Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

For Gods sake

Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:17:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

You're essentially asking someone to lose for you...
Mikal
Posts: 11,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:20:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:17:40 AM, Defro wrote:
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

You're essentially asking someone to lose for you...

i never get anyone to take us up on the offers
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 9:27:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

Something for you both to keep in the hopper, because bluesteel already owes me a debate:

"Parents should be held civilly liable for the torts of their children."

I don't have time to do this now, but when I do (Christmas?) I'll be PRO.
ElCorazonAma
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 10:52:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

What are you going to debate?
The verb is real but the adjective is only a hypothetical ideal. ~ Freedo
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 12:05:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Race based affirmative action is getting increasingly difficult to defend and I think very few would be willing to take on two of the best debaters on the site in its defense...which is too bad because I'd like to see it
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:37:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 11:18:53 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I do believe that a collaboration between Raisor and myself was mentioned?

Whiteflame/Raisor vs. Mikal/Bluesteel... now THAT is a debate I'd love to see unfold. You're getting into some epic sh!t bro, lol. By this time next year I wouldn't be surprised if you have 1 or 2 debates in the HOF.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
Mikal
Posts: 11,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:39:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 11:18:53 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I do believe that a collaboration between Raisor and myself was mentioned?

I would be down depending on the topic

I know raisor and I were talking about an objective morality debate with him and pop vs me and blue but it never happened.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:44:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:39:02 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/4/2014 11:18:53 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I do believe that a collaboration between Raisor and myself was mentioned?

I would be down depending on the topic

I know raisor and I were talking about an objective morality debate with him and pop vs me and blue but it never happened.

I'd be happy to discuss topics more broadly, not sure objective morality is the topic I'd be most interested in doing personally.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:45:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:37:44 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
At 10/4/2014 11:18:53 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I do believe that a collaboration between Raisor and myself was mentioned?

Whiteflame/Raisor vs. Mikal/Bluesteel... now THAT is a debate I'd love to see unfold. You're getting into some epic sh!t bro, lol. By this time next year I wouldn't be surprised if you have 1 or 2 debates in the HOF.

Heh, have to see this one through first, though I don't doubt it'll be pretty epic if it does happen.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 8:38:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 6:39:02 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/4/2014 11:18:53 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I do believe that a collaboration between Raisor and myself was mentioned?

I would be down depending on the topic

I know raisor and I were talking about an objective morality debate with him and pop vs me and blue but it never happened.

You and Blue??
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Mikal
Posts: 11,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 10:08:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 8:38:42 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:39:02 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/4/2014 11:18:53 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I do believe that a collaboration between Raisor and myself was mentioned?

I would be down depending on the topic

I know raisor and I were talking about an objective morality debate with him and pop vs me and blue but it never happened.

You and Blue??

bluesteel
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 10:13:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 10:08:32 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/5/2014 8:38:42 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:39:02 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/4/2014 11:18:53 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I do believe that a collaboration between Raisor and myself was mentioned?

I would be down depending on the topic

I know raisor and I were talking about an objective morality debate with him and pop vs me and blue but it never happened.

You and Blue??

bluesteel

When was this going to happen? I thought it was going to be you and I.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Mikal
Posts: 11,269
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 10:28:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 10:13:52 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/5/2014 10:08:32 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/5/2014 8:38:42 PM, phantom wrote:
At 10/4/2014 6:39:02 PM, Mikal wrote:
At 10/4/2014 11:18:53 AM, whiteflame wrote:
I do believe that a collaboration between Raisor and myself was mentioned?

I would be down depending on the topic

I know raisor and I were talking about an objective morality debate with him and pop vs me and blue but it never happened.

You and Blue??

bluesteel

When was this going to happen? I thought it was going to be you and I.

that was another one i tried to make work and it fell through, its hard to get team debates to work at all sadly
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 10:46:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

No person in his/her right mind would accept a debate against you and bluesteel (Wylted is crazy)
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 2:37:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 9:27:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

Something for you both to keep in the hopper, because bluesteel already owes me a debate:

"Parents should be held civilly liable for the torts of their children."

I don't have time to do this now, but when I do (Christmas?) I'll be PRO.

I do owe you a debate. But no. Not that topic. The con position doesn't make any sense. Tort victims should just not be compensated? Children are all judgment proof (no money). The entire law of torts doesn't work if you can't hold parents liable.

