The Center Stage

[Rizen]

They conflict in the question of whether you really have a choice or not.

If everything is predetermined, then you really have no choice, you're just under the illusion of having one while some entity beyond you is pulling all the strings, whether it be the forces of nature, some deity, or the fact that your dog got ran over by Santa Clause yesterday. The bottom line is that you are not making your own choices, something is causing you to make the choice you are making.

Whereas free will says that you can make your choices independent of any and all outside influences. That even if your dog got ran over by Santa Clause or your house got foreclosed on, that the decisions you make afterward are decisions that were not influenced by any of these happenings.

You may refer to this for a better understanding.

It's only conflicting because one chooses to look at it that way. Or one is predetermined to. Or circumstances, attitude, etc. From either view for whatever reason we're talking about the same thing. The debate's about different perspectives in labeling a disagreement. Can this be resolved by 'defeating' the opposition? Tomato/tomoto.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

C'mon, man. Don't give up so easily!

I understand what you mean but my argument is null and void without evidence. Do not worry I will try again at a latter date once I get more practice in.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I understand what you mean but my argument is null and void without evidence. Do not worry I will try again at a latter date once I get more practice in.

The do some research! It won't hurt!

 

[Dre89]

Anyone here interested in soccer? (I normally call it football but all the Amerians will get confused)

I want to debate someone on it, or start a thread on it, but I want to make sure there's enough interest first.

 

[Bookworm]

I read that to get admission into the DH, there is some debater challenge I have to do here. So naturally, I'm here to ask, am I elligible to attempt this challenge?

I've already made a thread and a few posts. They're pretty easy to see consdering every post I've made has been in here, so you can just use the "find all posts made by Bookworm" function to see what I've done.

If I'm not ready, how close am I?/how much more do I have to do?

 

[Sieguest]

And I happened to not have a lot of homework tonight.

It's only conflicting because one chooses to look at it that way. Or one is predetermined to. Or circumstances, attitude, etc. From either view for whatever reason we're talking about the same thing. The debate's about different perspectives in labeling a disagreement. Can this be resolved by 'defeating' the opposition? Tomato/tomoto.

Err... because debates generally tend to talk about the same thing but argue different viewpoints of it. You've basically just confirmed what I just said. Same thing with tomato/tomoto. We'd argue for which pronunciation is correct. One solid way to defend one pronunciation is to get an English dictionary and look up the word. Unless you're arguing tomato/tomoto in some other language, the person who just pulled out the dictionary pretty much stuck the nail in the coffin.

One can go about defeating the opposition for whatever, but debate topics are debatable for the reason that they could go either way. Just because someone defeats another person's points in debate doesn't mean that one thing is right and that another isn't, it just reflects that one person brought up stronger and more convincing points than another. (I wish there was a smiley for shrugs.)

The do some research! It won't hurt!

Taking my post color.... (ha, me claiming ownership over a color. <_<)

Anyone here interested in soccer? (I normally call it football but all the Amerians will get confused)

I want to debate someone on it, or start a thread on it, but I want to make sure there's enough interest first.

That sounds like something interesting to pick something out of. Except I shouldn't really say anything since I'm not guaranteed time anymore.

I read that to get admission into the DH, there is some debater challenge I have to do here. So naturally, I'm here to ask, am I elligible to attempt this challenge?

I've already made a thread and a few posts. They're pretty easy to see consdering every post I've made has been in here, so you can just use the "find all posts made by Bookworm" function to see what I've done.

If I'm not ready, how close am I?/how much more do I have to do?

Do it whenever you feel you're ready. Just gauge yourself with how you feel you're doing in the thread's you're posting in now.
(Judging from that line below your name it might be later.)

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Taking my post color.... (ha, me claiming ownership over a color. <_<)

Get robbed :bandit:

(Judging from that line below your name it might be later.)

I lost.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I support GM jack for debate hall.

http://www.smashboards.com/showpost.php?p=11122320&postcount=36

 

[Rizen]

'The doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws' vs free will? I don't see how the subjects conflict. ?

It's only conflicting because one chooses to look at it that way. Or one is predetermined to. Or circumstances, attitude, etc. From either view for whatever reason we're talking about the same thing. The debate's about different perspectives in labeling a disagreement. Can this be resolved by 'defeating' the opposition? Tomato/tomoto.

