11 Jan '09 21:27>
OK, its time for a formal debate. Dr. Scribbles narrowly defeated me in the last RHP mega-debate, so now its time to even my record. I’m looking for a volunteer to take up the gauntlet and be crushed by my intellectual blitzkrieg.
Proposed rules:
*The topic of the debate shall be “Was Jesus a socialist?”
*I shall be arguing in the affirmative and shall make the first post.
*The debate shall consist of two posts by each person, in alternating order.
*A single “post” shall be of any length. If any ‘post’ exceeds the RHP maximum character count, it may be broken down into two or more parts.
*Participants will refrain from the “piecemeal” style of debate where they copy each of their opponents sentences and responds to each individually. This makes for a fragmentary and disjointed argument, which I despise.
*A panel of five judges shall be nominated and selected with the consent of both participants. Judges shall be required to set aside their own views as much as possible and to judge the debate solely on the merit of the arguments presented. They will also bear in mind that the burden of proof falls to me. My opponent need only cast sufficient doubt upon my argument to win.
*From the start of the debate, the first participant (me) will have five days to make his first post. From the time it is posted, my opponent will have five days from that time in which to respond. Failure to make a post in the required amount of time equals forfeiture. Therefore, from the official starting time, the debate will take a maximum of 20 days.
*It is requested that all but the two active participants refrain from posting in the debate thread until the debate’s conclusion so as to avoid the possibility of influencing the proceedings.
*At the debates conclusion the judges shall cast their ballots for the winner and optionally give their reasons for doing so. They shall vote for one or the other. No ties will be permitted. The winner shall be the participant who receives three or more votes.
If anyone wants to match their wits against me on the chosen topic, and if the above rules are agreeable, then RHP shall have its second formal debate.
Proposed rules:
*The topic of the debate shall be “Was Jesus a socialist?”
*I shall be arguing in the affirmative and shall make the first post.
*The debate shall consist of two posts by each person, in alternating order.
*A single “post” shall be of any length. If any ‘post’ exceeds the RHP maximum character count, it may be broken down into two or more parts.
*Participants will refrain from the “piecemeal” style of debate where they copy each of their opponents sentences and responds to each individually. This makes for a fragmentary and disjointed argument, which I despise.
*A panel of five judges shall be nominated and selected with the consent of both participants. Judges shall be required to set aside their own views as much as possible and to judge the debate solely on the merit of the arguments presented. They will also bear in mind that the burden of proof falls to me. My opponent need only cast sufficient doubt upon my argument to win.
*From the start of the debate, the first participant (me) will have five days to make his first post. From the time it is posted, my opponent will have five days from that time in which to respond. Failure to make a post in the required amount of time equals forfeiture. Therefore, from the official starting time, the debate will take a maximum of 20 days.
*It is requested that all but the two active participants refrain from posting in the debate thread until the debate’s conclusion so as to avoid the possibility of influencing the proceedings.
*At the debates conclusion the judges shall cast their ballots for the winner and optionally give their reasons for doing so. They shall vote for one or the other. No ties will be permitted. The winner shall be the participant who receives three or more votes.
If anyone wants to match their wits against me on the chosen topic, and if the above rules are agreeable, then RHP shall have its second formal debate.