Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Limbo Pete, Feb 4, 2017.
How is this for a debate question?
"Will the 7 Countries travel ban help in the fight against terrorism?"
thanks to JDragon
yeah im down. youre going to have a nightmare defining terrorism and the fight against it, but lets do this.
If we do this, all terms will be as clearly defined as possible.
I'll take the EO, but not a permanent ban on every Muslim, which I don't think anybody has even suggested. Would like to keep it on this side of reality.
I'll still take it, but that does seem like proving a negative until we see what the new vetting policy is. That is to say, it's more of a prediction than a concrete topic at this point. Also not many sources on what was prevented, therefore didn't happen, especially on an EO that's less than 2 weeks old. I'd rather it was something more whether its a valid preventative measure, but will take it any way it's worded
We would tweak it as necessary and we'll make sure both debaters agree on some definitions, like terrorism and the scope of the ban. That may be tricky, because we can''t have an argument where you guys talk past each other using different versions of the ban.
Cool with me. If we can get a clearly defined position, I'm game. I don't want to argue 2 separate points that don't even collide, and I'd be OK if it limited my position, provided it's not to an unreasonable extent.
That too, is odd, because there are many mutually exclusive value systems in the West, some of which openly consider white skin the original and unpardonable sin.
I'd be fine with a debate on a radical version, like e.g. 'Banning entry of all people from the seven countries listed in Trump's EO would help to fight terrorism in the US'.
Topic proposal and challenge to @Anung Un Rama
Should Iran be sanctioned for its ballistic missile activities?
Declined as that is not the argument you fucking moron.
Noted that you are a chickenshit.
Noted that you have zero integrity. That wasn't our argument. You said you trusted the US to interpret the UN Security Council's findings on Iran's missile test, and I wondered how anybody could implicitly trust our government to interpret anything fairly regarding Iran. You proceeded, much to my astonishment, confusion, and glee, to cite the lies and propaganda of the Bush Administration.... Then you made up a different argument to have in the debate league?
@Lead can we please open the Debate #2 thread back up?
@ncordless @Cold Front we will resume the debate where we left off.
@ncordless it's your response, and then we move to Q&A, followed by closing.
Can you link the thread. I never bookmarked it
sorry thought I had done that http://forums.sherdog.com/threads/wrdl-debate-2-the-wall-cold-front-vs-ncordless.3464977/
Idea: Someone make a blog where debates are posted in full.
Topic proposal: noncitizens living in the United Stayes, including those not legally here, are protected by the United States Constitution.