'The doctrine that all facts and events exemplify natural laws' vs free will? I don't see how the subjects conflict. ?

Err... because debates generally tend to talk about the same thing but argue different viewpoints of it. You've basically just confirmed what I just said. Same thing with tomato/tomoto. We'd argue for which pronunciation is correct. One solid way to defend one pronunciation is to get an English dictionary and look up the word. Unless you're arguing tomato/tomoto in some other language, the person who just pulled out the dictionary pretty much stuck the nail in the coffin.

One can go about defeating the opposition for whatever, but debate topics are debatable for the reason that they could go either way. Just because someone defeats another person's points in debate doesn't mean that one thing is right and that another isn't, it just reflects that one person brought up stronger and more convincing points than another. (I wish there was a smiley for shrugs.)

Tomato/tomoto is a figure of speech. Arguments about subjective topics can fill the history of human kind. Ones like this. I don't believe anyone is without bias but some things can be proven as facts too. Maybe I don't like the (please excuse the expression) black and white format. To simply defend an argument and defeat another can't view either in a realistic sense. When people spend energy and time arguing the subjective it diverts from common ground and issues that can be proven right or wrong through facts.
A big recent issue was abortion. Here's an example from a different debate (I'm Rizen):

@ prolife and prochoice supporters:
Sometimes prolife is prochoice, and prochoice should always be in the best interest of preserving life. (Excuse the phrase) some times we can't have out cake and eat it too. Fighting with the other group does not help life which both groups should have as utmost concern. No one will change their mind. What's you're next move?

I realy can't justify giving up from the pro-life side because from my standpoint, millions of innocent humans are being killed.

Pro choice supporters won't give up because they are defending life too, the mother's, people who could be cured from stem-cell research. The only people I don't agree with on some level are idealists who fight for the principle but not life.
Most pro life and pro choice people want the best for life as they see it. Giving up is literally giving up on helping life from either viewpoint; it won't happen. Considering the resources and time invested in defeating the other side, I consider a compromised approach the best to support life. A stalemate does not help either side's cause.

(Sorry I'm in a bad mood) people pick the most emotional and subjective arguments to distract from actually solving a problem. This isn't referring to these boards, just making that clear. One of my biggest pet peeves is when someone can't answer a question. People will sidetrack and do just about anything before admitting their views were flawed. One of my favorites is 'Q: what about the 47 million uninsured Americans? A: They should find jobs.'
In my opinion an 'us vs them' format without realistic presentation, or my side's not perfect either, and at least constructive incite about the opposition if not a solution as the outcome is an argument. Debate's accomplish something.

Natural laws vs freewill: I have to say both. I can't defend one without the other.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I know this is more of a social thread topic and not a center stage but I do now know if this would make a good debate. Basically I wish to state that while in certain areas censoring stuff is understandable that censoring bad words is not helpful because it is the intent that does the emotional damage, for example if I scream Fudge instead of **** to a child who does not know both of the words, **** or Fudge would do the same damage. And that a majority of power foul language has is created by are culture. I do not wish to debate it here I do not think I am quite ready for another debate at center stage, however I do wish to know if this would be a good debate topic. Also I would like to ask for advice on how to get better what are some of the common mistakes I am making? What can I do to improve my skills as a debater?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Dragoon, i'm pretty sure you're ready for a center stage debate.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Dragoon, i'm pretty sure you're ready for a center stage debate.

Very well, I wish to challenge a debater to a debate on center stage. Who am I facing this time?
I will let them pick the subject and, if they wish, my position on the subject.

Also I just read Dre's public apology, I wish to let him know that it is ok and that everyone makes mistakes. Just curious, is that why bookworm was banned? (I felt really sorry for bookworm as I could not see a single reason as to why he/she was banned, but if it is Dre then I can understand why.)

 

[Dre89]

Thanks mate.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Very well, I wish to challenge a debater to a debate on center stage. Who am I facing this time?
I will let them pick the subject and, if they wish, my position on the subject.

I will debate you. Pick any topic and position that makes you comfortable. I'd like to see how well you do when you are debating a topic you are comfortable with. Perhaps the censorship debate would be good. Please remember that I will take whatever position opposes yours, and it may or may not reflect my true opinions on the matter.

