Lisbon Treaty Debate on boards.ie

nesf

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62216835

Nominations for the teams are now open. Join in it should prove very interesting!

Rb

This should be fantastic.

nesf

Rb wrote: »

This should be fantastic.

Damn your late conversion tbh. You were one of the more logical and coherent No posters.

Rb

nesf wrote: »

Damn your late conversion tbh. You were one of the more logical and coherent No posters.

I'm looking forward to logic from one side and lunacy from the other, if nothing else it should be entertaining.

turgon

Actually Rb, would you fill in for the No side anyway? I cant see 4 No voters coming forward voluntarily to a structured debate in which their comments are judged.

Or maybe Im wrong.

BlitzKrieg

I assume FutureTaoiseach's ban doesnt extend to the debating forum so he will probably be the central no debater.

Rb

I hope to see Defence Forces volunteer for this. It would be excellent.

Euro_Kraut

I nominate Run_to_da_hills for the NO side.

meglome

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I nominate Run_to_da_hills for the NO side.

I don't think he understands what evidence is. Well he never supplies any so I'm assuming. Anyway he has my vote

Daftendirekt

This should be very interesting.

Who'll be moderating this, out of curiosity?

Euro_Kraut

I have mentioned this over on the other thread, but I am willing to represent to NO side in this debate.

I would give it my best. Done plenty of Uni debating down through the years to taking a stand opposite to my own is not really a problem.

It could be a back up plan if we cannot get reasonable number for the NO side.

K-9

I would nominate Bonkey in addition to the above.

On the No side, there where a few last time, but my name is _url would be good and freeman and Greeno.

The only problem I see is that it will become a debate on the EU, rather than Lisbon and if moderators do step in based on relevance to Lisbon, we'll get the usual "free speech" argument.

nesf

Daftendirekt wrote: »

This should be very interesting.

Who'll be moderating this, out of curiosity?

As it stands, I don't know. The mods of the Politics forums will have no role in moderating the debate, that I can confirm.

DeVore

It will be moderated very lightly by the Judges and Dav/Darragh... to be honest we dont expect to have to moderate much as its up to the debaters to support their points with sources and up to the opposition to challenge them to do so.

DeV.

Daftendirekt

Makes sense.

Looking forward to it.

Sam Vimes

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

I have mentioned this over on the other thread, but I am willing to represent to NO side in this debate.

I would give it my best. Done plenty of Uni debating down through the years to taking a stand opposite to my own is not really a problem.

It could be a back up plan if we cannot get reasonable number for the NO side.

I don't know if that would work. I don't mean to sound facetious but because I assume you value honestly in the debate you won't give any of the points from the no side that aren't true which will miss out large parts of the debate and really leave you very little to say. It would require someone who actually believes all those points made by the no side so they can all be raised and shown to be the lies that they are. If you're saying things that you know are wrong people will just dismiss the debate as one yes voter throwing up flawed arguments for another to knock them down.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It would require someone who actually believes they can get away with making all those points made by the no side so they can all be raised and shown to be the lies that they are.

FYP, and don't worry, I believe FT is on the way...

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

FYP, and don't worry, I believe FT is on the way...

I wouldn't approve of that either tbh. The guy was permanently banned for spreading lies, let back in on condition that he stopped and then banned again because he didn't. If he's selected for the debate it could be taken that the boards admins see at least some validity is what he's saying and encourage people to believe him.

The yes voter in me sees him as the perfect choice as long as its made clear at the start of the debate that he's been banned twice for spreading lies because it lets everyone know that anything he says should be taken with a pinch of salt but that's not a fair way to start the debate. The most appropriate choice imo is someone who appears to genuinely believe what he's saying and who may even be convinced by the end, not someone who has repeatedly been shown to make points that he knows aren't true.

PopeBuckfastXVI

I'm quite happy to see him on there 'debating' for a No.

