9/11 - Debate Request

lumpymunk · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 8:50 pm Post subject: 9/11 - Debate Request

1) It doesn't matter to me who I debate.
2) Who moderates these?
3) Should we confine the topic to some single aspect about 9/11 or go all out into every little detail?
4) How will the end of the debate be established?

Maybe an "Overview" sticky would help... but I am eager to begin this with whoever is willing.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks

Klarky · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:25 pm Post subject:

You could always ask Reggie to set one up and do it live?
_________________
That which can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. ~ Christopher Hitchens

Anarchism is simply the revolutionary idea that no-one is better qualified to run your life than you are.

Atheist Community | Myspace Music page |
Youtube

lumpymunk · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject:

Live discussions are skimpy, if we're going to do this right it's going to be in point for point paragraph format and moderated.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks

Philosophos · Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:17 pm Post subject: Re: 9/11 - Debate Request

RyanDzundza · Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:33 am Post subject:

it might be best if you state whether you believe it was an inside job or you think all the conspiracy theories are false

otherwise you may end up debating against someone who agrees with you, and that would be a short debate
_________________

BarkAtTheMoon · Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 2:35 pm Post subject:

I guess I can step up on this one if you really want to do this, if for no other reason than to be the first debate in the new section, and I've been one of the primary anti-conspiracy posters in the 9/11 threads.

lumpymunk · Posted: Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject:

I propose we limit the discussion to the Pentagon.

I would like to invite either ChaosLord or Philosophos, or both to moderate the discussion, or any Admin who's willing. Volunteers welcome, and appreciated.

I propose that all logical fallacies be avoided, including especially straw man arguments and ad hominem attacks... Moderators will contact those in violation via PM and the person guilty will retract the statement. Parody of reasoning and reductio arguments must be thoroughly demonstrated. (I.e., simply comparing me to a creationist will not stand unless you validate why that is an accurate comparison in detail.) I'm not the most knowledgeable about logical fallacies, but I would like mods to be as critical as possible about them.

I propose the the discussion continue until one participant yields to the other or chooses not to participate any longer.

No time frame is necessary. Posts can be as random and dispersed as you want, no pressure to grind this out quickly.

Anything you would like to add/modify to this framework?

If not, then I await a Mod to volunteer, and we'll begin.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks

BarkAtTheMoon · Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 3:07 pm Post subject:

That's fine. I don't think Chaos is still around here anymore, but if Philosophos or one of the other regular mods still around wants to do this I have no objection.

Before we start, I want to confirm that you are going to argue the position that what actually hit the Pentagon was a cruise missile, as you stated in the other thread, so I know what to base my counter arguments on. Also, can we at least agree that the frames that were released video of the impact from the Pentagon security camera, whether there was a frame or two removed or not, are undoctored and legitimate images of the 9/11 impact and fireball?

I guess we can just continue in this thread rather than starting a new one. Maybe if you or a mod could change the subject line to something more specific. I'll try and do a little research this weekend and get something written next week before Thanksgiving. From Thanksgiving I'll probably be out until the next Tuesday.
_________________
"The very existence of flame throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.' - George Carlin

"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Deep Thoughts by Jack Handey

lumpymunk · Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:06 am Post subject:

**waiting on an admin volunteer**

Ivan_Ivanov · Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 5:09 am Post subject:

lumpymunk · Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:30 pm Post subject:

I think it would be instructive to agree on the official story.

cheapsuprise · Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject:

Lumpy, one thing.

This is completely up to you and BarkAtTheMoon, as to how you want to handle it, but when you ask that the moderator be critical of fallacies do you intend to leave that up to the moderator to watch for, or do you intend to PM a complaint once you notice one?

The reason I ask, is that it's possible that a complaint will be contested.
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli

lumpymunk · Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject:

cheapsuprise · Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:01 pm Post subject:

So, you except the possibility of having to post a retraction on a fallacy that you did not actualy commit?
_________________
"-- Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than
feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to
be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it
is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be
dispensed with."-- Niccolò Machiavelli

lumpymunk · Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject:

I expect the possibility of retractions to occur when one commits a fallacy one wasn't previously aware of. Regardless of your awareness of the fallacious tactic employed, it's still fallacious and still "actually being committed." Intentions are irrelevant.
_________________
“Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary retards bang their fucking skulls together and congratulate you on the living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what well tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!” ~ B.Hicks

	AtheistForums.com Forum Index -> The Peanut Gallery	All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next
Page 1 of 3