Also I just read Dre's public apology, I wish to let him know that it is ok and that everyone makes mistakes. Just curious, is that why bookworm was banned? (I felt really sorry for bookworm as I could not see a single reason as to why he/she was banned, but if it is Dre then I can understand why.)

Yes, that is why bookworm was banned. It is explicitly stated in the SWF global rules that any alternate accounts are prohibited and will be banned.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I will debate you. Pick any topic and position that makes you comfortable. I'd like to see how well you do when you are debating a topic you are comfortable with. Perhaps the censorship debate would be good. Please remember that I will take whatever position opposes yours, and it may or may not reflect my true opinions on the matter.

Alright, I have never had a debate on censorship before, but I would like to debate that topic.

My Argument
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Censorship does have a good underlying motive its methodology and the results there of needs to be fixed as it is not helping. While certain things do need to be censored for the soul reason that certain content could be to mature for a (very) young audience, censorship in certain areas is a futile effort and in some (circumstantial) cases can even be harmful.

Example 1 censoring bad/fowl language/words.

This is an example of a problem with censorship because the meaning of the word is not lost upon censorship. If I type the word "*****" in a sentence you still understand I said the word "*****" based upon the context of the word and its usage (Not in this case because it is out of context and not used properly but I think you understand the point I am trying to make).
Further more some of this words have power because we as a culture give them power (E.I. loaded words are loaded because we allow them to be loaded). For example if I say "Fudge" in the context of "****" in the same angry tone of voice to a child the child will still get the message regardless weather it is censored or not. If it is a non-child in question, once again it is not a big unknown puzzle as to what is said, they know. Now the reason why they wish to censor it is a noble one but in the case of censoring bad/fowl language, it is truly a futile effort and is really all not helpful or beneficial.

(Sorry for providing one example I left the keyboard for an extended period of time and it is getting kind of late as of this typing. I would like to extend the debate beyond this one point, but I think this is a good starting point for now.)

Edit: Now that I think about it I would like to start the debate with this one point and build up to the other points latter.

 

[KrazyGlue]

This is an example of a problem with censorship because the meaning of the word is not lost upon censorship. If I type the word "*****" in a sentence you still understand I said the word "*****" based upon the context of the word and its usage (Not in this case because it is out of context and not used properly but I think you understand the point I am trying to make).

I do understand the point you are trying to make. However, you would only know "*****" was supposed to be there if you already know what the word means. What if some little kid was flipping through TV channels and ended up hearing that word because it wasn't censored?

Further more some of this words have power because we as a culture give them power (E.I. loaded words are loaded because we allow them to be loaded). For example if I say "Fudge" in the context of "****" in the same angry tone of voice to a child the child will still get the message regardless weather it is censored or not. If it is a non-child in question, once again it is not a big unknown puzzle as to what is said, they know. Now the reason why they wish to censor it is a noble one but in the case of censoring bad/fowl language, it is truly a futile effort and is really all not helpful or beneficial.

True, explicit words are only explicit because we treat them that way. But our culture isn't going to change that much any time soon, and we need to respect the fact that in the current state of the world, these words shouldn't be heard by little children. If you keep saying "****" to a little kid instead of "fudge", they will eventually use that word as an expression of anger. When they say that word in school, the faculty and administration will not take it lightly. You can be suspended from school for using vulgar language (at least in my school district), meaning the kid could suffer educationally all due to you bringing them up incorrectly.

(Sorry for providing one example I left the keyboard for an extended period of time and it is getting kind of late as of this typing. I would like to extend the debate beyond this one point, but I think this is a good starting point for now.)

No problem, we'll just start from here. I don't need this to be a full official debate, I just need to see what skills you have.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Hi. Would anyone like to debate me? I'm honestly not that good, so it will make you look a lot better to everybody else. We could try to make it casual or something like that so you're not stressed out. Also, we won't kick things off probably until Friday or next Friday giving us adequate time to look up stuff that we can share during our discussion. I'm pretty weak in political topics, but I can try my best. I also suck at everything else to be honest which is why I don't want to choose the debate topic myself It'll be fun though. Seriously.

