28 Jul 06
Who would like to contest the title of RHP Dictator of Debates (distinct from the title held by Dr S)?
The Official Guttersnipe-Forum Endorsed subject is:
"Resolved that royalchicken is more of a tw@t than Starrman."
Who wants the affirmative side? Who wants the negative side? Who wants to be a pedant and point out that this is a badly-phrased topic, since the issue of whether or not Starrman is a bigger tw@t than RC needn't be raised? Who wants to judge?
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by royalchickenDo we both get to choose the judges? 2 each perhaps, then the judges elect an independant between them.
Who would like to contest the title of RHP Dictator of Debates (distinct from the title held by Dr S)?
The Official Guttersnipe-Forum Endorsed subject is:
"Resolved that royalchicken is more of a tw@t than Starrman."
Who wants the affirmative side? Who wants the negative side? Who wants to be a pedant and point out that this is a badly-phrase ...[text shortened]... e of whether or not Starrman is a bigger tw@t than RC needn't be raised? Who wants to judge?
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by royalchickenI want to be the pedant. As a pedant, I will not only point out how meaningless the discussion is, but I will also point out any spelling mistakes.
Who would like to contest the title of RHP Dictator of Debates (distinct from the title held by Dr S)?
The Official Guttersnipe-Forum Endorsed subject is:
"Resolved that royalchicken is more of a tw@t than Starrman."
Who wants the affirmative side? Who wants the negative side? Who wants to be a pedant and point out that this is a badly-phrase ...[text shortened]... e of whether or not Starrman is a bigger tw@t than RC needn't be raised? Who wants to judge?
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by NordlysI'm concerned that you're awarding points to those of us who are not contestants. In fact, I question your impartiality as a pedant, since you're discussing the quality of the subject matter; less pedantic people than yourself might confuse having bonus points with not being a tw@t.
This is going to be completely meaningless. But you get a bonus point for using "xym".
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by royalchickenYou are not supposed to be the pedant. Stick to your role.
I'm concerned that you're awarding points to those of us who are not contestants. In fact, I question your impartiality as a pedant, since you're discussing the quality of the subject matter; less pedantic people than yourself might confuse having bonus points with not being a tw@t.
28 Jul 06
Originally posted by NordlysIf this were a debate about American foreign policy, I'd be a cluster bomb. If this were a debate about the existence of god, I'd be the lack of fallen angels in the fossil record. If this were a debate about euthanasia, I'd be Michael Schiavo. Whatever I do and say is merely evidence for or against the claim, and the debate contestants would do well to read my posts in this thread. Even when I state the truth (that I outtw@t Starrman), my words are but material for Freddie and Xanthos to consider should they enter the ring.
You are not supposed to be the pedant. Stick to your role.