Debate Classifieds [W:163]

I'm willing to debate on, with anyone:

True debate. I would prefer it to be comment based not time based but either way its fine by me... cheers.

-The differences between Multi-Party system / Two-party system / Single-party system and my of view is that Multi-party system is superior to any of the other 2 in both democratic value and the possibility to produce better quality politicians.
-The electoral college in the USA. I believe its time to go the way of the dodo bird.
-Secularism vs Religiously influenced government (or religiously dominated government) with my perspective being that secularism is better.
-the nature of multiculturalism in Europe (and if you want, the USA). My point is that multiculturalism, as it is being described and implemented today in Europe is a massive failure that is the root cause for much the civil, and with it, economic strife that affects Europe and that true multiculturalism is all but dead, it existing naturally in Europe, as it did in all of the world, until it became a government program.

Tucker Case said:

Cool! What structure would you like? I like the opening statements with 10 responses format that Rabid Alpaca and German guy are using, what do you think?

Click to expand...

I agree. Let's do opening statements, 10 responses, and closing statements. I would also like to suggest a 750 word limit per response.

Peter Grimm said:

I agree. Let's do opening statements, 10 responses, and closing statements. I would also like to suggest a 750 word limit per response.

Click to expand...

My only issue with a word limit on the response is that it would mean I have to count. :2razz:

Tucker Case said:

My only issue with a word limit on the response is that it would mean I have to count. :2razz:

Click to expand...

It's 2013, you can just cut and paste your text here: Cut & Paste Word Count

Eg, my last sentence was 13 words.

I think word limits are good because it forces us to be concise, economical, and focus on our main points. Also, since the debate is intended for an audience, keep in mind that others are going to want to skip over long, wordy responses.

(64 words)

Tucker Case said:

Cool! What structure would you like? I like the opening statements with 10 responses format that Rabid Alpaca and German guy are using, what do you think?

Click to expand...

Peter Grimm said:

I agree. Let's do opening statements, 10 responses, and closing statements. I would also like to suggest a 750 word limit per response.

Click to expand...

Don't forget your dueling pistols.

I support getting rid of the United States federal government and I should have plenty of takers for this debate.

Peter Grimm said:

It's 2013, you can just cut and paste your text here: Cut & Paste Word Count

Eg, my last sentence was 13 words.

I think word limits are good because it forces us to be concise, economical, and focus on our main points. Also, since the debate is intended for an audience, keep in mind that others are going to want to skip over long, wordy responses.

(64 words)

Click to expand...

I was only kidding. I was already planning on typing my stuff in word so that I could make sure it was well edited, i can easily run a word count there.

Hey Tucker, are you going to let Peter use your Ask Tucker thread to help him in this debate?

Tucker, Peter: when you got things set up, please PM one of the mods running these things with the details. Those would be me, Your Star or Digsbe. Note that I am going to not be around much today and tomorrow, so if you want to start before then, best to let one of the other two know.

Also, for future references, could folks please negotiate debate terms in PMs and not this thread. Let's keep this thread more for advertising and challenging opponents. Thank you.

Redress said:

Oh, and I am willing to take part in a true debate. Primary interest would be in favor of Same Sex Marriage, but willing to debate most issues on the "liberal" side, even if it's not really my side of the issue, but as an intellectual exercise kinda thing. Contact me about a topic if you are interested.

Click to expand...

SSM is already being done. How about the Death Penalty. I'll be pro, you be con? (Should I have done this PMs?)

X Factor said:

SSM is already being done. How about the Death Penalty. I'll be pro, you be con? (Should I have done this PMs?)

Click to expand...

I'd be interested in doing that.

Your Star said:

I'd be interested in doing that.

Click to expand...

Awesome. Let's do it.