Scofflaw will rip his lies and fallacies to shreds, as he has continuously done. FT will not be able to hide behind thread and topic jumping, like he does in this forum. I notice on p.ie that as recently as yesterday that he was bringing up the ECJ ruling about the EU implementation of a UN resolution being not consistent with EU law, as an example of the ECJ disregarding a UN resolution, despite being told several times that it's not the case. He's addicted to his own lies, and give him all the rope he wants, I say.

ei.sdraob

DeVore wrote: »

its up to the debaters to support their points with sources and up to the opposition to challenge them to do so.

sources and references being given in a Lisbon debate by the NO side

i never taught ill see the day :eek:

im gonna get the popcorn and beer ready for this

Sam Vimes

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'm quite happy to see him on there 'debating' for a No.

Scofflaw will rip his lies and fallacies to shreds, as he has continuously done. FT will not be able to hide behind thread and topic jumping, like he does in this forum. I notice on p.ie that as recently as yesterday that he was bringing up the ECJ ruling about the EU implementation of a UN resolution being not consistent with EU law, as an example of the ECJ disregarding a UN resolution, despite being told several times that it's not the case. He's addicted to his own lies, and give him all the rope he wants, I say.

Maybe you're right. I suppose that one of the main things that allows these lies to spread here is for people to disappear when they've been proven wrong only to pop up a few days later on a different thread saying the same thing so we can all go around in a circle again. When its one thread and he has to back up his points there and then and can't get away with changing the subject or allowing other people to post for a while so everyone forgets what he said he'll be thoroughly annihilated.

ei.sdraob wrote: »

sources and references being given in a Lisbon debate by the NO side

i never taught ill see the day :eek:

im gonna get the popcorn and beer ready for this

They use them all the time. They just chop bits out of them to change their meaning or give interpretations that are ridiculously wrong but which are very difficult to prove to be wrong.

K-9

O'Morris would be good on the No side.

PopeBuckfastXVI

The Lisbon 'debate' reminds me of the 'debate' over evolution in the US.

If it takes 1 minute to tell a lie, and 2 minutes to refute it, given equal time, the Liar will always 'win' the 'debate'.

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

O'Morris would be good on the No side.

I dunno, O'Morris is anti-EU and makes good arguments against EU membership, but would he be able to separate that from a debate about the Lisbon treaty?

K-9

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I dunno, O'Morris is anti-EU and makes good arguments against EU membership, but would he be able to separate that from a debate about the Lisbon treaty?

That would tend to be a typical committed No voter. A lot tend to be pro EEC but Anti EU!

PopeBuckfastXVI

K-9 wrote: »

That would tend to be a typical committed No voter. A lot tend to be pro EEC but Anti EU!

I guess if people made it clear that they would roll right back on the EU in general, their opinions on Lisbon in particular could be judged in that light.

bonkey

K-9 wrote: »

I would nominate Bonkey in addition to the above.

Flattered though I am by your seal of approval, I'm not putting my name forward.

DeVore

We're having some difficulty sourcing No debaters... we have contacted Politics.ie and Coir but have a refusal from p.ie and no answer from Coir. (to be fair, P.ie refused on the basis that they didnt want to direct their traffic here).

We're still keen to source genuine No debaters and this is a fantastic opportunity to put forward both sides of the debate in a clean, rational manner. Something the country really needs right now.

If you know of or can contact any responsible No debaters, please direct them to this thread or any of our email contact points. Thanks!


DeV.

sink

DeVore wrote: »

We're having some difficulty sourcing No debaters... we have contacted Politics.ie and Coir but have a refusal from p.ie and no answer from Coir. (to be fair, P.ie refused on the basis that they didnt want to direct their traffic here).

We're still keen to source genuine No debaters and this is a fantastic opportunity to put forward both sides of the debate in a clean, rational manner. Something the country really needs right now.

If you know of or can contact any responsible No debaters, please direct them to this thread or any of our email contact points. Thanks!


DeV.

Sorry to but in here, but COIR rational debaters?

PHB

Wasn't there a Socialist Party member posting here a while back? panda100 I think.

turgon

How many No voters are you missing?

Its a pity I only found this today. I was in UCC Societies day yesterday and there were loads of No campaigners I could have asked.