Cigar Lounge Debate League Discussion Thread

[FromTheSouth]

We have to scrap week one. I am redoing the schedule tomorrow with people who want to participate.

Just as a couple of notes, from now on, if you no show without notifying me, you get docked a win. Secondly, I need to know with 16 hours of this post if anyone else wants to quit. If you have to miss a debate, let me know, so I can find you a pinch hitter.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

Just if you didn't get my Private Message, I am withdrawing from the Debator's League. With my Christmas roster up, the multiple holidays and family situation... the only time over the holidays I can dedicate to WZ will most likely be WZCW and posting my BT! shows on-time.

I'd like to apoligise about this, but the holidays are spur of the moment type deals.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

So, what are the rules governing last-minute posts? Let's say, for instance, that my opponent comes in with an opening argument and rebuttal right before the deadline. Would I then get the opportunity to respond?

 

[Turd Ferguson]

Yeah, that's a very good question. It wouldn't be fair for an opponent to post something right at deadline, giving themselves something such as a 3-2 advantage in posts.

 

[gd]

According to the rules, they could do that. There is no scoring for punctuality in these debates, only a winner and loser. They could finish their posts 1 minute before the deadline, it'd be fine.

 

[FromTheSouth]

If the last post in the thread is with 30 minutes of the deadline, you can have a one hour extension to respond.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Standings
AFC
IC 3 13
UT#1F 0 0
Gelgarin 2 141
Tastycles 1 141
Guy 3 102
CP 0 86
Leafy Shuffleboard 0 85

NFC
Razor 3 119
NSL 0 66
TSG 0 81
MRC 3 108
Dave 0 0
Tdigle 3 131
Lee 3 117

The first number is the number of wins. Gelgarin and Tasty were the only two to split votes. That one vote Tasty got could wind up huge later in the league. The second number is their aggregate points.

Round two will be extended for one additional week due to the log in problems.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I have 3 votes but only 13 points?

I think you missed a digit or two.

 

[NSL]

OK, well you guys both missed the point of the topic. The thread was asking whether the process by which evidence is collected and processed is more important than finding the truth. It asked whether it was more important to give one his miranda rights and not coerce a confession, than it is to find out who is guilty. Basically, is the right to an attorney more important than society's right to prosecute.

Even after you define the topic, I still don't get it. Dave and I spent a solid hour trying to figure out what the statement was...

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Even after you define the topic, I still don't get it. Dave and I spent a solid hour trying to figure out what the statement was...

At least the topics are becoming a little more clear-cut. I'm still waiting for the polygamy and bestiality debates, though. Oh, and I'd love to see a debate about the morality of "shock sites."

 

[NSL]

At least the topics are becoming a little more clear-cut. I'm still waiting for the polygamy and bestiality debates, though. Oh, and I'd love to see a debate about the morality of "shock sites."

My topic this week is probably the easiest to understand of the ones I've looked at.

The ones you named are all pretty interesting as well.

 

[FromTheSouth]

NSL-

The question was whether we need to stick to the prescribed legal methods for collecting evidence or should be go balls out to find the truth. Should we torture? Should we coerce confessions? Should lawyers be able to question methods for collecting evidence instead of arguing the evidence presented.

 

[NSL]

NSL-

The question was whether we need to stick to the prescribed legal methods for collecting evidence or should be go balls out to find the truth. Should we torture? Should we coerce confessions? Should lawyers be able to question methods for collecting evidence instead of arguing the evidence presented.

Well that's a lot easier...

And, lawyers can question the methods of collecting evidence, just not in the courtroom.

 

[FromTheSouth]

Lawyers can question those measures in the courtroom. Look at the way Mark Furman was vilified. Look at the way Scheck questioned the way DNA was handled. There are multiple instances of evidence collection being questioned. The question of the thread is whether or not these questions are more important than finding the guilty party guilty.

 

[NSL]

I was really hoping tdigs' post would clarify the question a bit...And, it didn't.

I'll have to do some hardcore thinking and figuring before putting "pen to paper" here. Expect a post up late Friday or Saturday.

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Can the judges please get their judging on? We've had to wait two weeks...please see it in your heart to put up some new debates tonight as well...thank you very much!

 

[gd]

The debates just ended today, didn't they? I'm pretty sure FTS gave an extension, or else I would've already done them. I'll try to get most of them done tomorrow, if I can't, probably will have to wait till Wednesday.

 

[Lee]

Yeah I was told we had a week extension on this as I was a bit worried for missing the deadline. Hence why I've been able to post this week on it

 

[FromTheSouth]

Another round is extended. Sunday January 3, 2010 will be the end of this round.

 

[Dave]

Can we have some new topics up FTS?

 

[Cena's Little Helper]

Can we have some new topics up FTS?

The Debater's League is done for this go around. Check out the thread in the Bar Room.

 

[Lee]

ANy chance of getting round 5 judged?

 

[gd]

I thought it was over, but I just read FTS's thread in the bar room again. I'll try to get to them ASAP.

 

[Lee]

I'm in London Monday through to Wednesday so won't be able to do my debate next week until then, I suggest my opponent goes first.

 

[Lee]

Didn't Dave get more points than Baller?