Um...

1: As I said, oil spills are usually caused by shipwrecks, not leaks from below the surface.
2: Oil floats to the surface of the water.  There's no rocks above them which you could fuse together.

It would be interesting to see exactly the results of Russian use of the cleanup method.  Contrary to WFS' claim, it might be possible that there wouldn't be "an even bigger catastrophe" (if the reason for the catastrophe being bigger is that you just nuked the area, why wouldn't there be radiation problems in the first 4 instances?)

You screwed up the game!  X(

Ethanol uses huge amounts of farmland, which has driven food prices up dramatically.  In addition, it's empirically created monocropping and water pollution through the needs for expanded industrial agriculture, both creating huge environmental consequences.

Biogas is the future.

EDIT: New game!  It's called "Discredit the alternative energy source above!"

Xeno, I really need you to come on IRC!

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> for antoher, we're not likely to do so well in future wars that we have so many prisoners

That's an indicator that, barring the removal of excess prisoners (population control), we would have too many damn prisoners, hurting the war effort... seems pretty clear cut!

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> for one thing our side is a bunch of pussies and would give them a trial in NYC anyhow

for antoher, we're not likely to do so well in future wars that we have so many prisoners

In regards to the first, a stance of "well, we could eliminate all your rights, but we probably won't because we're wimps" is insufficient because it creates the moral framework that violating all rights in those instances is just.  For you to win that this stance is good, you have to assume a world in which none of those rights are recognized first, since that is very much a distinct possibility in such a world anyway.

In regards to the second, you're in a double-bind:

Either that would impact US policy, in which case you contradict the first statement, and you prove that the US will probably enact a massive genocide of enemies during war... that's bad...

Or that wouldn't impact US policy, at which point it doesn't really matter, and I have my argument unanswered...

Oh, that's good... we should write judging philosophies!  I knew I was forgetting something:

1: Remember how I was rambling about discussion as an analysis of ideas, not a fight amongst people?  Yeah, that's because such is how I judge.  Anything you even think might be within the Politics forum Constitution I'm drafting, probably also something to consider here (ask away if you have questions).
2: Sorry, but appeals to emotion don't work with me.  In addition, unless you can show differently (a good argument can possibly be made against such a stance, and I'm more than willing to hear, and even accept your view, if you can effectively win the argument), I tend to follow a utilitarian approach to ethics debates ("rights," "morals," and "ethics" are constructed because, at the time of their creation, the action had a useful utilitarian purpose).  Thus, asserting that there is a "right" to something does not really work.  Rather, the more effective approach would be to explain what happens to society if said "rights" were not recognized, and thus why, as a result, those rights should be recognized.

This method makes it much easier to evaluate any discussion, as it allows us to look at concrete effects (such as body counts), rather than comparing abstract morals against one another.
3: Some of you might like this, but I'm in no way opposed to voting for what would otherwise be considered "the crazy" argument.  There are hundreds of different ways you can be creative with your argumentation, stepping outside the mainstream in terms of what your argument will be.  I'm 100% for this, and I've often seen that these debates can be the most awesome debates ever!

A good example: One of my favorite arguments to hear in debates (though I'm not saying everyone should argue this every time... that will just get obnoxious) was when, after one team would say that their side of the debate prevents disease, a massive war, etc., the other side stands up and says "Yeah, we'll cause a bunch of nuclear wars... but humanity will survive, and we need to reduce the population!  Bring on them wars!"   [Note: This is probably why it was a terrible idea to have both Justinian and myself judging in the same group... haha!]

I remember once trying to set something up like this!  Except that I failed miserably due to real life issues creeping up on me at the time!  (stupid real life!)

Lesson of the day: I know you were talking about good and bad opportunities to spam "I am the law!"  I was 100% expecting such right now in this thread... "Gordon Brown's not the law!  I am the law!"

By that, he means Nintendo DS... MarioKart!

Does not distinguish between the machine called a "vacuum" and the region of space called a "vacuum"