Mock Debate, Thread 1: Censorship - Comments
 

Welcome to thread 1 of a three-thread 'disscussion'. As many of you may have read here, I've been trying to put togethor a 'Mock Debate' in which participants would debate an issue from a viewpoint not nessicerily their own. After much ado, we're ready to begin. 'Censorship' is the issue being discussed, and we have four participants divided into two teams of two.

The idea is this; This thread that you are currently reading is meant for a general disscussion of the issue ('Censorship') and observations of the four participants. The debate itself will take place in this thread.

So please, participate. Give us your opinion here, and watch thread 2 carefully. Remember that no one besides Jack of SpadesDeath By Stabbing, Spazzhands, Gorefiend, or myself, should be posting in the main debate thread. Any comments you have on the issue, or on one of the aforementioned user's style of arguing (watch the flames please) should be posted in the thread you are currently reading.*

If possible, wait for the 2nd thread to start before posting here. Thank you for your compliance, and I look foreward to your comments!

*shiney has advised me to modify this excercise in the future, so that the debate itself becomes a little less exclusive. I'd like to do this again, and will most likely make that change. As it stands for this paticular 'round', we'll be sticking with everything I've outlined so far.

Could spazzhands organize his statement better? I understand he's enthusiastic, and I got most of the points he was trying to make - however, it could use a little neatening. He does have time to format it, after all, and this is the written word, where speech techniques function differently from spoken debates.

I've revised it a bit. I hope its clearer.
Sorry, whenever Im writing for a debate im used to using emotively and colloquially, im not used to litterate audiences who understand individual facts :p

The he colors are too bright. Just identify posts with a color at the beginning, and write in normal. It's just to unappealing to read.

Makes sense. I hope the debaters can find the time to make an edit.

Spazz, I like your opening statment. Its a little short, but I think it was a decent enough way to open up the discussion.

Gorefiend, your response, while a bit lack-luster, was actually pretty brialliant IMO.

Good Job to both posters so far. Spazz did a nice overall coverage against censorship (and I think him again for covering for me in my absence). Gorefiend also had a good statement. I think; however, that he could have focused on censorship as a whole rather than,for the most part, the news.


Blue is too bright! The contast with black is staggering. Perhaps changing it to Sienna or maybe a dark red would be better.

Thank you. I am honored. I actually read this last night, but given the time (past 12) and the fact that I had class today, I couldn't respond. You guys made my remaining 20 minutes of the day, though.

I'd also like to point out that that was the rebuttal, not the arguement. DBS was to make the arguement, I think. That is why I posted only about the news, to respond the spazzhand's statement.

DBS - He seems to really be forcing it here. I think that, while I applaud the effort in trying to make the point from a different side, DbS is really still looking at it from his camp... the arguments he makes are slightly ridiculous. This is how one against censorship might biasly view the other side's thought process, and I doubt very much that it's accurate for the majority. Nice effort, but something more belivable would help... Jack of Spades is going to rip you a new one with that as your statment. Be warned.

Seriously can't we change it off blue? I mean...look at it...it's so bright.

Team red would work good and still go against green... dark red at least

anyway back on topic.

I have to say DBS that was pretty funny. I've used almost that exact same arguement as the base of an essay I wrote last semester. I was supporting the communist dictatorship in Harrison Bergeron. I'll have my response up late Thursday or early Friday.

Thanks for the compliment. Anyway I still have to address the very valid points raised by Gorefiend, and DBS in his rebuttal did make a point that we should moniter what kids watch.



I'm sorry DBS I'm really trying not to sound rude, but your statment seemed like a parody of what somebody for censorship would say. Just...umm....think before you type, check grammer, and spelling. Maybe, I dunno, make a valid arguement.

DbS, I know it's hard to argue for something you dislike. Trust me, I do. (read any post I've made on any thread concerning censorship and you'll see my views on this are quite opposite what I'm argueing) but I'm trying to look at this from a neutral viewpoint. Do try to.

On another note, this isn't such a hard topic to argue, even for someone who has read and understands and agrees with Fahrenheit 451. Just keep neutral, and sit down for five seconds and think like the other side. Censorship can be useful. Even I, a rather anti-censorship guy, agree. Build on that.

And, frankly, as an anti-censorship guy, the claim that we can possibly censor out a dictatorship is ridiculous. You can dumb people down so they don't notice, but it will get waved in front of them on the media every day. I should know. Our president is becoming a dictator, and should his consience get the better of him, he also brought in the one man who has no conscience about that task. (If you've read my views in the "democracy really that good" thread, I was talkng about a good dictator. This guy would NOT be a good dictator. He'd probably spend all the national money on himself, then complain that things are going badly.) Yet, the media continues to say that we are in a dictatorship already (which we aren't officially, though as I said, it would be a step away...) One guy from the news said one morning "We are now officially 64 days into the dictatorship" and the same guy said, in an interview "what do you think of our president, err, I mean dictator" so, no, the media won't stop. If they won't stop in the backwater of Ecuador, they won't stop in the civilization of the US.