www.ditl.org

Thought this might be a good idea to make. It'll help keep the comments out of the actual debate, while still allowing non-participants, or even the participants themselves, to talk about the posts just made (ie, fallacies in them, whether they thought it was good/bad, etc).

Clarification, please - am I expected to post a score and commentary after EACH post, or after the summations? And should I place that here, or in the debate thread?

I think a total score should be withheld to keep people on their toes and should be posted in the actual Debate so as to no get cluttered with other posts.

Makes sense. Any assenting or dissenting thoughts?

It may be a little late but I really think we should round up another judge (a total of three would be ideal). It doesn't give a very good impression if there's only one.

I tried no one else can. Rochey cant, the kennedys are to busy. And no one else was interested this time.

As for posting the results Mikey you post them all at once 48 hours after the last post has been made (which will be the third person on my team) The two team captains have 24 hours after the last post to submit any formal complaints ie posts to long ect.

Cpl Kendall wrote:It may be a little late but I really think we should round up another judge (a total of three would be ideal). It doesn't give a very good impression if there's only one.

Don't worry, Kendall - I'm completely unbiased. Highest bidder wins, no matter who it is.

Gotta say, I found Seafort's post to be quite good. I was sort of on the fence for this issue, but he's managed to convince me.
I look forward to seeing the opposing argument, as this one seemed quite water-tight.

I suppose if the only question being debated is "are they terrorists by definition?", then he's already answered the question. "Are they justified in their actions?" would've been a lot harder to beat using dictionary definitions.

Yeah, that would have been quite a difficult one to argue about.

I should probably refrain from commenting.

Probably.

Tsukiyumi wrote:I suppose if the only question being debated is "are they terrorists by definition?", then he's already answered the question. "Are they justified in their actions?" would've been a lot harder to beat using dictionary definitions.

The temptation to get into a debate on this point is making my fingertips tingle, but I think I'll leave it for the main thread.

Don't open a second front, Seafort.

I would like to request that the comments in this thread made by everyone be several restrained until the end of the debate.

It is hardly fair for comments to be made about the quality or persuasiveness of a post during a debate. It is up to the judge to decide what he thinks of the quality and content of a post and seeing comments made about them may unfairly influence his opinion. I'm not saying Mikey will be swayed but he is only human and large public support for one side would be hard to ignore.

If every post is to be analyzed in here during the debate it not only helps the opposing side by giving an out side analyses of it but also sways opinions.

Feel free to rip them apart after it is over.