The Center Stage

[ciaza]

Well when I asked some Americans about they claimed they never heard of it. Anyway I bet he's never had Milo CEREAL.

 

[Theftz22]

It seems to me that Ciaza can't win. If he happens to get the better of Battlecow in this debate, Battlecow will just say that that is evidence of his unworthiness, hence ultimately winning the debate.

 

[ciaza]

^ I thought of that paradox too! If I win it means Battlecow lost which goes to show he is not a good debater. But if he wins it means he would have proved that he is not a good debater. Bloody aa would have made more sense if our roles were reversed.

 

[asianaussie]

Winning or losing debates doesn't matter if you show you have insight and can debate in the proper format. In fact, Battlecow recognising exactly what he's done wrong (even sans motivation to change) is more compelling to me than any emotionally-motivated claim that he is a poor debater, and using the loss of a debate as 'unworthiness' isn't something any existing DH member should use as an excuse not to vouch for him.

They're both doing very well.

 

[ballin4life]

it could just show that as good as battlecow is (according to ciaza), ciaza is EVEN BETTER.

 

[Dre89]

Winning or losing debates doesn't matter if you show you have insight and can debate in the proper format. In fact, Battlecow recognising exactly what he's done wrong (even sans motivation to change) is more compelling to me than any emotionally-motivated claim that he is a poor debater, and using the loss of a debate as 'unworthiness' isn't something any existing DH member should use as an excuse not to vouch for him.

They're both doing very well.

Mate do you ever actually debate?

It doesn't bother me if you don't, it's like you're the objective commentator of the DH.

Before any big 1-on-1 debate happens, you should post info about the two debaters, one in the red corner and the other in the blue corner, and at the end say "let's get ready to RUUUUUUMMMMMBBBBBLLLLLEEE!".

You should totes do that. Word.

 

[asianaussie]

I debated a bit when I had time to engage with topics, enough to get like +7 from 3.5 threads. I was cheeseball341 back in the day, if that helps.

These days I cruise and act all senior, despite being nothing of the sort.

 

[Dre89]

Fairsies.

You still have to pretend to be a ring announcer though.....

 

[Battlecow]

Right, to provoke thought. I have a pretty good read on you. You didn't want to make people angry, all you wanted was to debate something wacky and controversial in a ridiculous but totally logical way. The title gave a good insight to what was to come.

Wrong. I want to cause disharmony and unhappiness in the debate hall. I'm like a debate-hall-destroying machine. Let me in, and your precious bastion of logic will be overrun by 11-year-olds asking how to do Metaknight's neutral B. I don't know where you got that bit about debating wacky and controversial things in ridiculous but totally logical ways.

Rules are rules. What's the point of making criteria if we're just going to turn our back on them somewhere down the line? I will admit that a certain level of proper etiquette is required, but the question is where the line is, and it's not that high. As comparison, I watch BPC and more recently Nicholas be accepted into the DH. Now, I have nothing but respect for these 2 guys, but I'm sure I don't have to scrounge up Nicholas' posts of him face-palming everyone around him, or BPC saying that all religious people are idiots. These two were abrasive at time too. The fact is, regardless of what those two did they were admitted because they debated well. Also, when you said GS had a problem with you, were you talking about this:

That's foolish. Of course we make criteria with a purpose in mind; I'm simply arguing that the rules in question were made to keep out complete nubs, not to keep out (arguably) coherently arguing ****wads. The unwritten rule is that ****wads get voted down, regardless of what the semi-official guide to the PG says about DH admission. That's what happened to me.

BPC and Nicholas might have been abrasive, but they were arguing sincerely and in good faith. Healthy dissent should be welcomed in the debate hall, whereas straight-up trolling should be kept at arm's length (honestly, if there was any sort of mod presence here, I'd have been out of the PG long before BPC started wondering why I was still there). Also, that last sentence of GS's is clearly an insult rather than friendly advice- he disapproved of me, and with good reason.

Whether he is right or wrong in this debate is completely irreverent for this point. alking about, but it was one of the only two posts that showed up when I searched for your name in his posts.

"Irrelevant" and "Irreverent" are different words. I'm trying to contain my inner fascist, but that's the second time...

