Registration for 1 on 1 political debate threads

[[censored]]

All

I really like Mat's idea of having some 1 on 1 debates in here.

so what I want to do is this. post in here if you are interested and the various topics and which side you would like to debate. if you see some one post something you would like to debate with another poster, issue a challenge. once accepted a mod will create an official thread which only you two will be allowed to post in.

in addition we will create a commentary thread for others to post in as the debate progresses.

I'm interested to see how this works and if it will be successful.

[hmkpoker]

I don't know if I'll have the time or motivation to actually go through with such a thing, but I'd like to leave the possibilities open, at least.


Topics of greatest interest, and my position with them:

Market commodity currency vs. fiat currency (I side with the gold standard)

Meta-ethics of economic structures (I take an amoral, incentive-based, self-serving utilitarian position)

Validity of the GDP and its relevence to economic well-being in society (I take the position that the GDP is mildly reflective, and not causal, of social well-being and believe that using artificial production incentives to stimulate it defeats the purpose of promoting social well-being)

Nationalized vs. privatized security services (I side with privatized force)

Compulsory vs. non-compulsory education (I believe that compulsory, state-sponsored education accomplishes very little, and that we are all much better off without it.)

[Mickey Brausch]

Heads-up debatin', huh?

I wonder which game theory concepts will apply.

[tomdemaine]

I'm in, sounds like fun. I'm an economics degree holding socialist turned ACist so I've clearly got a wide open mind, plus I'm not down with fancy debating tactics so I should be easy to beat. Unfortunately I seem to end up being conciliatory rather than combative so it may not be as fun to watch as a PVN vs Dvault slobberknocker. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[canis582]

I'd do an lol debate thread...I have lost my heart for serious political discussion because you all are so indoctrinated.

But I'd like to say "America is not a democracy (or republic)" and defend that thesis against someone who thinks it is.

I'll take HM on for the public education thingy. But can we keep the responses under 100 words? I'm not trying to write a term paper here.

[tolbiny]

I'm in for whatever, taking the stance on government that less is more pretty much regardless at this point.

[mmbt0ne]

I would do something involving IP protection since it is one of the main problems I have with the AC idea.

I like WillMagic and I know he's on the other side, so I'd discuss with him if he's up for it.

[andyfox]

I would take on one of the following historical political topics:

-The Framers' original intent is the best way to apply/interpret the Constitution: I would take the con side.

-The atomic bombs ended World War II: I would take the con side.

-The United States would have won Vietnam is only it had not fought with one hand tied behind its back: I would take the con side.

-Ronald Reagan was a great president who was responsible for winning the Cold War: I would take the con side.

[iron81]

I would like to take HMK up on the GDP topic and Andy on the WWII topic. But not at the same time. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[tomdemaine]

If you don't want two of these running at once that's cool. For future reference I'd like to take a crack at either "is it essential to have a government run education system" or "it is essential to have a government run police force/court system." I'd take the con side on both.