It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Participants Needed! First ATS Debate Tournament for 2007

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:46 AM
man, that was quite a surprise. Good luck in the next round semper...

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:26 PM
Thanks to all for the many u2's. My opening statement has been assembled and moved to the ordinance bay. It'll be "weaponized" in a matter of hours.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:13 PM

Originally posted by xpert11
How in the world does this topic not break the T&C ?
Surely somebody isnt going to say that I cant discuss the legalization of Marijuana but its OK to debate if Marijuana is harmful. By the standards that have been set recently the topic shouldn't be permitted on ATS.

Not so my friend. This topic was discussed among the staff weeks ago- infact it was another mod's idea- I didn't just throw it up there and say, "wait till Skeptic sees this, hehehehe".

ATS will not tollerate "trip stories", advice on how to break the law, conspiracy to break the law, encouragement to do the same, etc.

However, nothing in the Terms and Conditions prohibits discussion of the motives behind laws, the validity of laws, etc.

Most marijuana threads don't last long because of a percentage of the membership who simply cannot discuss these matters within T&C. It is my hope that this debate will demonstrate how it is possible for these dicussions to be held reasonably, without anybody falling on the floor screaming "it's not fair it's not fair it's not fair, I wanna smoke pot and I do smoke pot and one time the ficus plant turned into a jungle and I heard a tiger growling at me in there, and if you wanna be just like me all you gotta do is hide your stash in coffee grounds, etc etc etc". Of course that was a gross dramatization, but that's a basic profile of what gets threads canned, and what will be absent from this debate, thus making this debate perfectly acceptable.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:22 PM

Originally posted by The Vagabond
However, nothing in the Terms and Conditions prohibits discussion of the motives behind laws, the validity of laws, etc.

The matter seems to have been cleared up by SkepticOverlord on another thread. However I still have to take issue with the above statement. Please read the post and the thread that I linked to on this thread and you will understand where I am coming from.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:46 PM
Discussing motives and validity does not always perfectly equate to advocating legalization.

One can easily take the position that while the prohibition of marijuana may be justified, the consequences and enforcement may be inappropriate and may reflect ulterior motives. One could just as easily take the position that the laws are fine but that based on our alcohol and tobacco laws, the laws may not have ever come to be if not for the economic ramifications of hemp.

All anyone asks, to the best of my understanding, is that ATS be kept family friendly and amenable to the law.

If I have misunderstood I trust that SO will reprove any faulty impressions I have taken, but I'd bet a little money on my interpretation.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:41 PM
With all due respect, gentlemen, I think its inappropriate to discuss strategy which could be used in an active debate by either side. Semper can carry his own water, and so can I.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 10:28 PM
HEY Justin!!!

This is exciting...

I am ABSOLUTELY thrilled to be debating you and could not wait to get my opening up....

It's all yours now my friend....

This is going to be a BLAST...


posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 12:59 AM
I trust you have both recieved my U2Us regarding the issue that has come up.

Publically, suffice it to say that the discussion between Xpert11 and I was intended solely to regard whether or not this topic is consistent with Terms and Conditions, and entailed some discussion of which kind of discussion is and is not legitimate. There was no intention to analyze the debate or advise the participants. That may not have been the context in which everyone read the exchange however, and the integrity of this forum is by no means taken lightly. This is being discussed and a recourse does exist if either competitor feels that there has been a prejudicial influence. This may or may not be necessary, and we will know soon. It's nothing to make a big event of, however I feel that as much as I have said should be aired publically for the sake of transparency. It simply will not do for their to be any question as to the neutrality of this forum, and if any question comes up, it will be carefully and objectively reviewed.


posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:17 AM

I answered your U2U....

But I want to say publicly ..


This is a great debate....

Let's finish this...


posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:46 AM
Bummer too bad it wasn't a verbal debate,I have carpal and ulna tunnel damage hurts to type

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:06 PM
So far it appears that there will be no difficulty as a result of yesterday's misunderstanding, and in all probability we will be rocking on.

The complaint feature and my U2U box are wide open if anyone has a problem with this topic or yesterday's incident, and with that said I think we can bid both issues farewell and get back to enjoying the clash of these two titans.

As for those who have problems with composing long posts for physical or other reasons, podcast debates have been held in the past and can easily be arranged for non-tournament matches. Even a podcast debate tournament is not out of the question if there is popular demand.

Now I think I'll go update the fighter rankings to reflect Justin and Semper's advancement to this round.

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 09:59 PM
The "First" replies are in folks...!!!!

Come give us a read...


posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:18 PM
Since I consider both of you to be top notch in using the old gray matter, it's a hard call in some ways. Both of you are logical and well written. Your presentations are all I could have hoped for.

Yet, the edge must go to Semper Fortis. His use of the underlying reasoning for the "outlawing" of Cannibus, including a good source, carries the day.

While my friend JO uses the logic of public safety, it falls somewhat flat, considering how the term is used to jerry mander the laws of this nation. JO is both eloquent and well read, but sadly, he has taken a side which logic and freedom cannot support.I cannot help but feel that while he is making his best effort, a freedom loving person like JO has a hard time being being 100% against the legalization of the big M. And it shows.

My count has it 60-40 SF at this point.

I look forward to the next round.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:39 AM
Let's not get too analytical. Opinion is fine on its own, but next thing you know somebody will be arguing with your opinion and we'll have 4 or 5 different incarnations of this debate outside of the tournament.
Thanks for the commentary though NGC, it isn't unappreciated. Just saying that the judging generally begins when the debate is over.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:42 AM
And a reminder- if you want these guys to really know how you feel about their posts, star them! If you think one of the guys is winning, star his posts. If you think they are both holding their own and its close, star em both. Let's support these guys for the great show they are putting on.

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 01:43 AM
What The Vagabond said, NGC. Let's not say too much and give Semper and Justin any ideas of how to proceed. Let's make 'em sweat it out on their own.

Plus, it's early yet. They've got a ways to go and the ways they respond to each other should be fun to observe. For us, anyway.

[edit on 15-9-2007 by Tuning Spork]

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 05:33 PM
Nothing but the closing now my friends....

This has been one heck of a debate...

I'm exhausted.. WHEW


posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 06:55 PM
Vagabond and Spork, you are right. And I was hasty, but in my defence, I was caught up in a very good debate. (Bad me. Bad me. :dn

And I am following this closely. Not because I am "for" on side or the other, though there is that 40 acres out back that I've been wondering what to plant.

Seriously, both sides are doing very well in this, and my hat is off, no matter the "winner".

posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:16 PM

The closing statements are in....

Now it is out of Justin and my hands...


posted on Sep, 16 2007 @ 08:23 PM
Job well done guys.

Good luck to both.

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in