I'd like to debate the topic listed in the title with Tach. I will argue that it is true and he will argue that it is false. I'm unfamiliar with formal debates but here's my suggestions: A neutral arbiter is chosen. Arbiter's role is to give both sides someone to make appeals to, determine when and if the debate topic has been changed by a party, whether responses are sound and valid, and eventually to decide which debater is victorious. One reason I think an arbiter is important in this debate is due to the fact that Tach and I speak very different languages: he prefers speaking purely in mathematical formalisms, and while I'll do my best to frame things mathematically, the battlefield is unnaturally restricted if no other logic is permissible. 10 posts each side, maximum. I suspect it won't go past 2 each but you never know. Also, I would say the arbiter can interject at any point and declare a winner, at which point the debate is over. Time limits for replying should be roughly 24 hours or less but can be fluid. If one party needs a couple of days off, so be it, just let others know. Four days with no posts whatsoever is a forfeiture. The loser will acknowledge as a fact in a post at the end of this thread whatever the arbiter determines to be reality regarding the debate topic, based upon arguments made in the debate by each side, after a decision is made. I could start any time, Tach. If you accept the terms perhaps I'll post my first volley tomorrow. Regarding an arbiter, I was thinking you could choose someone from the following pool: AlphaNumeric, Prometheus, BenTheMan, Hercules Rockefeller, Fraggle Rocker. The first three I have a provably contentious history with (which I thought you might demand). The last two are guys that I have NO history with but seem to have well-reasoned posts. Good? Any other rules we need to cover?