Debater up for grabs: ?
Topic: ?
Position: ?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Any PGers who are eager to prove themselves to the DHers should take up Acrostic's offer.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

I do understand the point you are trying to make. However, you would only know "*****" was supposed to be there if you already know what the word means. What if some little kid was flipping through TV channels and ended up hearing that word because it wasn't censored?

In one sense I agree with you however in are internet connected culture it is a true challenge to sensor everything and more likely then not the kid will hear about the word before/during elementary. Even if the parents do everything in there power to keep the word from coming into the house and TV/Radio keep on doing what they are currently doing, more likely then not the kid will learn of the word and possibly use it once or twice.

True, explicit words are only explicit because we treat them that way. But our culture isn't going to change that much any time soon, and we need to respect the fact that in the current state of the world, these words shouldn't be heard by little children.

Why should it not be heard by children in the united states and I am presuming the Europe powers (What country are we debating about)?

If you keep saying "****" to a little kid instead of "fudge", they will eventually use that word as an expression of anger. When they say that word in school, the faculty and administration will not take it lightly.

You can be suspended from school for using vulgar language (at least in my school district), meaning the kid could suffer educationally all due to you bringing them up incorrectly.

The parents should be proactive in preventing there child's usage of the word. Not by passively censoring the word but by explaining to the kid the situation and giving an honest discussion to there kids as to the results of using it in school.

 

[KrazyGlue]

In one sense I agree with you however in are internet connected culture it is a true challenge to sensor everything and more likely then not the kid will hear about the word before/during elementary. Even if the parents do everything in there power to keep the word from coming into the house and TV/Radio keep on doing what they are currently doing, more likely then not the kid will learn of the word and possibly use it once or twice.

Of course their kid will eventually figure out those words, but the parents should discuss why these words are bad and set a good example for their children. And TV/Radio broadcasters have every right to censor their program however they want. Ever consider that some people get offended/embarrassed just from hearing some of those words? Especially more offensive ones like "female dog" and the "N-word".

Why should it not be heard by children in the united states and I am presuming the Europe powers (What country are we debating about)?

No country in particular is being debated here; rather, we are discussing the ethics of the issue. Why shouldn't children hear it? Well, I've already offered one explanation:

If you keep saying "****" to a little kid instead of "fudge", they will eventually use that word as an expression of anger. When they say that word in school, the faculty and administration will not take it lightly.

You can be suspended from school for using vulgar language (at least in my school district), meaning the kid could suffer educationally all due to you bringing them up incorrectly.

The parents should be proactive in preventing there child's usage of the word. Not by passively censoring the word but by explaining to the kid the situation and giving an honest discussion to there kids as to the results of using it in school.

They should indeed have a candid discussion on why not to use the word, as that will help the child understand the reasoning. However, if parents openly curse around their children they are setting an example for them. If parents want to prevent their child from cursing, they need to set a good example, because children tend to follow their parents' lead.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

While researching my counter argument I hit a huge amount of info, I would like 2-3 days to organize the info and decide what is necessary and what is unnecessary. Is that ok?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Eh... ok, I guess...

I mean, don't feel obligated to do so much research. But yeah, if you need the time, go ahead.

 

[Dabuz]

think im ready for the DH despite being reasonably new

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I'll take you on, dabuz. Pick your poison.

 

[Dabuz]

ummmmm...hmmmmmm, lets do the violent video game discussion, do video games promote violence/ is it reasonable to say they are a major contributor to violence among people? I will be on the side of they don't promote violence/ aren't a major contributor to violence, if that seems like a reasonable topic to you

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Mmk, I'll start.

You know how if you see somebody do something over and over again, you (usually) pick up on it? This could be said about violent videogames: you watch the player kill and/or torture people, and that could happen throughout the whole game, meaning that you see it over and over again.

 

[Dabuz]

Mmk, I'll start.

You know how if you see somebody do something over and over again, you (usually) pick up on it? This could be said about violent videogames: you watch the player kill and/or torture people, and that could happen throughout the whole game, meaning that you see it over and over again.

Yes, in most games often the player repetitively kills people or fight some sort of monsters, and yes, humans pick up on habits or actions by repetition, although, in a game, there are no consequences, if the player kills an enemy, its just polygons, the player is not killing another person, so the mental factor and mental will is not needed. For most people, the mental factor of being able to kill, being able to suffer/ escape the consequences, really wanting to kill, ect. are non-existent, so it does not teach the player how to control emotions before murder/ violence.

