stevelabny wrote:In the spirit of Around the Horn and Pardon the Interruption, you can answer a question the same way and still debate the reasons WHY.
I have to throw my hat in the ring with those who say they can't argue for something they don't believe in.
If I could, I'd be a sleazy salesman or a politician.
This isn't Harvard Law, this is a bunch of sports fans.
Although I am partially inclined to agree, I do understand where giants is coming from, and this is his tournament...we will discuss it again and see what can be done
Disagree. It's a greater test of argumentative skill to make a strong case for a position you actually disagree with than one you support. Anything else and there is the possibility you agree on everything. If the topics are picked well, both sides should be defensible.
It's not like you'll get 'Kevin Brown is a HoFer'.
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Bases this season: 0
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.
BritSox wrote:Disagree. It's a greater test of argumentative skill to make a strong case for a position you actually disagree with than one you support. Anything else and there is the possibility you agree on everything. If the topics are picked well, both sides should be defensible.
It's not like you'll get 'Kevin Brown is a HoFer'.
Sure both sides of the question are (hopefully) going to be defendable, but I tend to think that most of these pre-canned debates will be pretty bland until we run into a question where both sides feel pretty strongly about their position. That is what usually makes the natural debates that come up in the Cafe good.
BritSox wrote:Disagree. It's a greater test of argumentative skill to make a strong case for a position you actually disagree with than one you support. Anything else and there is the possibility you agree on everything. If the topics are picked well, both sides should be defensible.
It's not like you'll get 'Kevin Brown is a HoFer'.
Sure both sides of the question are (hopefully) going to be defendable, but I tend to think that most of these pre-canned debates will be pretty bland until we run into a question where both sides feel pretty strongly about their position. That is what usually makes the natural debates that come up in the Cafe good.
What BritSox touched on is what we were hoping would be more widespread opinion, although both sides can be seen. What we hope to have as we move deeper into the tournament is more debates where they are topics people feel strongly about...
CC.. ill let you chose which ever side you want first for our debate unless its like should the whalers be brought back to the nhl.. you know what side id have to take then
What if you made a list of debates, and people could pm you whether they were pro or con for it. They could rank like their top 5. Then you could match up people who were pro/con.
Of course, that could take a long time and Im sure it would still end up with people not having what they want. But I think it would still be an improvement.
suppasonic wrote:What if you made a list of debates, and people could pm you whether they were pro or con for it. They could rank like their top 5. Then you could match up people who were pro/con.
Of course, that could take a long time and Im sure it would still end up with people not having what they want. But I think it would still be an improvement.
That's a good idea, if the debators were active enough to do this every round, it could definitely be done
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by baseball6791 » Mon Mar 06, 2006 8:50 pm 
