GameBanshee Forums

Nah...i was discussing bribery, it was you who thought otherwise, thus it was your idea and thus it most likely means you want to do so

1st post done!

OK, I have now posted my opening arguments for abstinece as contraception. I am looking forward to CM:s response, but don't let yourself be fooled by his exaggregated modesty! The guy actually studies political science , and we all how politicans can fool and convince millions of people in a few minutes!

While writing my post, I came to think of something I think we should have as rules to make this as funny as possible:

All figures and statistics referred in a post must be correct.

Totally making figures up (ie condoms only protect against HIV to 50%) makes it tedious for the opponent to check up studies and statistics. I suggest we all use correct data - then of course very skillful speaker know how to lie with the help of statistics!

Quotes and references must also be correct when used, and references are not included unless the opponent specifically ask for it.

If I post "according to professor Profylax, Nobel laureate in medicine and expert in family medicine, estimates show that HIV will kill 50% of the worlds population within 25 years even if condoms are used" (Lancet, 1998, vol Whatever), CM has no chance to check out whether this is a true reference (ie a valid argument since prof Profylax is a true expert on this area and have done scientific studies of it) or if it something I make up 2 seconds ago (which it in this case is). So - again, facts stated must be correct, other wise the opponent will drown in information research. The contest is to argue well, and that skill is independant of the facts - it's about logics and rhetorics.

Everybody with me on this? All logical fallacies still allowed of course!

@CE - that sounds fine to me

@Vicsun: hope you see this. Please do not post in the Vice versa debate thread, that is for the debate posts only. All comments, suggestions etc go in here. See my above post regarding reference handling. I thought it would be easier to just stick to the rule that we don't make up statistics.

@CE If worse comes to worse, you can just pm him.

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Vicsun: hope you see this. Please do not post in the Vice versa debate thread, that is for the debate posts only. All comments, suggestions etc go in here. See my above post regarding reference handling. I thought it would be easier to just stick to the rule that we don't make up statistics.

Sorry. I just saw this and deleted my reply. If anyone wants to see it here goes:

"Wouldn't it be a good idea if at the end of the post the person who made it posts where he got the facts & figures from (e.g. "In the US, 1 out 5 people suffer from an STD. 1 of 7 20-year old women have had an abortion, 4 of 10 44-year old women. Studies show that 90% of couples use contraceptive") ? This would prevent made up statistics, and would open the debate a bit (e.g. in my opinion the statistics that ____ posted arn't correct and the site _____ is cannot be trusted because _________) ."

edit=> I just received your PM. Again, I'm sorry, I should've checked this thread earlyer..

Great! Thanks a lot Vicsun.

Originally posted by Ode to a Grasshopper
Umm..She's coming to Australia on Monday, and will be here until late 2003, if that's what you mean...

I was not aware of this; I thought she was just going out of town for a little while . . . perhaps while down under, she won't have access to a computer and I'll win by default . . .

@C Elegans:
I think your proposal about facts and citations should certainly be observed. I have no problems combatting circular logic, but if people make a factual claim, then they should be required to cite an accurate statistic and if possible show a reference to that fact. For instance, if I were to claim that one in four people executed in the United States was truly innocent of the crime for which they were sentenced to death row, I should have to show some sort of scholarly study backing my claim. While bluffing and sandbagging has a long and glorious history in the arena of debate, I agree that "making stuff up" is not a viable primary source for arguments.

@Vicsun & HLD: My idea was that we should all agree on posting correct facts and stats, but not including references since it makes the text longer and less readable. I thought we could post the references only if the opponent asked specifically for it. For instance, the stats in my posts are taken from various sources like studies from NIH and WHO, and at least 15 different medical studies published in the scientific press, which I of course dug out from Medline. The latex stuff comes from Science (I don't remember which number, I can check if somebody want to read the whole artice) and the condome testing of HIV comes from JAMA. So everybody realise that a full reference list would be quiet long, since a typical reference looks like this:

Motsoane NA, Pretorius E, Bester MJ, Becker PJ. The biological safety of condom material can be determined using an in vitro cell culture system. Analytical Cell Pathology, 2001;23(2):51-9

20-30 of this would have been needed for my post, that's why I thought I'd better cough up the refs if CM wanted them.

