Fight Club Pub.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
As oblique as that is I would gladly trade as I anticipate conceding after eloquently articulating why my topic is not worth debating in my opening.

Grin and bear it, honey!



I've landed myself in debates and on sides of issues I really couldn't care less about. It's all part of the game.

No doubt, you'll manage to survive the horror of your topic through sheer faith and perseverance.

Originally posted by Heike

TWISI, put on your big girl panties and deal. A lot of us don't like our topics. Having to cope with a random topic and position is what a tournament is all about. How much skill does it take to argue something you know about and agree with?

It is not a matter of panty size. It is a matter of:

a) the topic calling for a foundation in a type of technical exptertise -- that should not be assumed in this forum -- without which one cannot argue.

b) that kind of expertise is not something one can 'pick-up' with a couple of days of online research.

c) there is no 'conpiracy' aspect to it AT ALL w/o wild time wasting, pointless overreaching that does not speak to the topic

d) and as Ian most saliently pointed outa MAC is a PC

e) leaving it basically a discussion of "Brands"

So, don't come at me with superior airs and talk of undergarment girding.

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
So, don't come at me with superior airs and talk of undergarment girding.

Zing!

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


That was a ripe visualization, bleck, what I wanted to say is that when I got my title I just about had a heart attack! I thought this must be a joke to the dumbest one in the forum, even my kids told me if I really felt I couldn't do it, to concede.

I looked at their support and said no, I can meet this or any challenge that is thrown at me. This is just going to take a bit more effort than I had hoped.

What I am saying is to look around you, you have all the support you need to accomplish anything.

reply to post by TheWayISeeIt


Since they havent offered a topic-change yet, just go ahead with it. Use your anger to wipe your opponent off the map.

I`d like to meet you in one of the next rounds since you said you`d never debate me.

Originally posted by Heike

 

you can't talk about it because all of your fighter friends are your opponent's friends too, plus you never know if the person you choose to gripe to might have been one of your judges.

Thats right. Its unwise to vent in a room full of future judges

Originally posted by TheWayISeeIt
a) the topic calling for a foundation in a type of technical exptertise -- that should not be assumed in this forum -- without which one cannot argue.

b) that kind of expertise is not something one can 'pick-up' with a couple of days of online research.

The topic was changed, after discussion between semperfortis and I, mainly based on the above concern. The topic, in my opinion, was akin to debating the voracity of the Mustang's engine specs as compared with a Camaro's.

Difficult to do if there is no background in mechanics and likewise with computer software/hardware.

While we do not make it a habit of changing topics (Please refer to the Fighters' Bill Of Rights) this was viewed as an exceptional case.

TWISI will have 24 hours from the time stamp of this post to make her opening argument.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Thats right. Its unwise to vent in a room full of future judges

While I agree with that sentiment...I also think that there should be no compunction made by stating a case if done so tactfully.

As it will be, once the rulings are in they are final but holding one's tongue for fear of causing offense or incurring 'retibution shouldn't be practised.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
As it will be, once the rulings are in they are final but holding one's tongue for fear of causing offense or incurring 'retibution shouldn't be practised.

I agree. With the recent practice of more detailed judgments, I don't think there's any reason to worry about 'grudge judging'. The judgments I've read are fairly well thought out, except for the ones I disagree with.

I think it's kind of fun to lay into the judges, especially since they can't respond. How often does life give you that opportunity?

Originally posted by Ian McLean
I think it's kind of fun to lay into the judges ...

Judges rule!

Radio frequency identification chip implantations, eh? Time to hit the ATS archives.

A deep bow of appreciation to both the Mods and Enjoies.

I am now off to learn about RFID chips and can, with the utmost certainty, predict that I will find them a very beneficial tool.

Yahoo!
TWISI

Good luck, TheWayISeeIt.

Well, heck, if Mr. Clean says it's okay, who am I to argue?

One judge stated that they favored OL for "valid sources."

It seems that the definition of "valid sources" has gotten a bit subjective.

OL's sources:
1) The vegetarian editor of an online women's magazine.
2) Earthsave is a vegetarian activist group dedicated to convincing people to become vegetarians.
3) a doctor who appears on TV talk shows, writes for magazines, and dispenses advice on a website
4) PCRM - a thinly disguised "animal rights" group which opposes the use of animals in medical research and for consumption.
5) Wikipedia
6) Wikipedia
7) Another doctor who wrote a popular weight loss book
8) Another online women's magazine.

These are superior "valid sources"? I beg to differ.

"She also wins the S.A.D. and Proteins debate."

Almost ANY diet will seem healthy compared to SAD, which basically means "eat what you like and is convenient." It has nothing to do with eating meat vs. not eating meat. S.A.D was (or should have been) completely irrelevant to the debate.

"She simply posted more benefits of a vegetarian lifestyle than Heike posted benefits of a meat-eating lifestyle."

It wasn't my job to sell the health benefits of eating meat. It was my job to prove that vegetarians aren't necessarily healthier because they don't eat meat. Anyway, the only people who are going to be talking about the health benefits of eating meat these days are the meat & dairy industries, and had I used any of that type of material it would just have been disregarded as "tainted" sources.

Besides which, for most of the 50+ years I've been alive, vegetarians don't eat animal products, period. They don't eat eggs or dairy products. I don't know when all this ovo-lacto stuff came into play, I guess I should have been paying closer attention. But the whole point of (the original) vegetarianism is to avoid eating anything that came from an animal. What kind of a vegetarian still eats eggs and drinks milk? Yeah, I know -- "ovo-lacto." Never heard of 'em until OL brought it up. Not eating meat but still eating eggs & dairy makes even less sense than the old style of vegetarianism. You're still eating things that came from animals, so what's the point?

Okay, done venting. Now off to re-write the opening that I already had 80% written and can't use because someone (no idea who) convinced Semper to change the topic to "man made" global warming.

reply to post by Heike


It's good to vent the spleen.

Just don't eat it.

At one office I worked at, there was a heavy bag set up in one corner. It was great - there were several times I sprained my wrist punching that thing (no tape). Wonderful catharsis.


Edit: to edit my edit after reading more closely.

[edit on Feb 16th 2009 by Ian McLean]

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by americandingbat
Do you just link to the page where the pdf is available? And if you're using multiple pdf's from the same place, do they count as one reference the same way multiple pages from one domain do?

Link to the page with the pdf...preferably labeled as pdf...

A new document from the same source will count as a new reference. Excerpts from the same document can be used multiple times as one source.

I hope I understood the question correctly...

Maybe. I'm not sure.

The source I'm looking at is the US Constitution and Amendments with annotations and references to relevant court cases and legislation. Each section or amendment comes as a separate pdf, but they're all available on the same web page. I would count them as being all the same document, but they are separate pdfs.

Anybody care to tell me how I did?

I'm not the best debater, but I tried.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


Well done D2.



Hey, has anyone thought about giving Mike Singh a shout, I'm not sure he's aware that his debate is up.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


Congratulations, Doomsday2029!

A new ATS record:

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
The Police aren't going to be perfect, but it's better than Hitler.

Fastest application of Godwin's Law. The very first post of the very first debate!




I jest of course - good opening statement.

reply to post by Heike


Common sense dictates that 'both' parties agree to the change before it happens, yes?

We learn as we grow...