Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Mobile Vulgus... The Popular Vote!

Options
  • 27-04-2004 2:09pm
    #1
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    Ok... this is one part of the judging. Its where everyone has their say as to who won the debate.

    Now, you should consider not your personal view on the topic of a compromise but the quality of the arguments put by the teams and the inherent difficult of their side of the topic. Did they convince you one way or the other... did they make you pause and consider an alternative view? Did they convey their points in a way that made you consider them as opposed to simply waving them away?

    Please vote now!

    DeV.

    Who do you think debated the best? 11 votes

    The FOR Compromise Team
    0% 0 votes
    The AGAINST Compromise Team
    100% 11 votes


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Is it just me or was the poll not there at the start?

    Can you check what I voted I think I chose the wrong one.:D


  • Options
    #3
    Stephen
    Registered Users Posts: 18,484 ✭✭✭✭Stephen


    All that ****e about family owned pubs and waivers just annoyed me. I can see plenty of irish publicans fiddling the books to get themselves such waivers if they were implemented.

    so i voted for the against team.


  • Options
    #4
    AngelofFire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,450 ✭✭✭AngelofFire


    it was a close one but i think the for compromise team edged it. they emphasised very well how it is the discretion of the publicans to be concerned about their own health not the responsibility of the state.


  • Options
    #5
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Originally posted by AngelofFire
    it was a close one but i think the for compromise team edged it. they emphasised very well how it is the discretion of the publicans to be concerned about their own health not the responsibility of the state.

    Ok. I'm a bit confused now. Could you send me the link to the debate you were reading because I have obviously been reading a different one.

    MrP


  • Options
    #6
    Rock Climber
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Rock Climber


    The for compromise team were always going to have an uphill battle given what smoking passive or active is proven to do.
    Plus it smells :eek:
    They climbed their mountain well but didn't reach the top where the against team are in my view firmly perched breathing the crisp clear smoke free mountain air :)

    Roughly translated, I think the against compromise team won :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Yavvy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,598 ✭✭✭Yavvy


    Mr Cassidy conveyed my sentiments exackery


  • Options
    #8
    DeVore
    Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 32,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    Is it just me or did the Against Compromise team not bother answering the questions?? I cant see them...

    DeV.


  • Options
    #9
    DapperGent
    Registered Users Posts: 4,838 ✭✭✭DapperGent


    They're in James Melody's summing up.


  • Options
    #10
    Villain
    Registered Users Posts: 15,944 ✭✭✭✭Villain


    Originally posted by Stephen
    All that ****e about family owned pubs and waivers just annoyed me. I can see plenty of irish publicans fiddling the books to get themselves such waivers if they were implemented.

    so i voted for the against team.

    Fair enough your entitled to your opinion, but I was asked to put forward compromises so that is what I done, and the waiver compromise is actively working in the US, I wouldn't see any reason for Publican's to apply for it if their business hadn't fallen.

    I think the ban was a great idea, I was fully in support of it, but I think every side of an argument needs to debated so I offered to be on the FOR team , theres wasn't too many people willing to debate in favour of it if I remember correctly.

    So I may not have posted what you liked but at least I made the effort.


  • Options
    #11
    fitz
    Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,937 ✭✭✭fitz


    My last post was a reply to Irish1, in which I answered all the questions.

    With regards the publicans right to decide upon his health, publicans are restricted in what they can do by licensing laws. If you take that view, then you also musn't have an issue with any of the licensing laws that are in place to protect the consumer.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    mewso
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 8,812 Mod ✭✭✭✭mewso


    Originally posted by Rock Climber
    The for compromise team were always going to have an uphill battle given what smoking passive or active is proven to do.
    Plus it smells :eek:
    They climbed their mountain well but didn't reach the top where the against team are in my view firmly perched breathing the crisp clear smoke free mountain air :)

    Roughly translated, I think the against compromise team won :D

    Ah yes the classic "Passive Smoking is proven to increase danger to health".
    I'm pretty nonchalant about this ban even as a smoker. I do think the For Compromise guys actually tried to address the debate. i.e. I did see suggestions for alternatives. I was dissappointed they didn't mention recent studies that show passive smoking is not as big a threat as the sensationalists want you to believe.
    And of course Against Compromise continued to trot out the "Protect the workers" line. "Won't someone please think of the workers!"
    Frankly the dangers of passive smoking is something I remain to be convinced about. Some studies, like the one latched onto by the government and anti-smokers, show a 26% increase in the dangers of contracting smoking related diseases. Another only 5%. Yet another an improvement in health!!??
    Can we now ban mobile phone transmitters as the dangers remain unknown and that is now the established way to decide these things?
    I think this ban will work out. I also think a compromise would have too but c'est la vie.
    Next time I march against war in some country like Iraq I expect 90% of the population to join me together in our concern for the innocent lives of workers all over the world but somehow I don't think I'll see them there.


  • Options
    #13
    mr_angry
    Registered Users Posts: 3,312 ✭✭✭mr_angry


    To be honest, I don't think it was the greatest debate I've ever seen. The "Against" camp started with the moral high-ground and with scientific fact on their side, and thats pretty much the way it stayed. I don't think they really produced any innovative arguments, but the For camp never seemed to threaten their success.

    Perhaps it was a lop-sided argument already, but I don't think there were any points made that really made me sit up and say "I never really thought about that". I voted for Against, but probably only because of their argument matches my belief, rather than the skill of debating.


  • Options
    #14
    The Muppet
    Registered Users Posts: 14,003 ✭✭✭✭The Muppet


    Originally posted by DeVore
    Is it just me or did the Against Compromise team not bother answering the questions?? I cant see them...

    DeV.

    IMO they didn't answer the questions satisfactorily. I would have expected them to try address some of the points made instead they just glossed over them by re stated their opinions that passive smoking is harmful without supporting it with hard evidence.


    The debate itself was fairly passive affair and I don't think either side put up much of an argument. I would be surprised if anyones pre debate opinions has been altered by it. This is not a criticism of either team more an acknowledgement that most people had already formed their opinion on the subject before the debate started .


Advertisement