Washington too? You're kidding.
- Ron Wilson

User avatar
NomAnor15
Padawan Learner
Posts: 383
Joined: 2006-12-11 09:12pm
Location: In the land of cheese, brats, and beer.

Re: Suggestions for Coliseum debates.

Post by NomAnor15 » 2008-12-24 09:11pm

Based on this thread in N&P, perhaps a pro/con debate on human genetic modification?
"I wish I wish I hadn't killed that fish." - Homer Simpson
Image
Huh. That's less than 10 condoms per person. Though, assuming an even split between gender, that's almost 20 condoms per penis, so I certainly hope that would suffice for the three weeks they're there. -Alferd Packer

This sentence is false.

Locked