Proposed format for moderated debate on the forum

[T.A.M.]

I also would agree to participate if there were two seperate debates, one with the above proposition, and one of the proposition "Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by incindiaries and explosives".

I am waiting for Arkan to answer my questions about "status quo", and about "public domain"

The above argument, if you put it forth as the Debate Topic would be to easy to destroy. There is virtually no proof that this is what brought the buildings down.

good luck with that one.

TAM

 

[Oliver]

The above argument, if you put it forth as the Debate Topic would be to easy to destroy. There is virtually no proof that this is what brought the buildings down.

good luck with that one.

TAM

You make a mistake, Tam - he is not listening.

I try to ignore him in the future - or start a poll about him...

 

[Loss Leader]

For example, suppose you has a murder case where there was a photograph of the defendant pulling the trigger. The judge rules that no photographs are to be admitted, on either side. Is this unbiased? Of course not. That sort of ruling would work against the side with the better evidence.

Yeah, that's not true. I mean, none of it is true. It does, however, point out Shmendrick1234's abiding belief that photographs give more information than they actually do.

Briefly, in order to be admissable, evidence must be relevant and reliable. The evidence must relate to that which one is trying to prove/disprove and not, for example, just inflame the passions of the jury. So, for example, in the murder trial of Tom Thompson, the prosecutor cannot show pictures of hundreds of murder victims from the past twenty years from all over the country just to get the jury so angry about murder in general that they convict Tom. The murder of other victims just is not relevant.

The evidence also must be reliable. There must be some reason to believe the thing is what it says it is. So, for example, relating a story that a firefighter told a troother that "it was like everything was exploding" would be very hard to authenticate. We'd have to know who the firefighter is, when he said it and whether he actually even meant the occurances of 9/11. It's not reliable to get it 3rd hand.

So, um, Shmendrick1234 is wrong. I'm right. Have a wonerful new year.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

In this case, you are not excluding pictures, but you are diminishing the effectiveness of them. Same logic. It works in favor of the side with weaker evidence.

how is linking pictures diminishing their effectiveness? do you think people are too lazy to click on the links?

the reasoning for linking pictures is to reduce the time to load the debate page, to keep large pictures from throwing off the word wrap, and just to keep the thread from looking like crap

Please, Arkan, or Mackey, I am GLUED to my seat waiting for an explanation of how the fire-impact theory could be considered status quo (without resorting to logical fallacies).

int his case status quo refers to popular opinion, which is that the accepted version of the events of 9/11 is the truth, you are going against that by saying it is a lie

whats the difference though? why are you so afraid to make a statement without someone else goign first?

 

[FramerDave]

I certainly agree to participate if the topic is "Resolved: WTC1,2 and7 were brought down by impact damage and fires".

I also would agree to participate if there were two seperate debates, one with the above proposition, and one of the proposition "Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by incindiaries and explosives".

I am waiting for Arkan to answer my questions about "status quo", and about "public domain"

Do you just not get it? You don't need two debates. Heres' how it works:

"Resolved: WTC1,2 and7 were brought down by impact damage and fires".

Side A presents his side supporting the resolution, along with evidence and sources. This could include photos, videos or other documentation that he has linked to. Anyone can view them by clicking on a link.

The Side B can say "No, in fact WTC 1,2 and 7 were brought down by CD." Here is my evidence, backed up with documentation, photos, etc. in the links.

Then it goes back and forth, like a tennis match, each side addressing his opponent's point with solid evidence. Just that easy.


btw, why is linking to the photos so bloody abhorrent to you? To use your murder trial example, it's like the difference between openly displaying on an easel a photo of the crime victim, or passing around the same photo in a folder for each juror, defendant and prosecution to view. What's the big deal?

So yes or no, will you debate?

Or will you keep on throwing up imaginary obstacles?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Do you just not get it? You don't need two debates. Heres' how it works:

"Resolved: WTC1,2 and7 were brought down by impact damage and fires".

Side A presents his side supporting the resolution, along with evidence and sources. This could include photos, videos or other documentation that he has linked to. Anyone can view them by clicking on a link.