I will be available from the beginning of May.
A few pointers:
1) My specialty are geopolitics, modern history, political economy history, military history, and such. A few interesting topics I have considered are as:
How the situation on the Hanbando (aka the Korean peninsula) should be handled.
A debate on what Marx really meant
A debate on a rising Zhongguo (aka China), its effects, and how it should be handled
The causes of WWI
Potential scenarios for WWII
Where profit originates from
Leftism in Latin America: the aftermath of Chavez
The potential rise and the effects of India and Africa
And such
2) I'll want a larger format than the 10 replies to about 15-20 replies each so that a more extensive and in-depth debate may occur
3) Due to a more busier lifestyle and a possibly larger format, instead of one week, a one month debate will be probably more appropriate
I'm game for pretty much every topic in my field

Proud South Korean said:

I will be available from the beginning of May.
A few pointers:

The causes of WWI
Potential scenarios for WWII

Click to expand...

Those would be interesting. I don't have much time on my hands myself, and hope somebody takes you up on one or both of those. The problem is the rules bar actual peer reviewed histories and accepts web pages, for some reason, which brings up the issue of a web page that lists such books being a 'credible source' while the books themselves aren't, so I probably wouldn't be personally interested in such conflicted rules. There are good reasons web pages aren't considered acceptable in academic circles, at least not yet as far as I know, and books provide far more details and sources than web pages ever can or will. There is very little online, despite claims otherwise; most info is still referenced in books, which handicaps those who actually read widely and rewards Google scholars who likely have read next to nothing on the subjects. Unfortunate.

Oberon said:

Those would be interesting. I don't have much time on my hands myself, and hope somebody takes you up on one or both of those. The problem is the rules bar actual peer reviewed histories and accepts web pages, for some reason, which brings up the issue of a web page that lists such books being a 'credible source' while the books themselves aren't, so I probably wouldn't be personally interested in such conflicted rules. There are good reasons web pages aren't considered acceptable in academic circles, at least not yet as far as I know, and books provide far more details and sources than web pages ever can or will. There is very little online, despite claims otherwise; most info is still referenced in books, which handicaps those who actually read widely and rewards Google scholars who likely have read next to nothing on the subjects. Unfortunate.

Click to expand...

In general, things like Wikipedia, although I conduct my basic research (for fun) using it, are accurate but are not necessarily in-depth enough for an extensive debate on that topic. I'd disagree with the notion that the Internet has little to offer. I'm sure there are university webpages and research institutions that have a gold mine of potential information.

On that note, should there be rules about what kind of sources can be used during a debate? Like I said, Wikipedia can be accurate but it's not very professional, and neither are blogs.

Also, can ME topics be true debated?

I would definitely like to do one of these... in another week or so, after my exams.

On the subject of internet sources, Google Scholar is a great starting point if someone does not have access to an acdademic search engine like EBSCO or something.

In my current debate, the rule about public availability did limit my sources and I had to reject a couple due to a lack of public availability, but by typing the titles of all of my potential sources into google scholar I found a few that were publicly available and was able to use only peer reviewed source material because of this.

Because of this, I was not limited in the approach I was able to take in my debate. Even if the specific source you might want to use is not publicly available, if it is a good source you'll probably find something that has cited it somewhere that is publicly available. The rules just require one to be adaptable, but they certainly do not limit one from being intellectual.

Paschendale said:

I would definitely like to do one of these... in another week or so, after my exams.

Click to expand...

Good luck though it is virtually impossible to fail as a 3L

I'm also interested in a debate here. Any format, length, etc. is fine.

I'd particularly be interested in the historical dilemmas of American politics, such as equality v. freedom, Order v. Freedom etc. Amendments and the Constitution are also good. International Affairs, historical and current also work for me. It'll be a good way to both learn and sharpen our knowledge.

Lightning said:

I'm also interested in a debate here. Any format, length, etc. is fine.

I'd particularly be interested in the historical dilemmas of American politics, such as equality v. freedom, Order v. Freedom etc. Amendments and the Constitution are also good. International Affairs, historical and current also work for me. It'll be a good way to both learn and sharpen our knowledge.

Click to expand...