Physically, in a game you are pressing buttons in a controller, the player learns to replicate a series of button presses, not the actual tactic to kill someone, and games make killing/ using weapon a lot easier than it really is; in a way, the use of controller actually makes transferring the sights in game to real life even harder compared to how TV and movies show things a little bit more realistically.

Also, there are a lot of players that use violent games as another method of relieving stress, there are people who are ironically diverted from real violence because in game violence helps them calm down, similar to how someone might squeeze a stress ball because they are angry and want to hurt someone or break something

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yes, in most games often the player repetitively kills people or fight some sort of monsters, and yes, humans pick up on habits or actions by repetition, although, in a game, there are no consequences, if the player kills an enemy, its just polygons, the player is not killing another person, so the mental factor and mental will is not needed. For most people, the mental factor of being able to kill, being able to suffer/ escape the consequences, really wanting to kill, ect. are non-existent, so it does not teach the player how to control emotions before murder/ violence.

However, with new, realistic technology, it's becoming more like watching someone kill somebody else.

Physically, in a game you are pressing buttons in a controller, the player learns to replicate a series of button presses, not the actual tactic to kill someone, and games make killing/ using weapon a lot easier than it really is; in a way, the use of controller actually makes transferring the sights in game to real life even harder compared to how TV and movies show things a little bit more realistically.

I would actually consider today's games very realistic.

Also, there are a lot of players that use violent games as another method of relieving stress, there are people who are ironically diverted from real violence because in game violence helps them calm down, similar to how someone might squeeze a stress ball because they are angry and want to hurt someone or break something

I'm pretty sure no normal person plays violent video games to releive their stress.

 

[Dabuz]

However, with new, realistic technology, it's becoming more like watching someone kill somebody else.



I would actually consider today's games very realistic.

please go into more depth about why you say this, i know there are better graphics and basic motion controls, but those are not good enough to simulate violence completely realistically yet

I'm pretty sure no normal person plays violent video games to releive their stress.

Actually there are, not everyone does, most people who play games don't, but, there a still a lot of gamers that will use games to relieve stress. There was a violent flash game made by adult swim on cartoon network, called "Five Minutes to Kill Yourself" which, when advertised on TV, actually mentioned a way to take away stress, the game was very popular and well received. People love punching things, throwing things, hurting others, ect. when angry just because people naturally get calmed down by such actions. In games you can do all of that, and there many people who do all of that (not a large percent of the game community, but the game community itself is enormous). This can largely be contributed to online games, because, a lot of people will say they want to kill X person or punch Y person when angry, in online games like street fighter, they can actually kill X person or punch Y person without consequences or actually harming more than the person's character.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

please go into more depth about why you say this, i know there are better graphics and basic motion controls, but those are not good enough to simulate violence completely realistically yet

Have you even seen some violent video games?

Actually there are, not everyone does, most people who play games don't, but, there a still a lot of gamers that will use games to relieve stress. There was a violent flash game made by adult swim on cartoon network, called "Five Minutes to Kill Yourself" which, when advertised on TV, actually mentioned a way to take away stress, the game was very popular and well received. People love punching things, throwing things, hurting others, ect. when angry just because people naturally get calmed down by such actions. In games you can do all of that, and there many people who do all of that (not a large percent of the game community, but the game community itself is enormous). This can largely be contributed to online games, because, a lot of people will say they want to kill X person or punch Y person when angry, in online games like street fighter, they can actually kill X person or punch Y person without consequences or actually harming more than the person's character.

[/quote]

"5 minutes to kill yourself" is very different than these types of violent video games in question.

 

[Dabuz]

Have you even seen some violent video games?

yes i have, owning all 3 gaming consoles, playing the new games regularly, and having friends who play pretty much every new game which i regularly come over and watch, I've seen the types of games there are. From Gears of War, to God of war, GTA, ect. I have seen all the games, very few games depict realistic violence, because games like gears and god of war show completely impossible worlds, enemies, weapons, and situations. No gamer can take away realistic ideas of killing from unrealistic games, also, people understand games are not real, keep that in mind, we don't watch movies like Kill Bill and then try to kill hundreds of people in bloody ways with a sword for revenge, nor do people play GTA then steal a tank and blow up half of a city.

