'Flame war' or Constitutional debate?

vanity ^ | 3/20/02 | tpaine

[tpaine]

On the afternnoon of 3/18 Texaggie79 and I got into a type of discussion that is becoming all too common at FR.
In an effort to defend his position as a drug warrior, tex decided to attack the motives of his percieved enemies, 'the libertarians'. --- Here is that thread:

Cannabis Cafes Set To Open All Around Britain As Law Changes
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648477/posts?q=1&&page=201

Posts #205/206 are one of our more typical exchanges. -- Shortly after our disagreement ended, -- on that thread.

Later that same evening, I had just responded to a concealed carry question at #15, - on this thread:

Sheriff says 'gun nut' concealing the truth
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/648911/posts

---- When my correspondent asked if I was still 'harrassing' texaggie. --- I denied any such intent, -- and Tex immediately posted the URL of the cannibus tread as his 'proof' of being harrassed.

Thus, Tex set off another 'flame war' between us on the same subject as the previous post.

Eventually, others on the thread protested his hijack of the thread. -- In response, I tried to show that texaggies constitutional position was not only against drugs, but could also be applied against guns.

-- Just as this point was about to be established, -- the anonomods decided that tex & I were having a 'flamewar' .
'They' - [JR?] -- suspended tex & I for 24 hrs, --- while we were in mid-discussion of a constitutional issue on gun control.

No one was violating any socalled forum 'rules' at that point, in my estimation.
I'd like to protest this rather silly form of censorship. -- Tex & I were hurting no one but each other with our exchange.

And for the umteenth time, I'd like to call for a better definition of the posting guidlelines, and for some sort of accountability from the capracious acts of the anonomods.

I won't hold my breath for a reasonable answer.
-- And please, -- spare me any more snide whine n' cheese remarks. ---- I, and many others, are well aware that the FR-PTB don't give a damn about dissenting opinions..

[Bob J]

For the time being, we have technical issues that make this difficult. However, I think it is a GREAT idea to get celebrities to moderate them once we have all the pieces in place.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm always up for a good debate. I'd be happy to moderate. I have some ideas that would make it a rather pleasent experience even though this is a tough topic. We could set up some guidelines that would keep it under control. Both sides could present their case.

Let me know if you'd like to persue this.

D1

[Bob J]

What say you tpaine? I nice structured debate with no flaming. Five minutes to speak without interruptions. Three minutes to "cross" your opponent. An opportunity to sway the opinions of others?

[w_over_w]

That's five by five.

[Bob J]

The standard rules of debate apply. He who enages in personal attacks, does not back up their statements with verifiable sourcing, does not answer straight forward questions, generally loses.

[DoughtyOne]

When Pat called in he used one line. If we could get the debaters to link up first, then use their third conference line to call us, it would appear to our equipment as one line. If either of the parties has three-way conference calling, they could facilitate their end. IF they didn't, one of them could sign up for it and we'd reimburse them for one month's fees. I think we could get around the line problem. If you think Buchanan pulled a large audience... D1

[weikel]

Oh I have( no offense taken).

[tpaine]

At present, I stand with the reservations outlined in my freepmail. Let me think about it more, while you further define the issue to be debated, and this 'team' debating concept.

[Bob J]

It looks like what we will need is each team to hook up via 3 way and then call into the studio on one of the 800 lines. If they are in the same location, they can use one phone and a speakerphone. They can't use the computer because there is a 20 second delay.

[Bob J]

I was under the impression the topic would be the war on drugs. Tex seems to support it on a state level and you oppose it in all respects. It's to bad you both agree on the federal issue as that could make for some lively discussion.

Are you two far enough apart on this issue to create stark differences in the two approaches? It reallt needs to be black and white for an entertaining exchange.

BTW - I'm sure you could find many admirable debate partners on this site. Same for Tex.

[DoughtyOne]

I was not aware that we were talking teams. Hmmm. Interesting.

[Bob J]

I think this could be the start in a long series of interesting exchanges by people on opposite sides of issues! It may also reduce the flaming. From now on, when things get particularly dicey, the call to "Take it FR Debate" will sound!

[Bob J]

I understand and it is obviously your decision to take part or not. I think it could be fun! Let me know soon.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm all for it. But I sure would like to be online live during the process as the moderator. Maybe it's time to consider another equipment purchase to take this to the next level. I'd donate.

[Bob J]

Going to eight lines is one part of our "remodeling" that we are discussing. We're not quite there yet.

[DoughtyOne]

Sounds good. How do you like this dual format discussion? Grin.

D1

[Bob J]

BTW - There will be a certain amount of prestige that goes along with being the first participants of FR Debate!

[tpaine]

Good grief.

[Bob J]

C'mon, it will be easier than you think. We'll handle the tech end, all you need is one 5 minute prepared speech, ask your opponent questions for 3 minutes, and a 2 minute rebuttal/summary.

[tpaine]

Here is the constitutional point where Tex & I 'agreed to disagree' yesterday:

To: tpaine
It is simple. Either States CAN restrict and prohibit highly dangerous substances, not protected by the USC, or they CAN NOT. After that, it is up to each state to decide what is too dangerous.
162 posted on 3/20/02 5:34 PM Pacific by Texaggie79

Thus, we could reduce the issue to:

States CAN restrict and prohibit private possession of highly dangerous substances such as 'drugs', not specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution.

I'm still not sure that I could do justice to debating that point on FR radio, & have no ideas of a team mate either. - But I've always been more than ready to argue that point on the forum.