Necrohydra:
So...what about a government discussion is not political?

There's a difference between empirical policy-based discussions about which is more substantively beneficial, and "durr, people should be responsible for themselves" or "durr, corporations are greedy, and screw the little people". If we can keep it policy-based and logical (i.e avoid ideology), it's not political.

It's one thing to discuss whether tax breaks lead to increased production in the economy, and thus are beneficial in a cost-effectiveness analysis. That's not political. Arguing about the principles is political. Arguing about effects and philosophy isn't political, arguing about whether George Bush is satan is political.

Saskwach:

Fire Daemon:
I will be in if there is still room. I like to argue.

There's as much room as there are guinea pi- I mean volunteers. Just pick a topic that's been suggested, or make your own, and find someone who'll take the opposite side.

From Seldon:
"'That government is best which governs least'

I can open this up on the negative side if anyone would like to go a couple of rounds with me."
Anyone willing to take the affirmative?

"America, in terms of its reign as the preeminent country has been exceptional as compared to previous rulers"
This, while not impossible, is at the fine edge of what Necrohydra and Wilson are worried about it.

It's a fine line, true, but if we're actually reasonable people (and I believe we are) it's unlikely to devolve into "America rocks" or "America sucks". Any of these topics can become truly inane if we allow them to become pure flame wars over belief. We need rules about empirical evidence (or even philisophical evidence) being necessary, lest this devolve into us all slapping each other around

It sounds like a pretty nice idea. I'm in.

I'll take the negative side on the console wars--that sounds interesting. But I have to ask...are you going to do all the debates on this thread or set up a new thread for each debate?

So in order to start, I just basically inspire some softcore flame wars? Then troll and troll until my sapling blooms into a gnarled, black beast of a topic so dense and vile that the moderators don their HazMat suits and douse the entire section with the banhammer and salt the earth so as to avoid the problem persisting.

As much as I love an argument, I specifically came to these forums to avoid trolls and flame wars, as well as revel in psuedo-intellectual ego stroking, which upon my realization of the paragraph above makes me recall my volunteering in your discourse session.

The Franco:
So in order to start, I just basically inspire some softcore flame wars? Then troll and troll until my sapling blooms into a gnarled, black beast of a topic so dense and vile that the moderators don their HazMat suits and douse the entire section with the banhammer and salt the earth so as to avoid the problem persisting.

As much as I love an argument, I specifically came to these forums to avoid trolls and flame wars, as well as revel in psuedo-intellectual ego stroking, which upon my realization of the paragraph above makes me recall my volunteering in your discourse session.

You seem to have missed the point a bit. The issue isn't to flame or troll each other (both consisting largely of saying "you're wrong, no you're wrong" a bunch of times) and instead attempt to actually discuss subjects of importance and/or interest. I don't know if it's possible on a board like this, but I have to applaud the attempt.

I'm not sure about what you mean in your second paragraph; the dangling modifier could indicate that either you came here to avoid "trolls and flames [and] reveling in psuedo-intellectual [sic] ego stroking", or that you came here to avoid trolls and flames, but enjoy reveling in ego stroking. If the former, I'd ask you to define pseudo-intellectual ego stroking from intellectual ego stroking, and from intelligent discourse. If the latter, I'm not sure what your complaint about this topic is.

But, beyond that, by categorically insulting the entire group of those of us who would enjoy this if done well (implying that it will be either flames, trolling, or ego-stroking) is in and of itself a flame. If you want to argue against something, it helps not to practice that activity yourself.

I'm not trying to force you into discussing anything with anyone, but by setting up a straw man of the process itself, only to knock it down, you've shown that you would (yourself) be incapable of intelligent discourse (being based on logic, empiricism, and reason, rather than your obvious rhetorical devices).

While I love a good debate as much as the next ego-stroking psuedo-intellectual, I can't be assed to do research on a topic I know nothing about, which is the main reason I stayed away from debate clubs.

Maybe if a topic comes along that I truly care about, I'll join in. Until then, I'll just play the casual observer, whilst silently cheering on those that support my beliefs.

Oh, and as far as suggesting topics goes, if we aren't doing political issues, would things like stem-cell research be fair game?

Again people, it's good that you're all interested and have signed up but I'm not going to force you into a topic. What topic you get is down to what you suggest and/or pick for yourself.
The possible topics so far:

The United Nations serves good dinners but little else.

Rights are more important than responsibilities.

We place too much faith in the medical profession.

The console wars have had a positive effect on gaming. Sib has taken affirmative, Zemalac is negative.
PC gaming is dying.

E3 is obsolete.

That government is best which governs least. Larenxis has volunteered for affirmative, Seldon# for negative.

Genetically engineering children (a la Gattaca) is inherently wrong.

It is the responsibility of the world community to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves (starving Africans, for instance). Darth Mobius is negative, anyone for affirmative?

America, in terms of its reign as the preeminent country has been exceptional as compared to previous rulers.

State's rights should take precedence over what the federal government would like to accomplish.

Advertising- Good or Evil? This needs to be cleaned up into a proper topic sentence. I'd say it would pass as: Advertising has an overall positive effect.

If anyone cares to clean this up into a topic sentence:
Is it the responsibility of the consumer to read the nutritional facts or otherwise inform themselves about food and make their own decisions, or the government or perhaps the producers to raise their standards (decreasing sodium and glucose and such) so the consumer doesn't have to make such choices? Ooh, but that makes me think of another one. Is the main priority for corporations to gain profit from the public, or the public to gain products and services from corporations?

Strafe Magee
The_root_of_all_evil
Baelinicius
The Franco
jim_doki
Fire Daemon
John Galt
Rabid Toilet

I suppose I'll take the affirmative on the "PC gaming is dying" topic.

I'll take part in all of 'em except for the E3 one, the console one, and the American one.

lets organize a spontaneous event!

logic ftfw (for the fucking win)

what was wrong with insult sword-fighting? its got the opportunity for more gay jokes, and people get genuinely angry! but i guess im just a more vindictive sort of argument-addict, unless its got a genuine opinion behind it, its like playing poker without betting...

Seldon2639:

Necrohydra:
So...what about a government discussion is not political?

There's a difference between empirical policy-based discussions about which is more substantively beneficial, and "durr, people should be responsible for themselves" or "durr, corporations are greedy, and screw the little people". If we can keep it policy-based and logical (i.e avoid ideology), it's not political.

It's one thing to discuss whether tax breaks lead to increased production in the economy, and thus are beneficial in a cost-effectiveness analysis. That's not political. Arguing about the principles is political. Arguing about effects and philosophy isn't political, arguing about whether George Bush is satan is political.

I do not doubt your ability to keep an argument strictly about policy and logical, Seldon. Rather, it's the fact that you'd be posting this argument in a public forum, and the fact that despite your best intentions, someone is going to wander into here, see the government discussion, and spout off how X nation is the best or that Y nation is the worst or that we all should just go anarchist. It would not be very difficult to derail.

Rather, come to think of it..that will likely be the situation in any case anyways.

Necrohydra:

Seldon2639:

Necrohydra:
So...what about a government discussion is not political?

There's a difference between empirical policy-based discussions about which is more substantively beneficial, and "durr, people should be responsible for themselves" or "durr, corporations are greedy, and screw the little people". If we can keep it policy-based and logical (i.e avoid ideology), it's not political.

It's one thing to discuss whether tax breaks lead to increased production in the economy, and thus are beneficial in a cost-effectiveness analysis. That's not political. Arguing about the principles is political. Arguing about effects and philosophy isn't political, arguing about whether George Bush is satan is political.

I do not doubt your ability to keep an argument strictly about policy and logical, Seldon. Rather, it's the fact that you'd be posting this argument in a public forum, and the fact that despite your best intentions, someone is going to wander into here, see the government discussion, and spout off how X nation is the best or that Y nation is the worst or that we all should just go anarchist. It would not be very difficult to derail.

Rather, come to think of it..that will likely be the situation in any case anyways.

In mods we trust.

Is it some sort of american thing to turn debates into a game?

It's a Discussion Forum, why the hell complicate matters?

Ultrajoe:
lets organize a spontaneous event!

logic ftfw (for the fucking win)

what was wrong with insult sword-fighting? its got the opportunity for more gay jokes, and people get genuinely angry! but i guess im just a more vindictive sort of argument-addict, unless its got a genuine opinion behind it, its like playing poker without betting...

On either side of an issue, the point is not only to create the strongest argument possible, and see where the holes are in your logic, but also to train yourself to think more critically and discuss more effectively. If all we do is wail on each other with our opinions, we're not going to get anywhere interesting.

Frybird:
Is it some sort of american thing to turn debates into a game?

It's a Discussion Forum, why the hell complicate matters?

I can't speak to which country Saskwach (who originated the thread) is from, but I wouldn't think it's a uniquely "American" concept, given that Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato, all practiced a form of debate which focused not on personal opinions, but on logic and empiricism, and "complicated" matters by none of the parties being able to spout nonsense.

Discussion can be fun, but if one person is doing actual research, and attempting to make a valid case, while his opponent is saying (essentially) "no, you're wrong, and you're so wrong I don't need any evidence to show this" (which I've experienced on this very board), it becomes frustrating. I have no idea if this will work as intended, but why do you need to bash the very concept of attempting to institute some structure, maybe even some rules, for actual intellectual discourse?

I'll take the negative side of 'advertising has a positive effect'. My anti-consumerist tendencies should come in handy for that one...

EDIT: So, out of interest how does this work? I've never taken part in a proper debate before so I'm a little unclear about how it all works. Cheers.

Rabid Toilet:
While I love a good debate as much as the next ego-stroking psuedo-intellectual, I can't be assed to do research on a topic I know nothing about, which is the main reason I stayed away from debate clubs.

Maybe if a topic comes along that I truly care about, I'll join in. Until then, I'll just play the casual observer, whilst silently cheering on those that support my beliefs.

Oh, and as far as suggesting topics goes, if we aren't doing political issues, would things like stem-cell research be fair game?

I'm sure we can handle ethical issues. Even if I'm always wrong. Will be watching this thread in a most hawk-like fashion. Cos I is a finking Ork!

The first debate has been posted for Larenxis and Seldon: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.60300
The console war debate to come soon.

Seldon2639:

Ultrajoe:
lets organize a spontaneous event!

logic ftfw (for the fucking win)

what was wrong with insult sword-fighting? its got the opportunity for more gay jokes, and people get genuinely angry! but i guess im just a more vindictive sort of argument-addict, unless its got a genuine opinion behind it, its like playing poker without betting...

On either side of an issue, the point is not only to create the strongest argument possible, and see where the holes are in your logic, but also to train yourself to think more critically and discuss more effectively. If all we do is wail on each other with our opinions, we're not going to get anywhere interesting.

Opinion is a motive, without which all a planned argument is is an excuse to bandy the terms of your premise and a decent idea for a Monty Python sketch... which they did.

Is there still space to volunteer for a debate? I'm not fussy, and i'll argue the toss about anything :)

edinflames:
Is there still space to volunteer for a debate? I'm not fussy, and i'll argue the toss about anything :)

There's as much space as there are topics, and there's as many topics as people want. Just choose one of the topics I listed above (preferably one someone else has volunteered for as well so they're not kept waiting) or make up your own.

The console war debate has been posted: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.60389#470084
It should begin in a day or so, once Sib has started off.

I'll take that it is in the best interest of the world to feed third-world countries- i.e vs Darth mobius.

*raises hand*
positive for the advertising one

Genetically engineering children (a la Gattaca) is inherently wrong. - I'll sign for this in the positive light (as Genetically engineering children is not wrong)

and

Advertising- Good or Evil? This needs to be cleaned up into a proper topic sentence. I'd say it would pass as: Advertising has an overall positive effect. - Negitive approch: Advertisment is evil(annoying).

This sounds fun. I like the look of:

"Rights are more important than responsibilities."
I'd take the opposition to this.

"Genetically engineering children (a la Gattaca) is inherently wrong."
Personally, I'm in opposition to such a notion, but since Purpy already has that covered, I'll support. Should be interesting.

"America, in terms of its reign as the preeminent country has been exceptional as compared to previous rulers."
Is that previous rulers of America, previous rulers of major political powers, or just rulers in general?

Correct me if I'm wrong-and add what I've missed- but the following topics are now ready:
It is the responsibility of the world community to provide for those who cannot provide for themselves (emphasis has been placed on the foreign aid side of this, not the domestic poor). Fondant in affirmative, Darth Mobius in negative.
Advertising has an overall positive effect (thanks Rain). Jim_doki is affirmative, Strafe Magee is negative.
Genetically engineering children (a la Gattaca) is inherently wrong. PurpleRain for affirmative, Break for negative.
Everyone will be getting a message over this; reply when you're ready.

Well, Fondant has gone ahead and saved me the trouble of posting up his and Mobius's debate: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.60448
It's looking interesting not for the debate but for the feed-back. Necroswanson already suggested this but I've decided the debates will be held by PM between the two debaters then when finished passed on to me or simply posted by agreement from the two. This PM record will be the first post of the thread that will a) have a debate, and b) allow everyone else to participate straight away. It's an idea I should have thought of straight away.

Any new volunteers or topics or old volunteers choosing new topics will be appreciated.

What the hell do console wars have to do with what games get to come out?! If a game is successful, they make more of it, that's why we have so much Mario and Sonic, because it's a milked franchise - I don't see what console wars have to do with that - EA Milks, Activision Milks, etc.