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.

ei.sdraob

What about this @greeno guy > http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=62190019#post62190019


or @defence_forces > http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62187911&postcount=2516


theres also @Toiletroll


and there was that moderator (cant find his name) who was arguing me about democracy and Lisbon


also what about @hatrickpatrick he seems to be quite sensible his problem is loss of sovereignty > http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055682583

DeVore

We're looking for 4 No debaters and can probably squeeze 2 out of the nominations we have at the moment so we're looking for at least 2 more.

We would really like the No campaigners and proponents to come forward and engage in this debate. Ideally ones who can put forward their opinion/arguments in a rational and structured manner.

While its all very well to mock the opposition to your viewpoint, its vital that this country has a clear and informed debate about the impending vote. Debate is at the heart of democracy and the internet is unparralleled in its ability to allow the people have their say and ask questions in return.

I welcome all serious debaters of both sides to step forward and engage in such a debate.

DeV.

caseyann

Is it to late to nominate.
I nominate Sully for the No side.

DeVore

You should really ask someone before you nominate them

We'll keep the doors open for debaters up to the very last minute, probably Saturday evening.

DeV.

meglome

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and there was that moderator (cant find his name) who was arguing me about democracy and Lisbon

Was that walshb you were thinking of?

ei.sdraob

DeVore wrote: »

You should really ask someone before you nominate them

We'll keep the doors open for debaters up to the very last minute, probably Saturday evening.

DeV.

What happens if not enough people from the NO side steps up to debate? its strange that we are having hard time finding people to debate when they appear to be so vocal in their drive by postings....

its easier to create new accounts and post one liner slogans over and over than participate in reasoned debate

meglome

sub-x seems to be involved in the sovereign independent, maybe he'd like to have a go.

Euro_Kraut

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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.

I agree Sam. I am would only go forward as a last resort. It would be better to have a debate with those issues rather than no debate at all.

Believe you me once if was to argue on the NO side my natural competitiveness to win the debate I was in would superceed any wider feelings I have about the treaty! I am that shallow

Lets hope it doesn't come to that though. No harm to have a back up option if needs be. Plus we need to account for people pulling out at the last minute.

ei.sdraob

meglome wrote: »

Was that walshb you were thinking of?

yes himself

thanks

moondogspot

There is very much a pro yes bias in the Lisbon section of boards so it's hardly a shock that you

are struggling to find people to debate for the no side. Why would they even bother? Anyway I'm

sure most of those seen as a threat to the Yes camp have already been banned...unsurprisingly

enough.

BlitzKrieg

the debate has nothing to do with the EU section of boards, its not moderated by the same moderators nor is it subject to the same rules so those banned from the EU forum are welcomed to take part.

bonkey

moondogspot wrote: »

There is very much a pro yes bias in the Lisbon section of boards so it's hardly a shock that you are struggling to find people to debate for the no side.

It certainly comes as a shock to me that of the umpteen people who've claimed a bias against them expressing their point of view, not a single one (including yourself) has stepped up to avail of the opportunity being offered here...where part of the ground rules will be to ensure they get their say.

Why would they even bother?

Why would someone avail of the opportunity to be allowed voice their opinion, when their basic complaint is that this has been denied to them?

Unless they thought that there was more mileage from playing the "poor oppressed me" card than in actually making their case, I can't think of a single reason why they wouldn't bother, personally.

DeVore

Are you stepping forward? You will be expected to be civil but beyond that the debate will be allowed to follow its own course.

You up for it?

DeV.

Handsome Bob

Can I make one small request for this debate? If it's any way possible can someone outline what are the benefits of voting YES specific to Ireland? I don't really want to see for example what scofflaw has on his site:

http://www.lisbonexposed.org/

I don't want to see a general summary of how it is good for Europe as I know these points already, I want to see arguments for how this treaty will spefically benefit Ireland.

For the record, I'm voting yes mainly because I want a stronger EU with more power in fighting human and drug trafficking, I just think it would be nice to know if Ireland stands to gain anything personally here.

w00t

The Discussion is already happening? On boards and p.ie. Asking people to go off to some mini arena to microize the debate in an event type fashion, like it will be anyway helpful, seems a bit silly. As the event, if I might use that phrase, is highlighted quite well on the site it is strange you are all hunting for No debaters. Perhaps they are happy enough with the Forums to discuss their points and issues?

Debates, teams and winners does not seem to hold much value on the Lisbon issue really, just on the debaters and the quality of their pieces.

my 2c.

nesf

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Can I make one small request for this debate? If it's any way possible can someone outline what are the benefits of voting YES specific to Ireland? I don't really want to see for example what nesf has on his site:

http://www.lisbonexposed.org/

That's not my site and I have had absolutely nothing to do with anything on it.

Handsome Bob

nesf wrote: »

That's not my site and I have had absolutely nothing to do with anything on it.

Sorry about that, I mixed you up with scofflaw.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=62258022&postcount=4

Scofflaw

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Can I make one small request for this debate? If it's any way possible can someone outline what are the benefits of voting YES specific to Ireland? I don't really want to see for example what scofflaw has on his site:

http://www.lisbonexposed.org/

I don't want to see a general summary of how it is good for Europe as I know these points already, I want to see arguments for how this treaty will spefically benefit Ireland.

For the record, I'm voting yes mainly because I want a stronger EU with more power in fighting human and drug trafficking, I just think it would be nice to know if Ireland stands to gain anything personally here.

I don't think there's anything specifically for Ireland - to be honest, I think that's why our politicians can't work out what to say about it. It's good for you personally (in my opinion, obviously) as a citizen, but there's nothing in the Treaty itself which is of specific benefit to Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Good to see more No side interest and participation. Was starting to think it was going to be the same old responses as you find on the EU forum.

Handsome Bob

Scofflaw wrote: »

I don't think there's anything specifically for Ireland - to be honest, I think that's why our politicians can't work out what to say about it. It's good for you personally (in my opinion, obviously) as a citizen, but there's nothing in the Treaty itself which is of specific benefit to Ireland.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, if the YES campaign posters are anything to go by, then that should be a good enough platform for explaining in the debate why voting YES is good for Ireland. Or are those "Yes for the Economy!" and "Yes for Jobs!" posters just a pile of manure? :pac: