StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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.

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?

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.

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.)

Perhaps we can do a death Penalty debate?

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.

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.

The Duchess and I have agreed to start our Luttwak debate on January 1st.

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.

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.

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.

Why can't their be more than one Coliseum debate at a time?

^Because the idea for the colisseum was to have two people conduct a intellectual duel. Not to be another discussion forum.

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 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.

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.

Oh ya, I was wondering if there is any economic debate motion that can be defended and argued in a proper manner?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Ray, your enthusiasm is nice, but please, be content to watch and see what happens for awhile before jumping the gun, okay?

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.

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.

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'.

Based on this thread in N&P, perhaps a pro/con debate on human genetic modification?