Originally posted by Ian McLean
Seriously, thanks again, and congrats MemoryShock -- there's yer two points for ya!

Thanks, Ian...it was a great battle.

You took a route that I wasn't expecting and have to say that it was, for the most part (in my opinion) pretty stout.

What I am mildly confused on is why you didn't make use of MK_ULTRA to illustrate that the CIA may not have the American public's best interest in mind....thusly showing that they need to be punted the heck out of dodge decades ago...

I am not second guessing....merely curious. It was a bullet that I am glad that I didn't have to try and evade...

Lalalalalala .....

Still looking for someone to debate me on the State of The Economy!

C'Mon ye' pansies! Someone surely has the nerve to challenge me??

Do we have a RockPuck and TruthWithin Challenge Match confirmation?

Alright...you guys should hammer out a specific topic, stances, and any other details. Since u2u is out, no place like in thread...

Oh...and when would you like to start?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I am not second guessing....merely curious. It was a bullet that I am glad that I didn't have to try and evade...

Woulda opened up the debate to moral judgment -- hard to build an objective case there -- recall the "the Soviets are doing this, so we'll need to defend against it" point (pragmatic counter). Also, there's lots and lots of other shady stuff elsewhere in gov, so it could easily be said: 1) "everyone's doing it", or 2) the public supports it (contrast to current East EU prisons).

Besides, you were expecting that approach.

Thought it best to focus on a case that was definitely CIA-specific, so I could keep you curtailed on scope. Really thought I had you when you agreed with my statement "My opponent and I agree that this unacceptable, that reforms must be enacted, and that the CIA, as it exists and acts today, cannot be allowed to continue."

Guess my tactic of standing solid on elimination and getting you to argue heavy reforms yourself worked too well -- seems the judges thought my burden of proof was for elimination, too.

Ah well, c'est la vie.

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Woulda opened up the debate to moral judgment -- hard to build an objective case there -- recall the "the Soviets are doing this, so we'll need

Got it. That makes perfect sense...

Originally posted by Ian McLean
Really thought I had you when you agreed with my statement "My opponent and I agree that this unacceptable, that reforms must be enacted, and that the CIA, as it exists and acts today, cannot be allowed to continue."

I saw that...you dragged me in by explicitly stating our agreement, so I had to interact with that statement....but a statement to the negation would have been kind of inconsistent. Tis why I snipped it at "unacceptable"....

Guess my tactic of standing solid on elimination and getting you to argue heavy reforms yourself worked too well -- seems the judges thought my burden of proof was for elimination, too.

It was actually a great tactic...the only way I could rationalize that (after I caught on) was calling for an outside agency to provide the reforms....

Edit for quoting

[edit on 23-6-2008 by MemoryShock]

Note to all fighters... please do not post (even to congratulate) within ongoing debates. Allow the debate to finish and the results be announced before replying to any debate thread.

Please note that all new scheduled matches will be posted as soon as the u2u system is operational.

It is a valuable tool in the debating process and in fairness to the fighters should be available for the commencement of new debates.

This post is directed at coven/jamie83....Andrew E. Wiggin/jxnet...Rockpuck/TruthWithin.

Please be patient, it should be within a day or two.

Thank You.

I've got a topic. The "designated hitter" rule. Pro/con.

*And the sports fans rejoiced*