It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Debate Tournament Commentary

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   
I have absolutely no problem debating about thigns I dont agree with; I've done that many times and did it in my last deabte. What i'm bitching about is poorly thought out topics where a little critical thinking reveals that the topic is a bit one sided. A way you could think abotu it is this: Mountains of scientific evidence or commonsense social sense vs. "well you don't reeeaaaallly know for sure" That's no fun.




posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
This is, without a doubt, the single most ...recommending that everyone buy a gun with one bullet when the oil dries up.

I'm going to go drink myself to sleep now.


I dont think peak oil is that bad. The answer lies in developing alternative technologies that de-empathize the need to move around so much. Or develop alternative forms of transporation.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 06:27 AM
link   
I believe that it would be very beneficial to stay away from purely scientific topics. It is possible to contest such issues if one is skilled, however there is a distinct advantage to the affirmative side of a heavily documented scientific issue.

Economic issues, moral issues, social issues, future speculation topics, and matters of historical controversy- all much more open for debate and outstanding topics.

The African Debt Relief topic wasn't bad really- challenging to the negative but not at all an insurmountable disadvantage- in fact it was a position which could command a great deal of respect when argued intelligently, precisely because it leaves the judge with an "I never would have thought of that" feeling.

Abortion is a classic 50/50 issue- very strong positions to take on either side.

Same for war, specific conflicts or in general.

And, a GREAT topic for discussion, which I fully intend to challenge my good friend EastCoastKid over once the tournament is over, is whether or not President Bush's actions leading up to the war with Iraq should be impeachable. (Key word SHOULD). Some would think that the deck is clearly stacked against the negative there, but that's the side I want in that debate and I think I can do a lot with it- granted non-partisan judging.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by ktprktpr

Originally posted by thelibra
This is, without a doubt, the single most ...recommending that everyone buy a gun with one bullet when the oil dries up.

I'm going to go drink myself to sleep now.


I dont think peak oil is that bad. The answer lies in developing alternative technologies that de-empathize the need to move around so much. Or develop alternative forms of transporation.


Oh, it is. Trust me. It is.

When you read my 2nd response, you'll know why I couldn't sleep last night.
I wish to god I'd just kept my head stuck in the sand about this whole oil thing... Now I'm forever going to be staring at every oil-based action of Bush's and wondering "My God... was he right???"



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 08:55 AM
link   
I always remember one of the James Bond Movies, where a guy develops an alternative to Oil and there is the great line, "The oil shaks will pay you to keep that of the market" and in respect to this it is probably true as well.

No need to really worry as Shell (along with BP) have been buying up alternatives to Oil for the last 20 years, so that once it's all gone they'll still be the ones making money - normal business practice.



posted on Jul, 9 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Well, oil is important for a lot of other things but you didn't cite what kind of oil. Synthetics? Natural? I doubt we chomp on black crude when we eat a BLT. I have more to say but I dont want to provide ammo for your opponent and otherwise divert this thread.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   
I'm sure that this is not how you would have wanted it to have played out, ktprktpr, but congratulations on your semi-final entry......

For the record, I would have traded for your debate topic......so many ways that could have played out......



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   
Well, I can't say I didn't see it coming but this is a disappointment. I extend my respect to kenshiro and understand that time constraints/sudden events do happen.


What's so great about this topic Memoryshock? The problem I saw with the topic was that it wasn't restricted. Demographic change could be world demographic change, which would certainly cause policy changes in Europe. Even if its demographic change in Europe, on the logical level, any change in constituents has to result in a fundamental change merely because the foundations of European humanity have shifted.

I think I was given a get out of jail card on this one. The next round will be hell; either theLibra or howmuchisthedoggy. I may have to use the force on that round.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
Odium says:


No need to really worry as Shell (along with BP) have been buying up alternatives to Oil for the last 20 years, so that once it's all gone they'll still be the ones making money - normal business practice.

I worked for Solavolt International back in the 'eighties, a photovoltaics joint venture berween Shell Oil and Motorola.

Most of the PV houses of the day were tied in somehow with the oil companies; they wanted to remain the "energy companies" of the nineties and the 21st century, regardless of whether oil or sunlight was that energy.

The reason the oil companies got out of the PV business was they realized that the only way PV would be a cost-effective alternative to oil over the next 20-30 years was through massive government subsidies (like PURPA in 1975). Oil companies have money to invest in emerging technologies, and will do so, especially if such investment pays off for them. But they're not going to pour money down a rathole; who would?

