• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Discussion Thread: Tucker Case v. Peter Grimm

Redress

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,985
Reaction score
60,544
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Tucker Case and Peter Grimm have agreed to take part in a True Debate, reverse debate style(ie they will argue the position they disagree with). The length will be 1 opening statement plus 10 replies, with a 750 word limit per post. This thread is for others to discuss the debate and after the debate a poll will be added so members can vote for a winner. Thank you to Tucker Case and Peter Grimm for taking part in this, should be alot of fun to watch.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/true-debates/158699-true-debate-tucker-case-v-peter-grimm.html
 
Peter Grimm arguing in favor of gay marriage... This is going to be like bizarro world!

Can't wait.
 
Tiucker's initial post was impressive.
 
Nice idea, but I don't really think Tucker's heart was in that. Had someone made those arguments to him I'd have enjoyed seeing him dismiss them in one short sentence: Correlation ≠ Causation.
 
Andalublue said:
Nice idea, but I don't really think Tucker's heart was in that. Had someone made those arguments to him I'd have enjoyed seeing him dismiss them in one short sentence: Correlation ≠ Causation.
Click to expand...

WIthout going into detail till after the debate, but that would not neccessarily work. There is an issue there, but will wait till after the debate itself to go into details.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Please do not post arguments for the debators untill after the debate, nor explain problems with arguments with any kind of specifics. Afterwords, tear 'em up.
 
Redress said:
Moderator's Warning:
Please do not post arguments for the debators untill after the debate, nor explain problems with arguments with any kind of specifics. Afterwords, tear 'em up.
Click to expand...

How do I post moderators warning?
 
Redress said:
WIthout going into detail till after the debate, but that would not neccessarily work. There is an issue there, but will wait till after the debate itself to go into details.
Click to expand...

Okay. My mistake. I thought that was what this side-thread was for. I'm really looking forward to seeing how much oomph the Grimm puts into his pro-SSM argument. You go guy!
 
Truly interesting stuff. Should be fun to watch.
 
A really interesting point about this reverse style is that it probably opens up the participant to the other point of view, enabling the person to be more open-minded, learn more about the topic, and perhaps even change their views. Excited about how it will affect both Peter and Tuck
 
Andalublue said:
Okay. My mistake. I thought that was what this side-thread was for. I'm really looking forward to seeing how much oomph the Grimm puts into his pro-SSM argument. You go guy!
Click to expand...

Grimm arguing for Gay rights?

What's next -- Tigger arguing for feminism? Turtle Dude arguing for gun control? Me arguing for.........oops, can't mention that here.
 
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Peter Grimm's argument was very well written and postulated. It blows my mind that in reality he can't see the logic of his fake position.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
I can't believe I'm saying this, but Peter Grimm's argument was very well written and postulated. It blows my mind that in reality he can't see the logic of his fake position.
Click to expand...

Yep, he did well, but then he's had those points put to him often enough in other SSM threads to be quite familiar with the arguments. Nevertheless, as you say, he put it well.
 
This should be interesting. I'd think it extremely difficult to argue a position with which one vehemently disagrees. Not sure I could do it effectively. So far, both have presented themselves well. :)
 
DiAnna said:
This should be interesting. I'd think it extremely difficult to argue a position with which one vehemently disagrees. Not sure I could do it effectively. So far, both have presented themselves well. :)
Click to expand...

It isn't as hard as it might seem if the subject matter is narrowly focused. One of those things we had to do in law school was argue the same case from both sides. It was actually kind of fun.
 
DiAnna said:
This should be interesting. I'd think it extremely difficult to argue a position with which one vehemently disagrees. Not sure I could do it effectively. So far, both have presented themselves well. :)
Click to expand...

I agree, I find it hard to argue a position I don't agree with. However, that is the sign of a really good debater. In high school / college debate, you're assigned a position you have to argue, so you have to learn both sides.

Unfortunately I was kicked off the high school debate team before I could get much experience in the matter.
 
Fisher said:
It isn't as hard as it might seem if the subject matter is narrowly focused. One of those things we had to do in law school was argue the same case from both sides. It was actually kind of fun.
Click to expand...

It can actually make it easier to make a logical argument if you have, by the very nature of the debate, eliminated your emotional responses from the argument you're making. A lot of Peter's postings elsewhere are pure emoting. This could well help him quite a lot.
 
This has been an excellent addition to DP. Whosever idea it was, kudos.

 
Mod feel free to delete (and please let me know if you did) if this violates the whole give someone an argument thing. I found it very interesting that the study of suicide rates was focused only on men. Were women not studied? I wonder what the results of such a study would be?
 
I think eliminating contemporaneous comments from the viewers is counter productive...it takes some of the fun out of it for the non debaters. If the concern is that debaters may see the comments and alter their debate plan or get an "assist", maybe you could just thread ban them from it?
 
It would be far more productive to ban the complaining snivelers from the entire Battleground Forum, especially if they've sniveled and whined more than twice.
 
maquiscat said:
Mod feel free to delete (and please let me know if you did) if this violates the whole give someone an argument thing. I found it very interesting that the study of suicide rates was focused only on men. Were women not studied? I wonder what the results of such a study would be?
Click to expand...

There have been such studies and when the debate is over I will provide you a link to one report on the subject.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom