Any takers?

[jimnyc]

5StringJeff is willing to debate illegal immigration
82marine89 is willing to debate illegal immigration
Jack Daniels is willing to debate economic policy

These 3 have volunteered thus far, anyone care to discuss a debate with any of them. Anyone want to debate a different topic brought forth thus far?

Nobody is willing to step forth and put their debating skills on the line?

[PostmodernProphet]

5StringJeff is willing to debate illegal immigration
82marine89 is willing to debate illegal immigration

well are they for it or against it?

[5stringJeff]

well are they for it or against it?

Against. I can't go until next week though.

[actsnoblemartin]

well im against it too, so i dont think im much help but kudos to you and them for being willing to bedate it

:dance:
Against. I can't go until next week though.

[PostmodernProphet]

it might be hard to find someone who ISN'T against illegal immigration.....how do you feel about opening up legal immigration to include all those folks who are currently illegal?.....

[jimnyc]

it might be hard to find someone who ISN'T against illegal immigration.....how do you feel about opening up legal immigration to include all those folks who are currently illegal?.....

Believe it or not, we have a few on this board who think amnesty should be granted and that we should work with the illegals. *cough* OCA *cough*

[PostmodernProphet]

/shrugs....if you mean the current hoopla about 'amnesty' being raised by conservatives, I agree with him....if there is anything that drives me out of the Republican party it will be the stupidity of blocking any effort to solve the problem because of a single meaningless word.....

[glockmail]

Believe it or not, we have a few on this board who think amnesty should be granted and that we should work with the illegals. *cough* OCA *cough* Is OCA a homo? :poke:

[LuvRPgrl]

5StringJeff is willing to debate illegal immigration
82marine89 is willing to debate illegal immigration
Jack Daniels is willing to debate economic policy

These 3 have volunteered thus far, anyone care to discuss a debate with any of them. Anyone want to debate a different topic brought forth thus far?

Nobody is willing to step forth and put their debating skills on the line?

I would be willing to prove them wrong,,,,,err, take them on. I support immigration at a much higher level than it is now, legal that is.

Also, I would actually prefer to first debate someone (Missleman?) on whether or not our country was founded as a Christian nation.

I would like to make one suggestion. In debates at school, we were given turns and limited on how long we could talk. I suggest we limit the length of the posts somehow and structure it to make it more readable.

thanks, Ron

[Missileman]

Also, I would actually prefer to first debate someone (Missleman?) on whether or not our country was founded as a Christian nation.


You've already lost that debate in an open forum. You're insane if you think the outcome would be any different one-on-one. Who knows though, maybe you CAN convince some folks here that the signers of the constitution ran back to their states and ESTABLISHED the Church of England as their official state religion.

All in all, I've got better things to do than re-argue with an illiterate ass who thinks that syntax is something levied on tobacco and alcohol and that grammar is a person visited on weekends.

[LiberalNation]

How about gays in the military. Thos are always fun threads.

[LuvRPgrl]

You've already lost that debate in an open forum. You're insane if you think the outcome would be any different one-on-one. Who knows though, maybe you CAN convince some folks here that the signers of the constitution ran back to their states and ESTABLISHED the Church of England as their official state religion.

All in all, I've got better things to do than re-argue with an illiterate ass who thinks that syntax is something levied on tobacco and alcohol and that grammar is a person visited on weekends.

my, my, scared?

You've won nothing so far, making more posts doesnt prove anything.

[diuretic]

More bored I would think. Sorry to have to dash the idea with cold water but subjects which have been hacked to death in forums are unlikely to provoke any fresh and interesting debates.

[Pale Rider]

5StringJeff is willing to debate illegal immigration
82marine89 is willing to debate illegal immigration
Jack Daniels is willing to debate economic policy

These 3 have volunteered thus far, anyone care to discuss a debate with any of them. Anyone want to debate a different topic brought forth thus far?

Nobody is willing to step forth and put their debating skills on the line?

I'll even debate any three people here against me alone on the illegal invasion from mexico.

[LuvRPgrl]

More bored I would think. Sorry to have to dash the idea with cold water but subjects which have been hacked to death in forums are unlikely to provoke any fresh and interesting debates.

Its amazing how busy its been for me lately.
Anyways, I wanted to respond to this because I think the forum would present an opportunity to deal with the subject in a much better manner than the usual, as you said, and I agree, "hacked to death" manner.

In a one on one debate, terms could be clarified, personal insults eliminated, and the actual FACTS about the issue revealed. I do believe there is a tremendous amount of information on the topic that is not generally known, or put down in an easy to understand manner. I do know that there is some information that would be quite surprising to many, when it is/will be, revealed.

I also think some tweaks on the way the one on one is utilized would be a good idea. Such as, in formal debates, limiting the size of posts, the opening posts of the persons arguements, and responses.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'll even debate any three people here against me alone on the illegal invasion from mexico.

Dont think me woods be kneedin help frum two udders to handle D topic. Probably at least 90% of your arguements could be shot down quite easily, assuming people arent merely on the emotional bandwagon to dissuage any further immigration.

[PostmodernProphet]

????....."dissuage" and "woods be kneedin" in the same paragraph......me be thinkin' you be posin'.......

[LuvRPgrl]

????....."dissuage" and "woods be kneedin" in the same paragraph......me be thinkin' you be posin'.......

Busted !!!!

[Gadget (fmr Marine)]

Technically "dissuade" would have been the optimal choice......but I am from Wyoming, so what do I know?


Dont think me woods be kneedin help frum two udders to handle D topic. Probably at least 90% of your arguements could be shot down quite easily, assuming people arent merely on the emotional bandwagon to dissuage any further immigration.

[pegwinn]

I think that the debate should be free-form and then a poll to determine the winner. In the poll thread, you vote, then explain your vote. That is because we are not only debating facts but philosophy as well. Explanation of ones philosophy and using facts to support it, can be far more enlightening than mere recitations of facts alone.

And, perhaps a means of narrowing the topic. IE. if we are debating "Tax Reform" perhaps the admin can narrow it to "What method should be used to enact tax reform in the USA to the benefit of the most people?" or "Why or Why Not should the current tax code be abolished or reformed?"

As to civility, nothing above mild sarcasm should be allowed.

BTW I am in on taxes, gun control, crime and punishment, reform of the government, elections, or the military being generally superior to civilians.