Debate Tournament Commentary

Just saw the debate topic.......what an excellent Debate Final this will be.

WyrdeOne and thelibra are two very deserving combatants and this will be an awesome showcase for their skills..

Now that my drooling is over.....I'm going to sit back and enjoy what will surely be an excellent debate.

Ooh! Ooh! Excellent topic. Nice one AMZ+Nygdan. This should be good.


external image external image

Okay, I'm all set.

[edit on 2005-8-5 by wecomeinpeace]

Excellent topic, the debate skills come to the front here, either side is defendable. Strap yourselves in folks, we're in for a good one.

Good luck guys.

Credit for the topic actually belongs to Gools. Nygdan and I had a kickass topic prepared, but Gools unknowingly suggested this and, given the very topical nature of it, and potential for a really sweet debate, we went with it.

I couldn't be more pleased with the topic, good goin' Amory and Nygdan! Edit: Fair enough, good goin' Gools! This is a sweet topic. What was the original one you guys had planned? Or are you keeping it secret for the next debate?

This should prove to be very interesting.

I hope the Libra doesn't miss the opener, I remember him saying something about not checking ATS too frequently over the weekend...

I'll write a note and tie it to a brick, somebody find his bedroom window and 'deliver' the message.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'll write a note and tie it to a brick, somebody find his bedroom window and 'deliver' the message.

[edit on 5-8-2005 by WyrdeOne]

This wan't you was it

My right buttcheek is trademarked.

You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

Good day sir.

No one even sent me a U2U?

Ah, well. Great topic. This is going to be one heck of a fight.
Looks like I'd best get started.

I need clarification on this. The subject says "Guantanamo BASE", not "Guantanamo BAY", which is the actual name. Is this a typo? Is it the same as the prison at GTMO (Gitmo)? This really needs clarification. I'm pretty sure that's what was meant, but there isn't a "Guantanamo BASE", there is a prison, offshore, in Guantanamo Bay.

Sorry for the insistance, but I felt this is something that needs to be cleared up before I post. It would be akin to having a question about the DOCUMENT of Independence (rather than "Declaration").

Yes, Gitmo.

"Base" was chosen to refer to the "outpost" there. I assume there's a reason they call it a "Bay," and although I am not up on my Cuban geography, it's possible there is a Bay of Guantanamo, where I'm sure the Geneva Conventions either may or may not matter, depending on Cuba's whim.

Anyway, yes, GITMO.

Cool, thanks for the fast response.
Okay, back to the grindstone...

Because I don't want anyone to get sued.

Errr... I know it's all in good fun, but I do check this thread at work, and they don't exactly look kindly upon us browsing nude pics on their machines. I don't personally have a problem with it (though I'd rather the subject were female), but as this is a fairly active and important thread during the tournament, do you think we could cease the posting of images naked people on this thread in the future? It would be greatly appreciated, and probably allow more of us to actually view this thread in the workplace.

Anyway, I'm done with my opening statement...

the Libra
Hope this thread doesn't give you a bad reputation at work.

That would suck, to be 'the guy caught looking at butts'.

I can see it now, people at work slapping you on the back with a hearty laugh "Whatsamatta butt guy, no butts to look at?" or "Hey, butt watcher!"

What a nightmare. I could go on..and on..and on, in the same vein.

Hmmm..you fear getting fired..that's a start. Maybe I can work with that...

I think I'll add to the debauchery on this thread, and watch you squirm.




There, now this page is a veritable anatomical compendium of naughty bits.
?
o_O Do you concede before the collossal brilliance of my strategem?

(Uhmm, dude I'd feal really bad if you got fired, so if it happens because of me, you can totally sleep on my couch. )

[edit on 6-8-2005 by WyrdeOne]

You left one out.... or rather, two...

Any James Bond fans around here? Maybe we could send The Libra a few copies of "Bondage" magazine to read in the office. LOL

You ruined it! You must have known of my evil plan to turn this thread totally


Blast! Once again, breasts have proved my undoing!

Edit: The debate's back in your court Libra. You totally whiffed it yaknow, on your opener. Those three arguments you tried to deny me were never on the menu as far as I was concerned. I knew I couldn't maintain the moral high ground by resorting to Bush & Co. tactics, so I chose a completely different route to the same destination.



[edit on 7-8-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The debate's back in your court Libra. You totally whiffed it yaknow, on your opener. Those three arguments you tried to deny me were never on the menu as far as I was concerned. I knew I couldn't maintain the moral high ground by resorting to Bush & Co. tactics, so I chose a completely different route to the same destination.

Ah, but at least my statements against those unused arguments were accurate and helpful in establishing an early basis. You really should have researched a bit better before claiming the GCs don't apply to members imprisoning non-members, or that GCs weren't violated at Gitmo... both claims were absolutely wrong in countless credible documented sources.

The ball is back in your court. I'd suggest another approach to your argument while there's still time to backtrack.

Article 2 uses the term mutual relations, which indicates relations between parties adhering to the GC. It doesn't say that signing countries need to apply the GC during conflicts with nations employing tactics not in keeping with the GC. It only says that if one country is a signing party, and they are at war with a non-signing party, the signing party must still respect the GC in relations with other parties who have signed, or display an allegiance to the spirit of the conventions.

It wasn't a lack of research, I assure you. It was a simple, straightforward reading of the text of the conventions.

Clearly, no country would have signed the conventions if they thought it would place them at a disadvantage against nations unwilling to agree to the principles set forward.

As far as the law signed in 1996 that you mentioned, it has no bearing on the debate, since our debate concerns itself only with the GC. I hadn't heard about the law before, but luckily, it's immaterial.

Actually, I really like Libra's tactic of preempting possible avenues of argument. I'll probably learn to work that into my own style. First impressions are very important. If it's done well, it puts the burden of proof on you immediately if you actually take on of those avenues.

Gotta catch up on the debate then I'll weigh in on how I think it's going so far.