The Side B can say "No, in fact WTC 1,2 and 7 were brought down by CD." Here is my evidence, backed up with documentation, photos, etc. in the links.

Yes, that's fine with me. All we're waiting for is somebody like RMackey or ?? actually accept the offer and finally present, at long last:

The affirmative case supporting "Resolved: WTC1,2 and 7 were brought down by impact damage and fires."

When that post appears, by anyone, I will respond to that post, and I and that other person, whomever it turns out eventually to be, will in fact proceed with the online debate. I don't agree about the unneccessary restrictions on images, but I accept it. Whatever. Let's go. Who's it going to be?

 

[defaultdotxbe]

is there something preventing you from posting first? maybe your case will be so airtight no one will even attempt to counter it

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Is no one able to debate me? Who will come forward? Mackey has declined my T.V debate. There's nobody out there actually willing to defend the official story? This is extremely telling.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

answer my question

is there something preventing you from posting first?

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Loss Leader, how about you? Are willing and able to debate me? Gravy? Defaultoxbe? Any of you loudmouths in the peanut gallery want to step up to the plate and go to bat for the home team? Anyone? Hello???? Is thing On??? Why won't anyone here debate me? Why?????

 

[Bell]

Why is TruthSeeker1234 shouting?

 

[DavidJames]

is there something preventing you from posting first? maybe your case will be so airtight no one will even attempt to counter it

Because he cannot support his case. His case will be providing pictures, videos, anecdotes and coincidences in an attempt to refute the "affirmative case"

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

Yes, something prevents me from going first. Arkan Wolfshade has said that it is customary for the one challenging the status quo to go first and make the positive case for changing the status quo. Since controlled demolitions have happened many times before, and impact/fire has never ever happened before, controlled demolition is the status quo.

Now, I am happy to have a second thread where I put out the positive case for CD. Or not. But I will not debate unless there is a thread where someone, anyone, is willing to make the positive case for impact/fire.

Is there someone in charge who can make a decision on this, and let us all know ASAP. The suspense is killing me.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Loss Leader, how about you? Are willing and able to debate me? Gravy? Defaultoxbe? Any of you loudmouths in the peanut gallery want to step up to the plate and go to bat for the home team? Anyone? Hello???? Is thing On??? Why won't anyone here debate me? Why?????

is there something preventing you from posting first?

as discussed, the viewpoint contrary to staus quo would present first

the status quo is that the majority of the public accept the official version of the events of 9/11 as fact. your POV is contrary to that. post your case

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Yes, something prevents me from going first. Arkan Wolfshade has said that it is customary for the one challenging the status quo to go first and make the positive case for changing the status quo. Since controlled demolitions have happened many times before, and impact/fire has never ever happened before, controlled demolition is the status quo.

read my above post

additionally, CD of buildings the size of the WTC is certainly not "status quo" by any means

 

[chipmunk stew]

Regarding Posting Images

You can post images. Save a local copy, then host it using VB Image Host (link is up top on blue bar), or use Quick Upload (link is below Smilies in post editor)

BUMPED FOR LIE-SPREADER

Also, I'd like to reiterate that "status quo" in the context of a debate is a description of a position (the official account), not a specific event explained by the status quo position (the collapse of the World Trade Center).

There's no getting around it, LieSpreader. You are the challenger to the status quo position. You go first. Quit stalling.

 

[Loss Leader]

Loss Leader, how about you?

I would but when I was a teenager I worked for at a camp for the developmentally disabled and I believe that purposefully exposing them to ridicule is cruel.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Yes, something prevents me from going first. Arkan Wolfshade has said that it is customary for the one challenging the status quo to go first and make the positive case for changing the status quo. Since controlled demolitions have happened many times before, and impact/fire has never ever happened before, controlled demolition is the status quo.

Yeah, I'm gonna guess it hurts a lot to be as wrong as this. Y'know, like an exposed nerve in your jaw, only in more than one place at once.

Sad, when you think about it.

 

[Oliver]

hey Troofsquizer - Trash Your Own Threads!

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

for Russell, since he seems uncomfortable in a free-for-all thread I thought perhaps this would be more to his liking.