I'm not aware of the oil companies' involvement in any other "alternatives to oil", but then, I haven't been keeping up with the business end of alternative energy very well. What alternatives are you talking about when you say the oil companies are still involved financially?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Can someone look at my debate please and tell me why I have to forfeit my response as suggested by Nygdan. It appears I have a day remaining, am I misreading the time stamp or something?

Is he talking about my earlier response do you suppose?

I guess I have to send a U2U...



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   
You do have a day to respond, I think it was done because your last response was a few hours late. Not 100%, though, and I have no idea what I'm going to talk about now...



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by ktprktpr
The problem I saw with the topic was that it wasn't restricted.


And I believe that is the appeal for me........forces you to choose a position and go with it......and subsequent rebuttals will serve to focus on the direction...or not.....at any rate.......



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   
posted on 8/7/2005 at 07:10 AM -JungleJake
posted on 9/7/2005 at 08:25 AM -Wyrdeone



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:42 PM
link   
JJ
That's so incredibly lame! The rule should be the reply is forfeit if you go over your time and the mod posts the notice before you post your reply, then your reply should be deleted. I understand being a minute late is still being late, and if the post was there alerting me that I forfeited, I wouldn't have written that reply. Instead, I assumed I could squeeze in under the wire.

My post came in an hour late, and it took Nygdan a day to catch that and penalize me.

I'm gonna need some clarification though...because he says I forfeit my response, which I took to mean my next one...

I guess I'll have to wait and see what he says, but I think having replies retroactively struck from the record is lame.
I can understand preempting late replies, that makes total sense, but retroactively finding and eliminating late replies seems unecessary and contrary to everyone's wishes for a good, fair debate.

One would think if he meant my last response was forfeit, he would have deleted it, right? That was my logic anyway.

Oh well, in any case, I'm sorry JJ for making you wait, and for allowing yet another debate to fall into the realm of technicalities. I hope I can get this cleared up quickly, and still have some time to post my next reply (assuming I get one).



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   
WyrdeOne, at a guess it falls under the "Mods have lives too" section of the rule book. -tips hat- Unlucky thought was enjoying the debate.



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Odium
Yeah, and I'll accept whatever the ruling is, I just wanted clarification mostly.

It's strange also because if you look at the other debates from the first round, there are instances where 8 hours or more passed, and then Amory or whoever stepped in and dropped notification of forfeiture.

So are they going to delete my reply? Or instruct the judges not to consider it?


I'm confuzzled...

Now it's my turn at bat again, right? Just to be clear...



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
It looks like, because they missed the delay of the last response, your last response stands but I get a bonus one. So everything you had said before still stands, I just get a 1600 word rebuttal instead of the typical 800.

I thought there was a 24 hour window for opening arguements, too...Is this not true?



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   
Yeah, there is a twenty four hour window for openers, to my knowledge.

Did you confirm this theory of yours with Nygdan? So you're up again then, right?

I hope he U2Us me back, so I can know for sure...

Until then, I'm going to channel the spirit of Moses to smite my enemies and give me the strength to carry on through this valley of regulations and tribulations and stipulations.

"Let my Re-Ply Gooooooo!"



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Did you confirm this theory of yours with Nygdan? So you're up again then, right?


Not entirely, but I did get a U2U from him in response to what he eluded to on his post on our tourny (about the source) and he mentioned you'd forfieted your response. I had assumed it was the post you'd already made until I read his reply on our thread. Quite honestly, I agree with you on forfieture of a post already posted -- you'd already have made your agruement and it works along the same lines as pleading the 5th in court. You don't answer, and legally it's not held against you, but in the jury's mind the idea's still there.


Until then, I'm going to channel the spirit of Moses to smite my enemies and give me the strength to carry on through this valley of regulations and tribulations and stipulations.


Good news for me
'Least I don't have to worry about suprenatural intervention



posted on Jul, 10 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I just want to say this series of debates have been spectacular so far. From my foggy old memory, it seems better than any of the previous two tournaments I've taken part in. And, I suppose in part, it's a result of the frustratingly vague and undefined topics that are dredged up from the depth of hell. I guess people dance and think better with a fire under their ass.

Kudos and Cookies to all!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join