"5 minutes to kill yourself" is very different than these types of violent video games in question.

Not really, its still a violent video game, the concept is original, but the idea is still to murder someone in violent ways.

 

[vVv Rapture]

I'm just going to say that violence in Grand Theft Auto, while not completely realistic (but mostly is), is very possible and actually reflective of what goes on in many urban settings.

And people do kill others with chainsaws ala Gears.

Continue.

 

[Dabuz]

I'm just going to say that violence in Grand Theft Auto, while not completely realistic (but mostly is), is very possible and actually reflective of what goes on in many urban settings.

And people do kill others with chainsaws ala Gears.

Continue.

To respond to your post, i'm going to go back to the question of this debate

"do video games promote violence/ is it reasonable to say they are a major contributor to violence among people?"

Grand Theft Auto came out after urban violence and drug dealing was active violence was active, GTA was actually based on what goes on in the city, it is not the cause of city violence.

For gears of war, once again, chainsaws have been used long before the game came out, gears also shows your character running up to aliens in the ground with a chainsaw attached to a gun, no one can replicate that. I dare you to find me one article that can solidly link Gears of War to someone killing with a chainsaw.

Btw, there have been multiple studies done on this idea of games causing violence, and none of the studies have shown a correlation between playing violent games and developing violent tendencies

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

yes i have, owning all 3 gaming consoles, playing the new games regularly, and having friends who play pretty much every new game which i regularly come over and watch, I've seen the types of games there are. From Gears of War, to God of war, GTA, ect. I have seen all the games, very few games depict realistic violence, because games like gears and god of war show completely impossible worlds, enemies, weapons, and situations. No gamer can take away realistic ideas of killing from unrealistic games, also, people understand games are not real, keep that in mind, we don't watch movies like Kill Bill and then try to kill hundreds of people in bloody ways with a sword for revenge, nor do people play GTA then steal a tank and blow up half of a city.

Do you need an impossible world to kill somebody?

Also, does it matter wether it's an alien or a gangster pointing a shotgun to your head?

Not really, its still a violent video game, the concept is original, but the idea is still to murder someone in violent ways.

What I meant is, killing yourself is very different than killing another person.

 

[Dabuz]

Do you need an impossible world to kill somebody?

Also, does it matter wether it's an alien or a gangster pointing a shotgun to your head?

Yes it does, its much easier for people to kill a different life form, which is why animal hunters aren't rare, same could be said about aliens. So if aliens came to earth, based on human nature, we would not have as much mental difficulty killing aliens if need be.

Also, one point I'd like to make is a good portion of violence is urban violence, but, people in urban settings who are violent gang members, murderers, rapists, ect. often come from broken families which were poor or just didn't buy their kids games for W/E reasons, so a good percentage of those violent people have not been affected by games.

What I meant is, killing yourself is very different than killing another person.

I pointed this game out because it was a violent game meant to reduce stress (or at least that was mentioned when it was advertised). Obviously killing yourself requires a completely different mental mindset.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Yes it does, its much easier for people to kill a different life form, which is why animal hunters aren't rare, same could be said about aliens. So if aliens came to earth, based on human nature, we would not have as much mental difficulty killing aliens if need be.

It's still murder.

Also, one point I'd like to make is a good portion of violence is urban violence, but, people in urban settings who are violent gang members, murderers, rapists, ect. often come from broken families which were poor or just didn't buy their kids games for W/E reasons, so a good percentage of those violent people have not been affected by games.

So urban gangsters make up all of today's violence? Never new that.

 

[Dabuz]

It's still murder.

not real murder, hence why its a game

So urban gangsters make up all of today's violence? Never new that.

nope, never sad that, just a good amount of it

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Once Dabuz and Dark Horse are finished, would anyone like to go a round? Or can 2 people go at once? I don't really have a set topic in mind though.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Once Dabuz and Dark Horse are finished, would anyone like to go a round? Or can 2 people go at once? I don't really have a set topic in mind though.

I'll debate you. Also, two people can go at the same time. Pick a topic and a position you will feel comfortable debating.

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

Must I pick a topic? I really have nothing in mind.