Urgh, I really hate to bring up examples as I feel like they'll just spark the debate from where they came from in here, but hell. Click me. This is a fine example. CK makes the argument that the woman should take the egoistic stance of prioritising (yes I will spell that with an 's') herself before others. You analyse this post with detail, noting that he said "in every single regard". You capitalised on this by presenting the argument that there is no significant difference between a late-stage fetus and newborn baby. You did this with all his other points. That poorness is not always equated to happiness, that it'd be silly to remove people simply because they're poor, etc. I can do this with many more examples. Now, whether you refuted his points with a condescending tone, or gave an off-hand, arguable justifiable insult to BPC is your business. Of course, you obviously know your posts better than I do, and can tell me that that's not what you meant at all and I would have no chance to tell you otherwise I would look down-right silly trying to tell you what meant.

Breaking character for a sec- I'm not giving my actual opinion of myself here, obviously, which means that I'm approaching my posts from an outside perspective and trying my hardest to interpret them in whatever way brings me out in the worst light. So feel free to argue that my post means "X" even if I insist that it means "Y"; act as if a third party that we're now arguing about wrote them. This is kind of why I wrote in the third person in my first entry- I have to argue somewhat dishonestly if I'm going to argue whole hog, because (obviously) whatever actual faults there are in my posts are justifiable or relatively unimportant in my eyes.

That being said- that thread was my first in the Proving Grounds. I was obviously eager to prove my debating worth. Shortly after, however, you see the quality of the threads deteriorate, up until the point where we get threads like "Jews: A master race?" and "Death panels for the elderly"- obvious troll becomes obvious, in other words. One could even argue that I made the "abortion" thread simply to establish myself as someone vaguely worth debating against. After all, abortion is probably the most standard go-to "serious" topic for "debate" in America, and it therefore makes sense that a dim-witted troll might start a thread about it in order to garner some threadbare credentials that might prevent people from simply ignoring or banning him as they should.

The significant difference is that apologies aren't a sign of a good debater. The ability to concede a point is. I'm not at all saying that you should get +1'd for that and that alone, but it certainly should boost you a bit. Again, I really hate this. I can't prove that you actually conceded a point because you knew it was the right thing to do, and that it wasn't a devilish trick to make yourself look good.

My understanding of his apology was that he realized he did something wrong, debate-wise, and copped to it. That's exactly what I'm doing.

There is a distinction between being a ****, and making ****ish posts that are justified. I've never seen you go off at someone that wasn't based on reason. If you were an absolute tosser and just went around insulting people for no reason like Ballistics once did, then of course, you shouldn't allowed in. However to reiterate, his insulting posts had no grounding, yours do.

This is simply untrue. Take a look at my beefs with blazedaces and Dragoon Fighter (the latter's in the MLP thread). I did the exact same thing in both cases- I was overwhelmed by superior minds, at which point I (childishly) accused them of being young and therefore unfit to debate me. That is, I threw out ad hominem attacks in the hopes that they would stop eviscerating my arguments, and give me a respite from the blinding lights of their respective intellects, that I could better wallow in the cool darkness of my accustomed ignorance.

You're just jealous because we have Milo and you've never experienced the heavenly flavour of it. Anyways an interesting point, and admittedly a bad analogy on my part.

Milo probably sucks, never heard of it.

Your bad self-efficacy aside, if people are telling you to shut-up they don't belong in the DH in the first place.

Wait- rude people don't belong in the debate hall? HMMMMMMMMMMM...

Bottom line is this: my main contention is that the only criterion for getting into the DH is debating ability. Through my quoted examples of your OP in the Jews thread, and your rebuttal against CK in the abortion thread I've proved this. I'm certainly not going to go through every single one of your posts, analyse it and show exactly why it was good. While you try to counter this by quoting posts of poor quality of your own this means very little, because you've already shown through your good posts you do have the skills to be a fine debater. So go ahead quote another one of your bad posts, quote 10! It won't matter, because even if you've only posted one or two good posts (which isn't the case), they're enough to show that you do have the talent to be a let in to the DH.

So if someone makes a good post (not that I'm admitting to making any good posts)- then no matter how many times they show themselves to be emotionally unstable and incapable of debating properly and rationally for any length of time thereafter, they have automatic entry into the DH? You need more than "the skills to be a fine debater" to be allowed in the DH- you need to be a fine debater, or at least a passable one. Even you can't possibly contend that I've consistently shown myself to be one of those.

 

[ciaza]

Wrong. I want to cause disharmony and unhappiness in the debate hall. I'm like a debate-hall-destroying machine. Let me in, and your precious bastion of logic will be overrun by 11-year-olds asking how to do Metaknight's neutral B. I don't know where you got that bit about debating wacky and controversial things in ridiculous but totally logical ways.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4462/battlecowthejerkface.jpg

Yeahno. Can't argue with my printscreens.

That's foolish. Of course we make criteria with a purpose in mind; I'm simply arguing that the rules in question were made to keep out complete nubs, not to keep out (arguably) coherently arguing ****wads. The unwritten rule is that ****wads get voted down, regardless of what the semi-official guide to the PG says about DH admission. That's what happened to me.

BPC and Nicholas might have been abrasive, but they were arguing sincerely and in good faith. Healthy dissent should be welcomed in the debate hall, whereas straight-up trolling should be kept at arm's length (honestly, if there was any sort of mod presence here, I'd have been out of the PG long before BPC started wondering why I was still there). Also, that last sentence of GS's is clearly an insult rather than friendly advice- he disapproved of me, and with good reason.

They are the official rules whether you label it so or not. You can't argue that he means this and that, it's basically the same as chucking words in his mouth. You take it as face value.

"As long as you are reasonably capable of debating and forming coherent sentences and arguments, you'll be let in."
"As long as you are reasonably capable of debating and forming coherent sentences and arguments, you'll be let in."
"As long as you are reasonably capable of debating and forming coherent sentences and arguments, you'll be let in."

I for one - and correct me if I'm wrong - see nothing about keeping out ****wads. The "unwritten rule" (or as I like to call it: the personal-bias-loop-hole-to-keep-out-people-we-don't-like-even-if-they-debate-well rule) is silly. It is not a hard indication of one's debating ability if we assume that personal bias gets in the way. To evince this, here is Battlecow's tally:

Dark Horse -1
underdogs22 -1
Dre. +1
Dragoon Fighter +1
Savon -1
BJTM -1
Sucumbio +1
rvkevin -1
Blazedaces -1
eschemat +1
asianaussie +1
kuz +1
Ocean +1

As you can see, it is a mixture of positives and negatives. See, in reality Battlecow is a good or bad debater. Black and white. It can't be both. Therefore, we can see that personal bias does interfere for when people vote. The question is, who is right? It's simple. The people who +1'd him. You said it yourself, he can argue coherently, he "hit the baseline". AKA, he fulfilled the criteria. Now, in order to prevent the caustic Battlecow from entering the DH, others -1'd him, half of them not giving any reason at all, the others giving poor reasons. At request, I can quote and attack the reasons that were given in the Jedi Council, even though aa has already done so.

"Irrelevant" and "Irreverent" are different words. I'm trying to contain my inner fascist, but that's the second time...

Oh shush. I often spell that word wrong and occasionally click the wrong auto-correct option after right-clicking.

Breaking character for a sec- I'm not giving my actual opinion of myself here, obviously, which means that I'm approaching my posts from an outside perspective and trying my hardest to interpret them in whatever way brings me out in the worst light. So feel free to argue that my post means "X" even if I insist that it means "Y"; act as if a third party that we're now arguing about wrote them. This is kind of why I wrote in the third person in my first entry- I have to argue somewhat dishonestly if I'm going to argue whole hog, because (obviously) whatever actual faults there are in my posts are justifiable or relatively unimportant in my eyes.

Alright. Help me out then. Instead of me getting confused when you say stuff like:

"Look at this steaming pile of bull puckey. First off, I make a claim, and then I admit that I can't prove it. Using "my gut" as a source? Am I a debater, or am I George W. Bush? Then I fall back on the "image" perspective- a strong argument, perhaps, but one that I butcher. I say that it won't appeal "to outsiders" as if proselytizing is the main goal of the smash community, and I fail to come up with reasons for why one should alter the unique and rich vocabulary of our vibrant community so as not to offend Philistine outsiders who probably hate us for playing video games in the first place."

Speak in third-person all the time. Switching between first and third throws me off my game when I have to interpret and analyse things. I will of course do the same. :3

That being said- that thread was my first in the Proving Grounds. I was obviously eager to prove my debating worth. Shortly after, however, you see the quality of the threads deteriorate, up until the point where we get threads like "Jews: A master race?" and "Death panels for the elderly"- obvious troll becomes obvious, in other words. One could even argue that I made the "abortion" thread simply to establish myself as someone vaguely worth debating against. After all, abortion is probably the most standard go-to "serious" topic for "debate" in America, and it therefore makes sense that a dim-witted troll might start a thread about it in order to garner some threadbare credentials that might prevent people from simply ignoring or banning him as they should.

