hehehe this should be funny

i'll sign up for this

I will watch with great interest.

Current competitors:

Zarfy
Chaosdarkmech
Einstein
RisingDown

1: What is "reputable?"
2: Probably best to leave that to the debate.  If I call someone's source out as bull, and it's likely their source is bull due to the arguments I lay out... then you can use those implications, as necessary, to ignore portions of evidence which are bull.  The other guy gets a chance to respond to the charge... and you have a debate!  But if it was just a rule judges are to enforce... it's possible a judge would say "I don't think this is reputable" in a situation where debaters may have no warning about the reputable-ness of the source, and no way to either justify the source or replace it with a better source.

That is true... within this particular context, an individual is perhaps required to divorce themselves from the arguments they're making, having completely different intents, demeanors, and content from what was originally considered the content to ban... thus, within the specific context, the "person" you're debating against functionally may not be the same "person" (from a sociological, not biological perspective) as who you banned.

Just a suggestion/extrapolation. 

I wanna see Genesis when he has to debate a someone in this Political Debate. Should be interesting

> Walking Corpse wrote:

> Any chance we can make it a rule so that only *reputable* citation sources can be used??

how about we make it a rule that no citations can be used - more realistic this way, no?

I don't really have time for proper debating, so if I am in, this no citation rule might be better for me, actually.

Is that question to me Zarf? I'm not suggesting you should aspire to anything, it's a free world and you're entitled to have your opinions and express them the way you like to. I'm just saying that in the real world, politics does not follow ideology, unless it's reacting to something.

A prime example is the US invasion of Iraq (I'm not bashing it again, just giving example): you could see it wasn't a decision based on ideology after the US government bounced from one ideological explanation from another, trying to justify it with iraq not complying to UN sanctions, then wmd's, then freeing iraqis, etc etc. It was never an ideological issue but a geopolitical one, and that is why I think it's a waste of time to debate political ideology on an online board.

Oki doki. Extra information ftw.

My ignore list has two levels

Noir, Avogardo, and one unlisted person are the higher level, where their crime was such a magnitude that I swore on my soul to not communicate with them willingly, or may my soul burn in hell.

Thus their attempts to get me to talk to them would be considered an attempt to destroy my life and afterlife. Thus if they tried to decieve in real life then reveal I would feel compelled to kill them.

Now I do not suffer such depression anymore, so no more would ever be put at that level.

Now You_Fool and Decimus are super trolls. They live off of giving displeasure to others, and griefing. When they try to act like they are willing to debate it is an attempt to get 'off the list' so they can start trolling again.

Decimus, being a racist as well as a troll, will never get off the ignore.

You_Fool I could try... but I will hold the mods to consider his actions in the future, and perhaps ignore him as well if he won't stop trolling. Let the circle of punishment grow if he won't change his ways, thus peer pressure will teach him a valuable lesson.

Btw the term ignore is a bit 'off' from the actuality. I won't reply is the actual statement, nor to copies of their comments (typically, for most times I do not even read a word they typed). If I find I was tricked, I delete all posts replying to the tricker. I do not reply.

For the three you can take this to the bank... saying that somehow I could talk to them is akin to saying a human can survive a year in absolute vacuum naked, or that a kitten can survive being dumped into the sunk or that Obama really did close Gitmo in his first year in office as promised.

If both Wornstrum and Zarf explicitly promise to punish You_Fool if he starts trolling again, I will remove him from the list (for now at least).

Well Einstein, Forum mods cannot ignore his comments (because we need to moderate). However, the debate is designed (and I discussed this with Zarf as well) in a way that IF you did get paired up with You_Fool or anyone else that you are ignoring, you can ignore him (lose the debate) but still be able to qualify to move on to the other round (provided you only lose 1 debate in that round). If I was to grant someone special rights, I would need to grant others (ie. If You_Fool decided he didn't want to debate Zarf, I would need to give him a special "pass"), and would need to do this for everyone. So the only fair way to do this, is to leave the "groups", "debates", and "sides" completely to chance (I will be randomly drawing names out of a hat, to see what lands where), but I have set the groups up to accomodate for everyone in the fairest way. I hope you are able to understand my position and the choices I have made, and really look forward to your participation and debate