radical_logic
Registered Member
I will argue the negative, that it cannot be properly inferred. I wish someone to argue the affirmative, or at least try to rebut my argument.
Format:
1. Opening (me)
2. Rebuttal 1 (opponent)
3. Rebuttal 2 (me)
4. Rebuttal 3 (opponent)
5 Conclusion (me)
We can work out the details later. For now I want to get a sense of who's interested.
I'm even willing to take on up to four opponents simultaneously. The format for that debate would look like:
1. Opening (me)
2. Rebuttal 1 (opponents 1, 2, 3, and 4)
3. Rebuttal 2 (me)
4. Rebuttal 3(opponents 1, 2, 3, and 4)
5. conclusion (me)
My opponents would, of course, write separate responses (whether those responses overlap in content is another matter), and I will respond to each of them in my subsequent rebuttals. I will even allow my opponents to confer with each other and work as a team.
Any takers?
Format:
1. Opening (me)
2. Rebuttal 1 (opponent)
3. Rebuttal 2 (me)
4. Rebuttal 3 (opponent)
5 Conclusion (me)
We can work out the details later. For now I want to get a sense of who's interested.
I'm even willing to take on up to four opponents simultaneously. The format for that debate would look like:
1. Opening (me)
2. Rebuttal 1 (opponents 1, 2, 3, and 4)
3. Rebuttal 2 (me)
4. Rebuttal 3(opponents 1, 2, 3, and 4)
5. conclusion (me)
My opponents would, of course, write separate responses (whether those responses overlap in content is another matter), and I will respond to each of them in my subsequent rebuttals. I will even allow my opponents to confer with each other and work as a team.
Any takers?
