Fight Club Pub.

reply to post by maria_stardust

---

Ah, and I can see the sharks circling already. Always room for more! Well met, maria, and welcome!

Remember the unofficial motto: "The bigger the smile, the sharper the knife".

reply to post by Ian McLean

---

You were awesome in your very first debate.


Welcome to the club.

reply to post by Skyfloating

---

Thanks Skyfloating! In the words of the inimitable semperfortis: "I was robbed!!! Robbed I tell ya!!!!"

Note to self: when raising the bar, and you want the win, be sure to eventually bring it crashing down loudly enough that the judges hear.

Ah well, I'll go sulk into my morning coffee now...

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??

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

I'd have a go at ya, but I am promised to TheVag....

My dance card is punched..

Semper

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

Sorry for the delay RockPuck! I am ready when you are!

Do we have a RockPuck and TruthWithin Challenge Match confirmation?

reply to post by MemoryShock

---

Yes, yes indeed we do.

I was afraid he had fallen off the face of the Earth, or else, rather dreaded facing me!

Bring it on Truth!

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?

reply to post by MemoryShock

---

Let's start as soon as truth is willing. I will take any stance on the economy to which Truth feels more comfortable debating. I may be putting my self at a disfavorable position, but ah well. I prefer the challenge.

reply to post by Rockpuck

---

Ready and willing. I like the economy! Sounds good. Any ideas?

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.

Got it. That makes perfect sense...



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"....



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]

reply to post by Ian McLean

---

Perhaps it should read, "The bigger the smile, the sharper the teeth."

Brings to mind that deliciously bad '70s horror flick Trilogy of Terror. *shudders* I really hate voodoo dolls carrying sharp utensils.

I've finally made it into the Debate Forum, thanks in part to The Vagabond, thanks TV for letting Me get into here.

I'm up for the challenge if someone wishes to debate go ahead and send the challenge. Check out My threads or challenge on what you know, it doesn't matter a hill of beans.

My likes are bands like Godsmack, Metallica, Aerosmith as well as long walks on the beach, and not being a sheeple. My dislikes are Secret Societies, government corruption, and that funky smell coming from The Vagabond's fridge. Check out this recent thread I've been tearing up ATS with and you will see I investigate sources I've researched.

The True Story of the Bilderberg Group : Daniel Estulin

I'm up to the challenge, are you?

Mirthful Me, just how are you getting your avatar past the censors with what that monkey is doing to that rabbit?




[edit on 24-6-2008 by SpartanKingLeonidas]

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*

reply to post by intrepid

---

Walter Johnson says..."No".

Dwight Gooden says..."No".

Pansy older players attempting to recapture the prime of their careers say...ah, who really cares what they say...