I heard from someone that you are in favor of race-based affirmative action. Of all the topics we've discussed, going Con on that interests me the most.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 8:07:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 2:37:45 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:27:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

Something for you both to keep in the hopper, because bluesteel already owes me a debate:

"Parents should be held civilly liable for the torts of their children."

I don't have time to do this now, but when I do (Christmas?) I'll be PRO.

I do owe you a debate. But no. Not that topic. The con position doesn't make any sense. Tort victims should just not be compensated? Children are all judgment proof (no money). The entire law of torts doesn't work if you can't hold parents liable.

I heard from someone that you are in favor of race-based affirmative action. Of all the topics we've discussed, going Con on that interests me the most.

I'm in favor of limited class based affirmative action. I am not in favor of race based affirmative action.

And there is a legitimate argument to be made that not all parents should be held liable for the torts of their children... I just happen not to be sympathetic to it.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 4:57:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 8:07:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2014 2:37:45 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:27:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

Something for you both to keep in the hopper, because bluesteel already owes me a debate:

"Parents should be held civilly liable for the torts of their children."

I don't have time to do this now, but when I do (Christmas?) I'll be PRO.

I do owe you a debate. But no. Not that topic. The con position doesn't make any sense. Tort victims should just not be compensated? Children are all judgment proof (no money). The entire law of torts doesn't work if you can't hold parents liable.

I heard from someone that you are in favor of race-based affirmative action. Of all the topics we've discussed, going Con on that interests me the most.

I'm in favor of limited class based affirmative action. I am not in favor of race based affirmative action.

And there is a legitimate argument to be made that not all parents should be held liable for the torts of their children... I just happen not to be sympathetic to it.

I might even be willing to oppose class based affirmative action. Need to do a little research to see if the same arguments apply.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 5:11:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 4:57:33 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/6/2014 8:07:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/6/2014 2:37:45 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:27:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 10/4/2014 3:31:51 AM, Mikal wrote:
someone team debate me and bluesteel

Something for you both to keep in the hopper, because bluesteel already owes me a debate:

"Parents should be held civilly liable for the torts of their children."

I don't have time to do this now, but when I do (Christmas?) I'll be PRO.

I do owe you a debate. But no. Not that topic. The con position doesn't make any sense. Tort victims should just not be compensated? Children are all judgment proof (no money). The entire law of torts doesn't work if you can't hold parents liable.

I heard from someone that you are in favor of race-based affirmative action. Of all the topics we've discussed, going Con on that interests me the most.

I'm in favor of limited class based affirmative action. I am not in favor of race based affirmative action.

And there is a legitimate argument to be made that not all parents should be held liable for the torts of their children... I just happen not to be sympathetic to it.

I might even be willing to oppose class based affirmative action. Need to do a little research to see if the same arguments apply.

I would be willing to oppose it too, because there are huge problems associated with it. It's a touchy subject, though... because the outcome is that most poor people don't have the tools to stay afloat when thrown into an environment they were unprepared to enter.

Roylatham has made some interesting posts, to that end. I'm not saying I agree with all of them, but I think his is a generally pragmatic view -even if it defies what I want for society.
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 5:12:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm increasingly more of the "merit alone" train of thought, although what constitutes merit is something that I think a reasonable discussion could be had on.

I'm with Malcolm Gladwell's position on college admissions, btw.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 6:33:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 5:12:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm increasingly more of the "merit alone" train of thought, although what constitutes merit is something that I think a reasonable discussion could be had on.

I'm with Malcolm Gladwell's position on college admissions, btw.

Which is what exactly? You could construe his position in David & Goliath as being anti-affirmative action of any kind (in his chapters on "Big Fish, Small Pond").
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
YYW
Posts: 36,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 6:37:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/6/2014 6:33:33 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/6/2014 5:12:51 PM, YYW wrote:
I'm increasingly more of the "merit alone" train of thought, although what constitutes merit is something that I think a reasonable discussion could be had on.

I'm with Malcolm Gladwell's position on college admissions, btw.

Which is what exactly?

The only fair way to do college admissions is establish a minimum threshold over which applicants must be, and then randomly select applicants from that pool.

You could construe his position in David & Goliath as being anti-affirmative action of any kind (in his chapters on "Big Fish, Small Pond").

I said college admissions, not affirmative action, although yes, you could construe David and Goliath exactly like that -and that's an argument I'd personally support.