Who the hell are you? Quit throwing words and intentions in Battlecow's mouth. But in srsness, one could argue that while it is true that Battlecow's threads became more provocative in nature, that in no way means it proved he was a troll. All it proves is that his threads got more provocative in nature! We cannot assume his intentions. The threads for obvious reasons garnered debate. Why can't I argue that that was their intention, rather than to provoke an emotional response?

This is simply untrue. Take a look at my beefs with blazedaces and Dragoon Fighter (the latter's in the MLP thread). I did the exact same thing in both cases- I was overwhelmed by superior minds, at which point I (childishly) accused them of being young and therefore unfit to debate me. That is, I threw out ad hominem attacks in the hopes that they would stop eviscerating my arguments, and give me a respite from the blinding lights of their respective intellects, that I could better wallow in the cool darkness of my accustomed ignorance.

Quit taking his posts out of context. A post may appear to be ad hom when taken out of context, but when looked at when in it is, it may not be. The latter is the case in the MLP thread. Dragoon made a bad comparison between the power rangers and MLP, evincing that he had no idea what he was talking about in this specific case. Justifiably, Battlecow did not respond, focusing on the more structured, valid posts such as T-block's and co.

Milo probably sucks, never heard of it.

Yikes, bad luck Broseidon, lord of the brocean. Have fun never knowing life's greatest pleasure.

So if someone makes a good post (not that I'm admitting to making any good posts)- then no matter how many times they show themselves to be emotionally unstable and incapable of debating properly and rationally for any length of time thereafter, they have automatic entry into the DH? You need more than "the skills to be a fine debater" to be allowed in the DH- you need to be a fine debater, or at least a passable one. Even you can't possibly contend that I've consistently shown myself to be one of those.

Battlecow has not shown himself to be a consistently good debater, but I'd bet my own left pinky toe that he has more quality posts than bad. I would contend that inconsistently is irr-el-evant when it comes to admittance to the DH, which was the point I was getting at. There isn't much in my post here that won't lead back into: "you're a good debater" "no i'm not". If you still contest that you've made more troll posts that quality ones I will start pulling up hella more examples of your good ones.

 

[Battlecow]

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/4462/battlecowthejerkface.jpg

Yeahno. Can't argue with my printscreens.

Amazing what you can do with photoshop these days.

They are the official rules whether you label it so or not. You can't argue that he means this and that, it's basically the same as chucking words in his mouth. You take it as face value.

"As long as you are reasonably capable of debating and forming coherent sentences and arguments, you'll be let in."
"As long as you are reasonably capable of debating and forming coherent sentences and arguments, you'll be let in."
"As long as you are reasonably capable of debating and forming coherent sentences and arguments, you'll be let in."

There are no "official" rules. You get in if your fellow debaters want you in. GS said that in order to encourage scrubs, and didn't mean for it to be iron-law written in stone.

I for one - and correct me if I'm wrong - see nothing about keeping out ****wads. The "unwritten rule" (or as I like to call it: the personal-bias-loop-hole-to-keep-out-people-we-don't-like-even-if-they-debate-well rule) is silly. It is not a hard indication of one's debating ability if we assume that personal bias gets in the way. To evince this, here is Battlecow's tally:

Dark Horse -1
underdogs22 -1
Dre. +1
Dragoon Fighter +1
Savon -1
BJTM -1
Sucumbio +1
rvkevin -1
Blazedaces -1
eschemat +1
asianaussie +1
kuz +1
Ocean +1

As you can see, it is a mixture of positives and negatives. See, in reality Battlecow is a good or bad debater. Black and white. It can't be both. Therefore, we can see that personal bias does interfere for when people vote.

Or maybe people hold different opinions about what merits DH entry. It doesn't mean that they're "biased," it means that they hold different views from you, or have seen more of BC's posting than you have.

The question is, who is right? It's simple. The people who +1'd him. You said it yourself, he can argue coherently, he "hit the baseline". AKA, he fulfilled the criteria. Now, in order to prevent the caustic Battlecow from entering the DH, others -1'd him, half of them not giving any reason at all, the others giving poor reasons. At request, I can quote and attack the reasons that were given in the Jedi Council, even though aa has already done so.

*aside* That scrub Acrostic better keep posting in the JC. He knows he'd end up spending the next twenty years mumbling random lines from '80s sitcoms outside of an abortion clinic in Barstow, California if he tried to debate about me in a place where I could post */aside*

Yes, yes, some of them gave poor reasons; I would argue, however, that they merely articulated said reasons poorly. They know why BC shouldn't be allowed in the DH, they just haven't said it quite right yet. MY points are still valid, regardless of what DH members said; they probably just don't care enough to seriously critique BC's posting.