Your interest in international affairs (both historical and current) align with mine. My interests in the history of international affairs are mainly centered on modern European history (from the 18th century up to the Cold War), Chinese and Korean history. I also consider myself somewhat of an amateur expert on WWII and to a limited extent on military history itself. As for current affairs, I specialize in Asia, as well as the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, Africa, and Latin America.
What topics do you have in mind? I posted some of mine earlier in this thread

Tucker Case said:

On the subject of internet sources, Google Scholar is a great starting point if someone does not have access to an acdademic search engine like EBSCO or something.

Click to expand...

Yes, but then many internet academic sources themselves point back to published sources that aren't themselves available online.

In my current debate, the rule about public availability did limit my sources and I had to reject a couple due to a lack of public availability, but by typing the titles of all of my potential sources into google scholar I found a few that were publicly available and was able to use only peer reviewed source material because of this.

Click to expand...

Yes, some papers are available through reviews by other scholars and the like, and of course some topics have little in the way of academic publishing behind them; homosexuality and 'gay marriage' being an example. Most 'studies' of those are junk as 'science', with few or very inadequate methodological rigors that justify conclusions drawn from them, not to mention much of the data of the studies themselves can't be found online, just abstracts and opinions of others on what the studies actually show, so as 'sources' they're useless for objective analysis, not to mention many of the 'researchers' themselves are heavily biased and not trustworthy.

Because of this, I was not limited in the approach I was able to take in my debate. Even if the specific source you might want to use is not publicly available, if it is a good source you'll probably find something that has cited it somewhere that is publicly available. The rules just require one to be adaptable, but they certainly do not limit one from being intellectual.

Click to expand...

Yes, but then we're back to whether or not the cites are actually in context, which was the reasons given for the restrictions to web pages in the first place. Citing from the source itself is not 'legitimate', but citing some web page author who is citing the source as legitimate doesn't make much sense, and presents the same problem the rule is attempting to avoid.

Most people have access to libraries these days, so such sources on many topics is mostly available in urban areas. Not all, but more than enough for many debating purposes. There are issues, like German Guy having more German sources than somebody in Hawaii would have when debating German issues, for example, but sources can be agreed on ahead of time, I guess. Most University debates seem to go fine without such contradictory restrictions.

Proud South Korean said:

Your interest in international affairs (both historical and current) align with mine. My interests in the history of international affairs are mainly centered on modern European history (from the 18th century up to the Cold War), Chinese and Korean history. I also consider myself somewhat of an amateur expert on WWII and to a limited extent on military history itself. As for current affairs, I specialize in Asia, as well as the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, Africa, and Latin America.
What topics do you have in mind? I posted some of mine earlier in this thread

Click to expand...

How about WWII? Causes, actions, disputes and/or Ramifications? Leading to the events of today? Latin America works too.

Lightning said:

How about WWII? Causes, actions, disputes and/or Ramifications? Leading to the events of today? Latin America works too.

Click to expand...

Perhaps about possible scenarios, who really caused it, or such. Ranging from possible scenarios for WWII if Barbarossa was launched a few weeks earlier, or such. Ramifications works too. Would have nuclear war happened without the demonstration of nukes in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? What would have happened to geopolitics today if WWII didn't happen?
I'm more limited in Latin America. I have gathered some interest in post-Chavez Venezuela, as well as how the rest of Latin America is doing, though I'm somewhat of an amateur in this field

Proud South Korean said:

Perhaps about possible scenarios, who really caused it, or such. Ranging from possible scenarios for WWII if Barbarossa was launched a few weeks earlier, or such. Ramifications works too. Would have nuclear war happened without the demonstration of nukes in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? What would have happened to geopolitics today if WWII didn't happen?
I'm more limited in Latin America. I have gathered some interest in post-Chavez Venezuela, as well as how the rest of Latin America is doing, though I'm somewhat of an amateur in this field

Click to expand...

The portions I have emboldened work for me..... what about format?

Thjose would interesting, especially the Barbarossa discussion, for me anyway. Latin America is pretty dull going.