Premiere Debate Revival Thread

[illinialex24]

Hey, since LoneJedi is gone (this is meant to be a revival of his idea that died when he left) I thought we could do essentially a debating tournament in a way, where we have people sign up, the community then chooses a topic and then randomly assign choose 2 of the signed up who haven't already debated (for the beginning, after everyone's debated we can change things up) and then randomly put them on a side. Then, we will either use this thread or make a new thread (I like the latter only for easy categorization) where the two will debate. Then, after the Debate is over, we will pick a winner based on how skilled they were at getting evidence and supporting their side.

If the mods support the second option, I will be linking the threads in here. If not, I will be giving post numbers to the respective debate. The debate would be going on for 1 week.

So who's interested??

 

[Aesir]

Interested.

 

[Mewter]

Cool. Looks interesting.

 

[Pr0phetic]

I'm definitely interested.

 

[illinialex24]

Ok, cool. Once I get like 5-10 people interested, including me, I'll start asking for an order of topics to debate. And then we can randomly assign week by week the people to argue. Sound good?

 

[Aorist]

Okay, I might be interested. But I can't argue economics and such - I have no skill in that area. Also uni might take up a bit of time.

So I guess I'm a "maybe".

 

[Aesir]

I request I argue economics vs Aorist.

 

[Eor]

Wait, why would LJ being gone have anything to do with this

 

[illinialex24]

Eor, its just because he had an idea like this but he can no longer carry it out because he no longer comes to the boards often. Its not saying I don't want him in, its just his idea was dying because he couldn't organize it. I'll make my post clearer.

 

[aeghrur]

Somewhat interested.
Like watching this stuff, but I don't really want to debate in here.
I know I'll screw up, BAAAAAAAAAAAD, lol.

 

[illinialex24]

Its ok, don't worry. Although I'm a pretty decent debater for never having formally debated (my dad's a pretty good lawyer, he was viewed as the best in a large law firm before he got kicked out because he didn't want to attract costumers and decided to get a job at the state for like a 10 times pay reduction), but that means I am definitely vulnerable to screw ups. Its the internet, just don't say something completely outrageous and you'll be fine.

 

[Mewter]

There's a chance I'll end up not knowing what I'm talking about, roll around in a dazed-like state, and die.
Oh well. I just have to hope I know what I'm doing and research the topic as much as I can.

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah, besides Jamma, I doubt any of us are amazing at this, so just enjoy.

 

[DoH]

I'd like to debate policy stuff, preferably stuff on terrorism/environment/foreign aid/etc.

Or I could debate on teh gays. I always debate on teh gays.

 

[illinialex24]

Ok, we have around 5 or 6 interested, I'll look for 1 more before starting the debates.

 

[RDK]

Yeah, besides Jamma, I doubt any of us are amazing at this, so just enjoy.

In case you forgot, as resident bad@ss, I'm amazing at this.

And if Delorted comes along and attempts to make you think otherwise, just know that he said inappropriate things about your mom the other night during poker.

I'd like to debate policy stuff, preferably stuff on terrorism/environment/foreign aid/etc.

Or I could debate on teh gays. I always debate on teh gays.

Ooh, I love teh gays.

I'll vs. you. Are you for or against?

 

[Aesir]

The Barr has spoken!

 

[RDK]

The Ralph has spoken!

 

[illinialex24]

Ok lets start coming up with ideas for our first debate.

 

[AltF4]

I'm not very good at playing "Devil's Advocate", lol. So I'd probably only want to debate topics I actually agree on. Plus, I'm not going to have the time until probably mid May.

 

[illinialex24]

Ok that sounds good. Yeah, we should start on more 50-50 or 40-60 topics that are fairly easy to argue either way by reason (ie, not creationism, sorry for offending 40% of the US and like 5% of all Europe)

 

[Aesir]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/16/texas-governor-says-secession-possible/

After reading that article I think you know what I'm getting at.

For the slow ones; Should the federal government be worried about other states following suit if Texas decides to go through with it?

 

[illinialex24]

That is pretty interesting, who here likes the idea??

 

[Aesir]

well clearly I do.

 

[RDK]

What always gets me is this: it is the Constitutional right of the people to rebel against government if, at any point and time, breaks or strays from the rules set forth by the Constitution. But if something like that happened (I.E., Texas seceding), the government would obviously try to stop it, just like in the Civil War.