Alright. Help me out then. Instead of me getting confused when you say stuff like:

"Look at this steaming pile of bull puckey. First off, I make a claim, and then I admit that I can't prove it. Using "my gut" as a source? Am I a debater, or am I George W. Bush? Then I fall back on the "image" perspective- a strong argument, perhaps, but one that I butcher. I say that it won't appeal "to outsiders" as if proselytizing is the main goal of the smash community, and I fail to come up with reasons for why one should alter the unique and rich vocabulary of our vibrant community so as not to offend Philistine outsiders who probably hate us for playing video games in the first place."

Speak in third-person all the time. Switching between first and third throws me off my game when I have to interpret and analyse things. I will of course do the same. :3

Aiight, 3rd it is.

Who the hell are you? Quit throwing words and intentions in Battlecow's mouth. But in srsness, one could argue that while it is true that Battlecow's threads became more provocative in nature, that in no way means it proved he was a troll. All it proves is that his threads got more provocative in nature! We cannot assume his intentions. The threads for obvious reasons garnered debate. Why can't I argue that that was their intention, rather than to provoke an emotional response?

We can use evidence from his threads, the ways he posts, etc. in order to determine a likely motive. We can't know for sure, but if we never tried to guess the motives behind crimes or w/e we'd be in poor shape, historically and otherwise.

Quit taking his posts out of context. A post may appear to be ad hom when taken out of context, but when looked at when in it is, it may not be. The latter is the case in the MLP thread. Dragoon made a bad comparison between the power rangers and MLP, evincing that he had no idea what he was talking about in this specific case. Justifiably, Battlecow did not respond, focusing on the more structured, valid posts such as T-block's and co.

"Appear to be ad hom"? You're saying that BC doesn't use ad hominem attacks? Lolz.

Battlecow has not shown himself to be a consistently good debater, but I'd bet my own left pinky toe that he has more quality posts than bad. I would contend that inconsistently is irr-el-evant when it comes to admittance to the DH, which was the point I was getting at. There isn't much in my post here that won't lead back into: "you're a good debater" "no i'm not". If you still contest that you've made more troll posts that quality ones I will start pulling up hella more examples of your good ones.

You try so hard.

It doesn't matter whether he's technically made more than half of his posts good. He revealed the true him with his ridiculous threads.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Battlecow why do you want to be in the DH? It's pretty lame tbqh. I want you to start arguing pro-Battlecow as I already am con-Battlecow.

 

[ciaza]

I'm too old for this.

Alright, I'll argue pro-BC in DH, and he can argue himself here.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Actually pick a topic and we'll debate it. Arguing about acceptance is stupid as I've already gone through all your past threads and don't feel like going through them again. Actually make a new topic in here when you want. If you've got nothing then I'm okay with switching sides on this, however I think this is pretty dumb. :/

 

[Sucumbio]

I'm starting to think it's all irrelevant. If someone has a topic they want discussed, they're going to post in the PG because that way they can get the most bang for their buck, because smash debaters can respond but also new blood. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if people just start applying to the PG and leaving it at that.

 

[Battlecow]

I just want in the DH because it gives me a little legitimacy... Don't get me wrong, it's not a gigantic deal to me, I just sort of want in because.

And OK Acrostic I'll start a new topic and we can debate if you want to do so.

 

[Deleted member]

Here's some of my posts made in a specific thread about Gay Pride Parades a little while back. I feel this is where my debating ability has shined the most:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12524150&postcount=44
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12530368&postcount=47
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12532931&postcount=50

I also made a thread several months back to discuss the controversy over Lady Gaga's song Judas, which had moderate discussion, but it at least shows what types of discussions I'd bring into the Debate Hall. From the looks of things, the Debate Hall could use some activity.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=301879

 

[asianaussie]

This thread is mainly for people who think they're ready but cbf posting bunches to debate somebody (usually a DHer) in a topic of someone else's choosing. It's to showcase your skill as a debater in an ongoing debate rather than dragging up examples.

Sort of like an optional 'rite of initiation', if you pardon the poor analogy.

