Proposal: Me Vs. Dywyddyr- warheads

Not open for further replies.
Will you be using the standard debating rules?

If so, then we only need Dywyddyr's acceptance of the terms of the debate, then the two of you can get going.
The propasal seems quite clear to me. "Are we under a false asumption that America knows more about nuclear capabilities than Russia?"

Seeing As I stand with the Affirmative that Russia does in fact have superior nuclear capabilities, and Dywyddr is on the negative side debating for America I think it is time to start with his introductory post.

Several points.
What do you mean "knows more about nuclear capabilities"? Obviously Russia knows more about its own nuclear capabilities than does the US. And vice versa.
Why do you assume I'm pro-US?

If your position is that Russia has superior capabilities then surely the opening statement should be from you... :shrug:
Having just deleted several rambling posts (as I said I would), I have formed the opinion that this is going nowhere. So, seeing as chaos1956 seems incapable of providing the simple proposal that is required, I’m going to do it. I will put forward the debate proposal, and then I want a one word response from both chaos1956 and Dywyddyr: ‘accepted’ or ‘rejected’.

If either of you reject my proposal, then the proposed debate is denied, this thread is closed and you can both continue your discussion in the relevant Sciforums sub-section.

Topic: America knows more about nuclear technology than Russia

Participants: Dywyddyr for the affirmative, chaos1956 for the negative.

Format: standard debating rules

Standard (Sciforums) Rules for one-on-one Formal Debates

1. The debater for the affirmative side of the debate will create the "Debate" thread and post the first post, setting out his or her main arguments.
2. The debater for the negative side will then reply with his or her own introductory post.
2. There will then be exactly two follow-up and rebuttal posts from each debater, in which the debaters may address and refute points made by the other person, as well as adding any new points that may come up.
3. Finally, each debater will post one concluding post, summing up his or her side of the debate. Following the concluding posts, the thread will be closed.
4. Debaters each have exactly two days from the time of posting of a post by their opponent to post their next post. If they do not post in the required time limit, the debate will be declared finished, and the thread closed.
5. Debaters may not post more than 4 posts in total. Once the 4-post limit is reached, further posts by that debater will be deleted from the thread, but the thread will remain open for posts by the opponent, until either his or her own 4-post limit is reached or until time runs out.
6. Debaters may include links to any supporting information or references in their posts. They may also quote extracted sections of text from other sites.
7. Individual posts may not be longer than 1500 words, including any quotes.
8. Any claims of violations of these rules should be made in the related Discussion thread of the relevant Debate. A moderator may follow up on such complaints, deleting any posts in violation of these Rules, unless the debaters agree to some other mutually satisfactory solution.
9. Other than as provided in Rule 8, debaters may not post in the Discussion thread until after the conclusion of the Debate.

Accepted or rejected?

Edit; ……with the implicit understanding, of course, that a rejection does not constitute a concession in the ongoing discussion, but rather a rejection of the specific topic or rules for whatever reason.
Last edited:
Erm, rejected I'm afraid.
On the simple grounds that since Chaos1956 started the thing I suggest that the topic should be reversed, i.e. the affirmative position, and therefore Chaos is to open, is "Russia knows more about nuclear weapons technology than the USA".
Alright, how about the alternate proposal of:

Topic: Russia knows more about nuclear weapons technology than the USA

Participants: chaos1956 for the affirmative, Dywyddyr for the negative.

Format: standard rules

Can we get consensus that way? If that's still not good enough, then that's the end of it.
Not open for further replies.