US Political debate thread

[BluePriest]

Discretion.  Not disgression.  But yes, I agree.

*facepalm* I think this could end up quite an interesting debate.

[gavsword]

My point was using facts to back up your opinion. You are welcome to post pure opinion, but you are going to look like an idiot if the statistics are against it and you can't support it. Doublecross, you have a good point and I should clarify that in the rules.

You are welcome to co-moderator this thread with me (or someone else if they want to).

[Kuu]

How are the teams going to work though? I'm not sure that they would. There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans that don't agree on things and it doesn't seem like it would work if people on the same team were disagreeing. There are definitely many people that disagree in the "other" category as well.

A topic that I would be interested in discussing is unions. Have unions outlived their usefulness? Where they ever useful? Are unions dangerous?

[gavsword]

How are the teams going to work though? I'm not sure that they would. There are plenty of Democrats and Republicans that don't agree on things and it doesn't seem like it would work if people on the same team were disagreeing. There are definitely many people that disagree in the "other" category as well.

A topic that I would be interested in discussing is unions. Have unions outlived their usefulness? Where they ever useful? Are unions dangerous?

I'll put it up next week, 5 topics is enough to vote on as is. Disagreements are part of politics and debate, it's impossible to have a perfect conversation where all of one side agrees wholeheartedly within their ranks, and disagrees with the other. That's not a debate, that's two ideas clashing because they are closed off to new ideas.

[LongDono]

We should put some rules for 'other" up. Someone from one side or another might sneak in to give it less power.
I would like to suggest that if one  person in "other" seems to far to one side that they be removed from "other". Also when we list the topics to be debated they should not have all the same views as one of the sides be it republicans or democrats.
I think "other" might be a little tricky because I am sure they will not have the same thoughts on the same subject all the time but I guess thats where weekly rotation comes in handy.
I would like to sign up as "other" now.

[gavsword]

We should put some rules for 'other" up. Someone from one side or another might sneak in to give it less power.
I would like to suggest that if one  person in "other" seems to far to one side that they be removed from "other". Also when we list the topics to be debated they should not have all the same views as one of the sides be it republicans or democrats.
I think "other" might be a little tricky because I am sure they will not have the same thoughts on the same subject all the time but I guess thats where weekly rotation comes in handy.
I would like to sign up as "other" now.

Sorry for a delayed response, but yes I do agree some ground rules should be put in place for "other". If someone on the "other" team is leaning to much one way or another than they will be warned and asked to apply for a new team the following week.

I'm thinking about pushing sign-ups back another week, since we only have 2 people signed up so far, for only one team, and I am crazy busy this week. Sound good?

[doublecross]

No arguments here.

[Essence]

Throw me in for Democrat, just because I'm used to writing from and defending their positions. 

[Five In One]

This seems interesting. I'll sign up as a Republican.

[BluePriest]

I suppose Ill go for republican.  Ill sign up to sign up at least.

[Neopergoss]

I want to debate foreign policy! (ie: torture, murder, indefinite detention, domestic spying and an ever-expanding police state, complete with Look Forwards Not Backwards™ freedom from accountability, and the demonization and media complicity that enables it. For starters.) And it's related to the economy, too, because we're spending billions each year on endless wars, including secret, recently revealed by wikileaks shadow wars (Yemen and Pakistan -- so far).

edit: And I have to agree with the creater of this topic: the two-party system is laaaame! Debate is very narrow and is dominated by lovers of the status quo.

As for teams, I will be up front and say that I find the Republicans much more repugnant, but the Democrats are also quite despicable. Just not as much. So I guess if I had to pick a team I'd feel much more comfortable calling it "Left" than "Democrat" (because the truth is that both political parties are dominated by moneyed interests). Besides that, Essence seems cool so I'll be on his team.

Oh, and nice to meet you everyone, I love this game and I'm passionate about politics so I naturally wandered here. Been playing the game for a couple of months or so but only found the forum recently.

"Dee Reynolds: [discussing high taxes] Why don't you try voting for once?
Mac: And what? Vote for the democrat who's going to blast me in the ass? Or the republican who's going to blast my ass? Either way, politics is all one big ass blasting. "

[gavsword]

Welcome Neopergoss, and thanks to everyone who has signed up so far. I am pleased to announce the topic of the first week will be:

Economics 101: Do tax cuts for the wealthy actually stimulate economic growth?  On the other side, does giving money to the very poor actually stimulate economic growth?

The poll for the second week is up. I posted very vague categories (the unions one is specific, but whatever) with the hopes of having a topic picked by thursday and then voting on two specific subcategories.

Keep em coming