New debate & proof.

MrPudding

Quick question. Are the debaters under any obligation to produce links to back up their comments or can they spout figures of a dubious nature without any need to actually prove they haven’t made them up?

This is something that has happened in threads on this subject and personally I expect the contributors in this debate to be held to a higher standard.

So, Beat, can you provide links to the evidence that 40% of all births in the country are to non-nationals? Further, can you give a breakdown of how many are born to evil asylum seekers and not just people from England or other parts of the EU? And finally can you explain how the referendum will address this “problem?”

Thanks

MrP

TheWolf

Something I was also wondering. Beat said that the "Master of the Coombe" said "that 40% of all births in the country are to non-nationals" yet didnt back it up

Sure 97% of statistics are made up

But yeah, a few more sources for his info would be nice. I also liked the dramatic finish

A change must be made now while you are given the chance

Imposter

Originally posted by MrPudding
Quick question. Are the debaters under any obligation to produce links to back up their comments or can they spout figures of a dubious nature without any need to actually prove they haven’t made them up?

This is something that has happened in threads on this subject and personally I expect the contributors in this debate to be held to a higher standard.

So, Beat, can you provide links to the evidence that 40% of all births in the country are to non-nationals? Further, can you give a breakdown of how many are born to evil asylum seekers and not just people from England or other parts of the EU? And finally can you explain how the referendum will address this “problem?”

Thanks

MrP

This is surely something that the other team needs to highlight not something that should be written in the rules. Using dubious statistics is a bad idea in debates (not to mention this place in general ) as a good opposition will always trip someone up on it.

As for BEAT replying to your post you do realise that the debaters cannot see this forum (from their logged in account anyway).

TheWolf

Intresting. bobbyjoe came out and totaly smashed BEAT's arguement about the masters of the Coombe, and provided a link to it

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0313/citizenship.html

I like the way he challenged BEAT at the end to provide proof. Although I would probably be biased towards the YES side, I have to say bobbyjoe had the better opening arguement

TwoShedsJackson

I wouldn't worry about it too much as the No side can't produce a single shred of evidence to back up their claims.

Can't be arsed putting their posts through a spell-checker either by the looks of it.

sceptre

Both sides seem to have an element of that, TSJ. I suppose it isn't a spelling contest.

The smoking debate people seemesd to have the right idea with their one post a day and one retort by putting their chosen one post in a new thread so we could see they were trying to say something new.

Have we abandoned the "one per day and one retort per day" rule because of the server downtime? Seems to have been done in any case.

Being critical, my last long post in the long Politics citizenship thread still stands. Bloody statistics:rolleyes:.

bonkey

Originally posted by sceptre
Have we abandoned the "one per day and one retort per day" rule because of the server downtime? Seems to have been done in any case.

I've been wondering about that too.

jc

oscarBravo

Arcade is up to nine posts in the debate so far.

I mean, wtf?

TheWolf

Seems a bit messier than the last one alright :mad:

uncivilservant

I had hoped it would be a debate and not a running argument.

Perhaps more thought might have been given to the selection of participants? Or does that defeat the purpose?

sceptre

Christ the whole thing has become a farce. As someone who went to the trouble to read the Chen judgement, understood it and posted a pretty concise summary explaining how it worked and why (in the long rambling amendment thread over n the Politics forum) I'm rather shocked at the plain ignorance (which I can only assume is deliberate) being displayed in the debate about the case or even that it's being discussed at all as a major issue. No offence to the one poster that appears to have done some actual research on the thing above and beyond what I posted (and probably even read the summary, heck, might have even read the Advocate-General's opinion)

Nul points from me I'm afraid. Obviously the problems with the server played a factor in the delaying of the beginning of the debate but it's been pretty cruddy. And "hey, why not do it yourself if you feel like acting the cnut about it" is not a valid defence.