Originally posted by CM
Nah...i was discussing bribery, it was you who thought otherwise, thus it was your idea and thus it most likely means you want to do so

That's fairly loose logic there. I've thought about the possibility of nuclear war before, it doesn't necessarily mean I want to go out and have one begin.

Bribery takes many forms, I was just worried about the one you seemed to be opting for...

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Vicsun & HLD: My idea was that we should all agree on posting correct facts and stats, but not including references since it makes the text longer and less readable.

And what's wrong with a post that's long, boring, hard to read and filled with scholarly citations? That should be something you could work to your advantage since that would make your opponent less likely to read the entire treatise. Why do you think the reading passages on standardised tests are dull and uninteresting? It's not an accident.

I thought HLD and Georgi would have time to argue their corners before she left, i was apparently wrong So on that note, HLD might have to boycott this set for now until the other debates are finished, we could always set it up so each round there is one person on the bench taking a breather?

@CE, i am inclined to agree with you about sources.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I thought HLD and Georgi would have time to argue their corners before she left, i was apparently wrong So on that note, HLD might have to boycott this set for now until the other debates are finished, we could always set it up so each round there is one person on the bench taking a breather?

Don't even think that, Mr Sleep. I am working on my final draft as we speak; in fact, I expect to have a final edit done in the next 15 minutes and have it posted shortly thereafter. I apologise to everyone for the delay, but my vacation with the in-laws was hampered by a dial-up connection (yech!) and my wife's cousin's need to check out every sushi bar in Myrtle Beach (of course, I just had to go with her) which stiffled my research.

Originally posted by HighLordDave


Don't even think that, Mr Sleep. I am working on my final draft as we speak; in fact, I expect to have a final edit done in the next 15 minutes and have it posted shortly thereafter. I apologise to everyone for the delay, but my vacation with the in-laws was hampered by a dial-up connection (yech!) and my wife's cousin's need to check out every sushi bar in Myrtle Beach (of course, I just had to go with her) which stiffled my research.

I wasn't suggesting ditching the topic, but the debate partner will have to change, any thoughts?

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
I wasn't suggesting ditching the topic, but the debate partner will have to change, any thoughts?

That's fine with me, who ever my new opponent will be.

I just posted my argument, and it comes in at 1,150 words (give or take a couple for editing and hyperlinks). Err, we were going with the 2,000 word limit, right? In any event, the word limit of 2,000 is academic because the message board will not allow a post of longer than 10,000 characters; mine comes in just over 7,100.

Hm, I actually thought we were going for the 1000 word limit...

In any case, brilliant @HLD andFrogus! Im am not sure whom of you I fear the most!

I have posted.
All yours CE.
Also what is the post limit.
As in how many posts can a person make in the discussion.
Personally feel that everybody has 5 posts and then you guys decide.

@Great post CM I will reply perhaps tomorrow. The post limit is 3 per person, then we are at the hands of the Judges Sleep and Ysh.

A question: Where should we post the references when the opponent ask for them? Since references should be connected to the argument post, I suggest we start our next post with the references our oppenents ask for. If we post them here, they will just drown in all spam.

PS CM: You asked for ref for the 1 of 20 women stats, did you misread the 1 of 7 20-years old women in the US have had an abortion, and 4 of 10 44-year old women?

@HLD (although I suppose it's not relevent), so in real life do you support the death penalty or not?...that was an incredibly good argument...

EDIT - Just thought of an idea for a follow up game to visa versa - Vice Versa...this is where the seven (?) of us each hav to take one of the seven deadly sins and argue for why it is a good and useful force.

Originally posted by frogus
EDIT - Just thought of an idea for a follow up game to visa versa - Vice Versa...this is where the seven (?) of us each hav to take one of the seven deadly sins and argue for why it is a good and useful force.

LOL Interesting idea

I was thinking, rather than post links in the thread it would be easier if people only quoted evidence they could back up and then provide links if asked for them...i think CE mentioned something similar in a previous reply.