War Room Debate League- Who's Gonna Debate The Wall?!

Suggestion for the process:

0) People PM Fawlty if they are up to debate any topic
1) Fawlty publishes topic
2) People volunteer via PM to Fawlty for the specific topic. They can, if they want, volunteer to debate against their leaning.
3) Fawlty picks debate participants
4) Judge is publicly assigned and publishes his criteria in advance
5) Fawlty sends questions to participants
6) Participants send answers to Fawlty
7) Fawlty publishes initial answers without publishing poster names and tells posters whether they are first to reply
8) Posters answer via PM to Fawlty
9) Debate is declared finished at a certain point by Fawlty
10) Judge publishes verdict
11) Fawlty reveals winner and who is who.

I think the twist with the option (but not duty) to debate against one's leaning would be that you cannot tell as a judge whether the posters 'really' have that opinion or not, which makes it less likely you favor your buddies (and you don't know who they are).

Sounds good?

I like it

Fawlty looking at his semester's syllabuses and that post and saying fuck that
 
Last edited:
Two obvious trolls who never actually discuss anything, one lunatic (evolution denier, believer in Pizzagate, etc.), and one guy I've never heard of. Really no point.

Good. It's time they face the music.


Besides, all of the right wingers blur together. I'm convinced at least three are the same person.
 
Good. It's time they face the music.


Besides, all of the right wingers blur together. I'm convinced at least three are the same person.

I don't think that's true, but there is pretty much no way to tell a lot of these guys apart.
 
Cool idea and we would need debate rules. Sadly though, just like with politics, the winner would likely be determined by tribalism and affinities, not on who truly put forth better arguments.

I personally think selecting judges would be better than a poll.
 
@Trotsky and @NewGuardBjj both crying about right wingers and their attitude while both of you are BY FAR the most hostile posters in the entire thread, throwing around wild accusations and dumb generalizations.
DAE conservatives are trolls with fake accounts and butthurt because we constantly destroy them in debates?

Jack comes in a close third place.

Without your posts, the thread would actually be way more reasonable and peaceful, while you're crying about hostility and irrationality. Nice.
 
Suggestion for the process:

0) People PM Fawlty if they are up to debate any topic
1) Fawlty publishes topic
2) People volunteer via PM to Fawlty for the specific topic. They can, if they want, volunteer to debate against their leaning.
3) Fawlty picks debate participants
4) Judge is publicly assigned and publishes his criteria in advance
5) Fawlty sends questions to participants
6) Participants send answers to Fawlty
7) Fawlty publishes initial answers without publishing poster names and tells posters whether they are first to reply
8) Posters answer via PM to Fawlty
9) Debate is declared finished at a certain point by Fawlty
10) Judge publishes verdict
11) Fawlty reveals winner and who is who.

I think the twist with the option (but not duty) to debate against one's leaning would be that you cannot tell as a judge whether the posters 'really' have that opinion or not, which makes it less likely you favor your buddies (and you don't know who they are).

Sounds good?

I like it. It would be interesting to assign participants to sides they would not normally be associated with, as long as they put honest effort into it. I could see some posters volunteering to debate, for example, a position in favor of allowing Syrian immigration to the US, and then come in on game day with some trolly arguments.
 
@Trotsky and @NewGuardBjj both crying about right wingers and their attitude while both of you are BY FAR the most hostile posters in the entire thread, throwing around wild accusations and dumb generalizations.
DAE conservatives are trolls with fake accounts and butthurt because we constantly destroy them in debates?

Jack comes in a close third place.

Without your posts, the thread would actually be way more reasonable and peaceful, while you're crying about hostility and irrationality. Nice.


I'm honestly one of the least hostile guys here. Everything "hostile" I say is in jest. After all, we're on the internet. I have a sense of humor, that doesn't make me hostile.
 
I'm honestly one of the least hostile guys here. Everything "hostile" I say is in jest. After all, we're on the internet. I have a sense of humor, that doesn't make me hostile.

But what if I consider it a micro-aggression?
giphy.gif
 
This is @Fawlty 's brainchild, so you gotta decide how this goes. But it seems you will find participants. If it works, this will grow. If it doesn't, it was a nice idea. Let's try this.
 
I like JDragon's structure. I'm going to submit that 1.) There should be more than one judge per, and 2.) judges should explain why they are going one way or another, with the understanding that shit explanations mean you aren't invited back.
 
I like JDragon's structure. I'm going to submit that 1.) There should be more than one judge per, and 2.) judges should explain why they are going one way or another, with the understanding that shit explanations mean you aren't invited back.

Well in that case I propose two judges. With C̶e̶c̶i̶l̶ ̶P̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶s̶ a third one called in if the two disagree only.
 
Back
Top