Doesn't that seem a little backward? Or in the very least, contradictory? If the interpretation of the Constitution is nothing but subjective, arbitrary nonsense (I think the founding fathers made it that way on purpose), then who gets to decide exactly which interpretation is best? If one group thinks something is unconstitutional enough to overthrow the government or secede from the nation, but another group doesn't think it is, who's right?

 

[aeghrur]

What always gets me is this: it is the Constitutional right of the people to rebel against government if, at any point and time, breaks or strays from the rules set forth by the Constitution. But if something like that happened (I.E., Texas seceding), the government would obviously try to stop it, just like in the Civil War.

Doesn't that seem a little backward? Or in the very least, contradictory? If the interpretation of the Constitution is nothing but subjective, arbitrary nonsense (I think the founding fathers made it that way on purpose), then who gets to decide exactly which interpretation is best? If one group thinks something is unconstitutional enough to overthrow the government or secede from the nation, but another group doesn't think it is, who's right?

The group that controls the supreme court.
Iirc, when texas was annexed, it said in the treaty that they were allowed to secede at anytime. =/

 

[adumbrodeus]

What always gets me is this: it is the Constitutional right of the people to rebel against government if, at any point and time, breaks or strays from the rules set forth by the Constitution. But if something like that happened (I.E., Texas seceding), the government would obviously try to stop it, just like in the Civil War.

Doesn't that seem a little backward? Or in the very least, contradictory? If the interpretation of the Constitution is nothing but subjective, arbitrary nonsense (I think the founding fathers made it that way on purpose), then who gets to decide exactly which interpretation is best? If one group thinks something is unconstitutional enough to overthrow the government or secede from the nation, but another group doesn't think it is, who's right?

No, there is no DIRECT constitutional right to rebel, in that sense revolution always illegal.


We have a constitutional right to the MEANS of revolution however, with the theory being, that if abuse is strong and pervasive enough to merit a revolution, enough of the population will rebel that the government will be beaten.


Generally though, the most effective use of the right of revolution has been assassination of political leaders.

The group that controls the supreme court.
Iirc, when texas was annexed, it said in the treaty that they were allowed to secede at anytime. =/

There was no treaty, it never passed congress.

It was annexed by a joint resolution of congress and an ordnance passed by Texas.

Neither had any mention of the possibility seceding from the Union.


In both cases, Constitutional law overrides even if there was a provision to that effect.

 

[Aesir]

Texas can't legally secede, there's no documented evidence for it. Texas isn't on equal footing with the Federal Government, it's a state just like any other. The only power it has is it can legally turn it's self into 4 smaller states.

 

[RDK]

No, there is no DIRECT constitutional right to rebel, in that sense revolution always illegal.


We have a constitutional right to the MEANS of revolution however, with the theory being, that if abuse is strong and pervasive enough to merit a revolution, enough of the population will rebel that the government will be beaten.


Generally though, the most effective use of the right of revolution has been assassination of political leaders.

Um, yes, actually, we do have the explicit right to rebel. It's in the Constitution.

In fact, you even named it in your post--the Right of Revolution. So I don't see how you twisted it to mean something else. Having the means of revolution but not legally being able to use them is ridiculous and self-defeating.

 

[Mewter]

Lol. This is turning into its own debate.

By AltF4Warrior
I'm not very good at playing "Devil's Advocate", lol. So I'd probably only want to debate topics I actually agree on.

Ditto.

By illinialex24
Ok that sounds good. Yeah, we should start on more 50-50 or 40-60 topics that are fairly easy to argue either way by reason

Okay.

 

[illinialex24]

Ok, so who wants to debate whether Texas out to have the right to secede from the union, or any state for that matter. Not whether they actually should, but if they should have the right.

 

[Aesir]

^ that's going to be one heated debate, I can already tell lol.

Though it'll be nice to be in disagreement with RDK for once.

 

[adumbrodeus]

Ok, so who wants to debate whether Texas out to have the right to secede from the union, or any state for that matter. Not whether they actually should, but if they should have the right.

I can.


Legally speaking would be a very short debate (unless you want to make it a debate about whether the constitution in general allows for seceding from the union, which is a far more interesting question, but otherwise the supreme court's rulings on this matter hold and unless they had a specific treaty (which they didn't) it's illegal).


Philosophically is more interesting, but I doubt that's what you're talking about.

 

[RDK]

Please note that while I support attempted secession in extreme cases, I think Rick Perry's reason for even thinking about secession at this point is ludicrous, and he should be fired as governor and locked up in a fundie nuthouse.

That is all.