In the spirit of the presidential debates, I have decided to begin a series of debates on various hot topics. I love the internet and I love debating. I’ll sling the mud around until I get bored, but the thing that keeps me interested is debating serious issues. The problem is that the inherent internet anarchy is that it tends to degenerate into pointless mudslinging and that just gets stale.
Thus my plan for moderated debates. If you’ve got something to say on the forthcoming list of topics, then click the forthcoming link and have your say. But here are the rules.
- No mudslinging. Period. You want to tell me how stupid you think I am or how pointless my blog is? Fine by me, just don’t do it in one of these threads. I’ll create a meta debates page eventually where you can lash out at me all you want. I don’t care what side of the aisle you come from, if even a portion of your post attacks someone else, the whole thing gets deleted.
- Opinions are allowed; however, you must make an effort to back them up with verifiable sources. A verifiable source is not a blog unless it is the blog from a news organization. A verifiable source is not World Net Daily or Daily Kos (though they may have links to articles that are verifiable sources). One caveat is that if a source claims to have been told or witnessed something first hand, they can be considered a valid source. A post that is full of opinions and no sources to back it up will be considered for deletion if it doesn’t add to the debate.
- All bickering about the validity of sources will be done on the forthcoming meta debates page. Any source bickering or saying something like “the Huffpo is all liberal smear!” in the occasion that the Huffington Post meets the previous verifiability guidelines (i.e. if they have posted something they claim to be first-hand information, will get the comment deleted. Period. This goes for any source of information, conservative or liberal.
- Any issues you have with anything outside of the debate topic (questions about rules, complaints about rule breaking, etc) sill be done in the meta debate page.
- These rules can be altered at any time by me, by joining in with the debates, you agree to follow my rules. There are plenty of other places to go and bicker like other posts on my blog, your own blog, digg, fark, etc.
The first topic that we debate will be gay marriage. Link is forthcoming.
3 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
[...] Moderated debates [...]
Not trying to shit on you any more, but your rules are obsurd. You seem to not be able to grasp what a “newsworthy” website is or is not. You claim Fox News is a legit source, yet they link to wnd.com (see foxnews.com, homepage, Oct. 1, 2008).
Allowing any website that they have been “told is right” or “witnessed first hand”, going with your logic, should not make that website credible. If so, then you are opening yourself up to using A LOT of websites with lies and fake stories- such as those with “alien sightings”.
Your rules are not fair. If you want to have a debate, which we will about gay marriage, then you should change your rules to be reasonable.
You’re arguing the rules now? Of course you are. First off, where did I mention anything about Fox News? If World Net Daily or Daily Kos (two sites that are verifiably partisan) is the only source for something, then that source doesn’t count. If some other site links to WND or DKos, then that source doesn’t count (and should make you question the veracity of the website that linked to them).
I can’t list every single page that exists and whether or not that page is a worthwhile source. We’ll argue sources in the meta debate if required. I’m not worried about it.
What other rules do you find to be not fair?