That said, I'll take somebody on in CS debate, since I haven't actually debated for about fourteen years.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Here's some of my posts made in a specific thread about Gay Pride Parades a little while back. I feel this is where my debating ability has shined the most:

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12524150&postcount=44
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12530368&postcount=47
http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=12532931&postcount=50

I also made a thread several months back to discuss the controversy over Lady Gaga's song Judas, which had moderate discussion, but it at least shows what types of discussions I'd bring into the Debate Hall. From the looks of things, the Debate Hall could use some activity.

http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=301879

Unfortunately, I was told that debates outside of the Proving Grounds won't help the evaluations, so it'll all have to be done here.

 

[Deleted member]

Unfortunately, I was told that debates outside of the Proving Grounds won't help the evaluations, so it'll all have to be done here.

Those respective posts all took place in the proving grounds.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Those respective posts all took place in the proving grounds.

I realized that after I posted, but I hate the new edit function now.

 

[Deleted member]

So what now? :/

 

[Terywj [태리]]

So what now? :/

That said, I'll take somebody on in CS debate, since I haven't actually debated for about fourteen years.

Maybe that?

 

[Deleted member]

Okay, then lets do it.

 

[asianaussie]

It'd be good if somebody else suggested a relevant debate topic, preferably one that doesn't require *too* much research on either debater's part. Being able to suggest a good topic is also a mark of a good debater.

Yes, I'm lazy.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Auspher pick a topic that you can steam roll asianaussie in. asianaussie can pick to debate pro|con.

 

[Deleted member]

Whether or not Casey Anthony should have been judged guilty of murdering her daughter, Kaylee?

 

[asianaussie]

i have no idea who that is because i live outside the states and generally hide under a rock studying all day

something more general would be better, but if that's what you really want to debate, alright

 

[Deleted member]

Oh crap...yeah, that was a bad pick.

Whether or not the smash series are good games competitively? Honestly, I'm not great at picking topics, especially for people outside of the states, since I like to discuss current things I see on the news.

 

[Dre89]

I think there's a rule about not discussing Smash related topics, otherwise we would have debated the **** out of the MK ban situation.

 

[ciaza]

Argue whether Brawl is a bad game.

aa for

ho ho this should be good, and to hell with the rule.

 

[Deleted member]

I think there's a rule about not discussing Smash related topics, otherwise we would have debated the **** out of the MK ban situation.

I didn't see a rule anywhere.

Do you have a link? Looking at the rules for the Proving Grounds, nothing is mentioned.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I dunno if it's possible, but I may want to join in for the experience.

 

[Sucumbio]

there's no rule against debating smash related subjects. it's just that many topics especially mk-ban topics usually degenerate, so it doesn't happen often (plus this is one of the few places on SWF where smash -isn't- a focus.

but by all means, debate something smash related, why not? a debate is a debate, the topic isn't exactly important so much as it is how you argue it.

Here's some examples of debate categories:

1.) Foreign Policy
2.) Civil Rights
3.) Scientific Research/Development
4.) Law and Morality
5.) Economics

Out of those categories can come a ton of topics. Use your imagination, or check out this site for some ideas.

I dunno if it's possible, but I may want to join in for the experience.

Center Stage is typically one-on-one or in some rare cases many vs. one (multi-man brawl? lol anyway). It is not so typical for Center Stage. You can have one yourself, but try not to interfere with one that's going on already. Plus you may want to wait until you've been more active in other PG topics first.

And what EE just said

 

[Evil Eye]

Although there isn't a rule against debating on Smash topics, since those are going to be minimal to nonexistent in the DH, I'd prefer people not hinge Center Stage debates on them.

 

[Deleted member]

Well then how about a topic I already have some experience in debating?

Gay marriage.

 

[Dre89]

If Asianaussie doesn't want to do gay marriage, maybe you can do the "is it right to kill one person to save six?" dilemma. I'd personally like to see a debate on that.

Also, if either of you two back out from the debate, I'm more than happy to debate either of you as a substitute.

 

[asianaussie]

i don't mind the utilitarianism debate, no research or sourcing needed and you can really control the debate...

if you sub for me I'll do the ring announcer thing you wanted me to do like 20 posts back

subbing for him and debating me would be slightly redundant lol

i have finals coming up and my continued scholarship hinges on it >_<

 

[Dre89]

I'll only sub if you really don't want to debate. I don't want to sub because you're giving me the debate out of charity as opposed to genuine disinterest (due to whatever reason that may be).

Also, if you debate, I'll be the ring announcer.

 

[asianaussie]

this is showcasing the PGer's skill, so he can decide the topic and have the first post + pick of alignment, since im fine with playing devil's advocate as long as there's rebuttal involved

tery can butt in whenever, it's a good way to get in on debates people are watching