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.


Comment on ATS Debates Here

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:57 AM
reply to post by semperfortis

I don't actually watch a lot of rugby, but I've been led to believe that there is actually a 10 yard penalty for cutting slack, with ejection from the game for a second offense.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond

The ten yard penalty is for questioning a refereeing decision too vigorously or for backchat to the ref, as well as not retreating immediately in certain situations where you have to be ten yards away from the opposing side.

Kind of like with mods here

I've opened, GUNSINWAR is up.

I suppose I have to award stars to vagabond instead of semper now so he doesn't take it out on me in my debate
(another joke)

[edit on 25/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:17 PM
I'd never abuse my power as a mod... it would spoil larger opportunities for corruption down the road.

When I get to congress, then my black soul shall suddenly be unveiled... and my income shall suddenly become shrouded in mystery.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:19 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond

and i shall become your new best friend, that is when your income explodes

i have a question about the debate.
Facts trump religous logic? or can people use Religous logic to back their statements.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:28 PM
That depends on the assessment of the judges.

In my personal opinion, unless the debate focuses on an inherently religious question (such as, "do animals have souls") I would say that facts are probably superior.

On the other hand, philosophy does shape our perception of reality, and religion does have considerable philosophical insight to offer.

If I were going to use religious logic, I would balance it with an equal portion of factual evidence, or at least with logical propositions that can stand independent of religion, and then I would ask myself if someone who believed in a different God than I did would be likely to agree with my argument.

For example, if I were debating materialism, I would never say, "the bible says Jesus was perfect, and Jesus was poor, therefore to be perfect you must be poor". But I would definately make note of any and all religions that condemn greed, and examine their respective reasons for doing so.

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:33 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond


i tend to use more factual evidence then anything biblical (well rarely and thats only in religous topics)

thanks for the heads ups

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 04:17 PM
reply to post by bodrul

A previous member no longer with us, consistently showed that logic and reason prevails over religious quotes, dogma and theory.

In a religious debate there is room for religious quotes.

IMO there is little room in any subject, except esoteric, for attempting to quote religion - except for passages which MAY have a moral message.

And yes - that statement was intentional.

According to the life of brian.

[edit on 25/1/2008 by budski]

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:22 PM
Sadly folks we are done...

As I expected it has been an historical debate, at least for me.

In this forum I have engaged in 6 debates now and 5 in the previous political debate forum, including a "PodCast Debate" and I will readily say this has been my greatest challenge...

I salute my newly promoted adversary .....

Great debate...

Now "I'm going to Disney"...


posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 07:51 AM
GAOTU: Congratulations to winning our last debate. You responded with ease while I struggled to even convince myself of my side. Of course the elite are not "categorically" evil.

Bodrul: Our debate is up. Good luck!

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 09:22 AM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Thanks Sky. I think you did a great job considering the difficulty of your position. Hard to argue that everyone in a certian class can all be the same, regardless of what your saying they are. THere is always exceptiuons to the rule.

I actually thought you might win it seeing as this ATS and there is a lot members who believe what you where arguing for.

Looking forward to your and Bodrul's debate. Good luck mate.

[edit on 26-1-2008 by GAOTU789]

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 01:37 PM
Hello Bodrul,

thanks for the hot debate we are currently in. I would however ask you to read the rules posted by the Vagabond in the OP: Socratic questions must be answered (you didnt) and only 5 questions can be asked (you asked 7).

I will wait for my reply untíl the Vagabond allows you to edit your post.

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 06:22 PM
I have edited Bodrul's post.

I generally dislike removing substance from posts however, so I have offered an alternative which I hope will be acceptable.

If you will answer all 8 questions this time (i thought I counted 8) you may ask the same number in your next post, and from then on out we will keep it down to 5.

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 06:26 PM
reply to post by The Vagabond

ok, accepted. Thanks.

posted on Jan, 26 2008 @ 08:14 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

sorry about that, i will answer those and give reply soon,
should have stuck with normal topics

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 03:43 PM
MemoryShock your up.
I actuallt was not able to post all on my responses (dang 1000 character limit) so i will add them to my next post
it is starting to shape up to be a good debate.

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:41 PM
It's a bit easier than the old 800 word limit still. I used to spend hours trimming and rewording to get every bit I could into that limit.

Really I liked it for the most part, but enforcing it was time intensive and I REALLY didn't like deleting content, so the rule was defeated by civil disobedience.

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 04:45 PM
I agree, kenshiro..
...I have limited access today, so I will have something by tomorrow evening for sure.....I hear you on the charachter limit...I have a lot of saved material because I didn't want to let anything go.....

I always thought that it would be a good experiment, Vagabond, to go back to the word count limits. I'm talking about a personal exhibition at some point in the future. Now that I know that I can indeed fill a 1,500+ post consistently, I became curious about what I would omit....

[edit on 27-1-2008 by MemoryShock]

posted on Jan, 27 2008 @ 06:46 PM
I think the post limit was an additional challenge. Yet as TheVagabond was saying, it was also somewhat limiting, especially in a debate where one is relying heavily on research material and not opinion.

I kind of like the "Unlimited" debates now.


posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 05:29 PM
Everyone keep your eyes peeled...

Chissler has come up with a SUPER topic for a debate...

Looks to be TECH intensive....


posted on Jan, 30 2008 @ 06:08 PM
Any one hear or see of kenshiro?

I really don't want to end this debate prematurely...and he's running close to the 48 hour limit...

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in