This is your peanut gallery thread to discuss Warpus and Hobbitjoe debating space exploration and budgets. Please do not post in the debate thread.
Formal Debate Discussion Thread
- Thread starter downtown
- Start date
Quackers
The Frog
warpus is holding a machete over his head in a warlike stance.
i know who i want to win now
i know who i want to win now
Berzerker
Deity
warpus won
until his opponent speaketh anyway
i assume we are not welcome to make arguments here lest we contaminate the debate?
until his opponent speaketh anyway
i assume we are not welcome to make arguments here lest we contaminate the debate?
JohannaK
Heroically Clueless
Seeing the three claims, I'd say that warpus starts from a higher, I mean more easily defendable, position that hobbsyoyo, to be honest.
It will all depend on how they develop their arguments for their claims, but it looks like warpus' actually have a real sustain.
Looking forward to the real debate though!
It will all depend on how they develop their arguments for their claims, but it looks like warpus' actually have a real sustain.
Looking forward to the real debate though!
I am concerned the rigid structure of the debate may unnecessarily quench more discussion when it is warranted--it may be that 4 supports are necessary for an argument, or perhaps only 2. The four post limit theoretically means if I have 5 supporting points, one cannot be refuted simply because it will never be addressed.
Quick comment - warpus' reasoning follows a path all of us who are dependent on a central authority for money can relate to
1. I get 100 dollars for a project of a certain scope.
2. I deliver the project, at cost
3. Project's performance exceeds scope parameters
4. Supervisor reduces estimated cost for subsequent projects, assuming that I can still break even on parameters based on past performance.
This is a dangerous line of reasoning, since it results in an ever-dwindling budget year after year.
1. I get 100 dollars for a project of a certain scope.
2. I deliver the project, at cost
3. Project's performance exceeds scope parameters
4. Supervisor reduces estimated cost for subsequent projects, assuming that I can still break even on parameters based on past performance.
This is a dangerous line of reasoning, since it results in an ever-dwindling budget year after year.
Berzerker
Deity
spending more means finding the monolith first
GhostWriter16
Deity
I support getting rid of NASA so I probably won't have any particular bias although I'd be slightly more biased towards Warpus obviously.
I should be easy to "Convince" however, at least in terms of being able to give a mostly fair ruling of who "Won" (Not unilaterally obviously, but as one opinion to be considered.) I'm leaning Warpus though ATM.
I should be easy to "Convince" however, at least in terms of being able to give a mostly fair ruling of who "Won" (Not unilaterally obviously, but as one opinion to be considered.) I'm leaning Warpus though ATM.
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
The debators have decided to break for the night. 
We will continue at the point we stopped at tomorrow at 6:30pm EST. I hope you enjoyed it and will tune in tomorrow!
Couple of questions:
Are you guys enjoying it so far? If now, why? Is it the format, the topic or what?
I had hoped for more comments here.
Anywhoo, we'll be back tomorrow and thanks for tuning in!
We will continue at the point we stopped at tomorrow at 6:30pm EST. I hope you enjoyed it and will tune in tomorrow!Couple of questions:
Are you guys enjoying it so far? If now, why? Is it the format, the topic or what?
I had hoped for more comments here.
Anywhoo, we'll be back tomorrow and thanks for tuning in!
GhostWriter16
Deity
I find it a bit disappointing, although not surprising nor is it an inherent flaw, that nobody is arguing my position on the issue. Its either "Status Quo" or "Increase funding."
Whatever your view on the government in research, its plenty obvious to me that in these ecomomic times, space research should be the last thing on our minds. We should decrease it. Not increase it. Not keep the status quo. Decrease, or better, eliminate. Leave it to the private sector.
I get that that position isn't popular and so I hardly expect my side to be represented. I don't think its inherently wrong that its not represented. But it is a bit dissappointing. I mean, it would be one thing if there were two extremes and I were in the middle, but being more extreme than both parties makes it a little less interesting for me.
I'll observe anyway, if only to try my hand at attempting to make an unbiased comment as to the winner.
Whatever your view on the government in research, its plenty obvious to me that in these ecomomic times, space research should be the last thing on our minds. We should decrease it. Not increase it. Not keep the status quo. Decrease, or better, eliminate. Leave it to the private sector.
I get that that position isn't popular and so I hardly expect my side to be represented. I don't think its inherently wrong that its not represented. But it is a bit dissappointing. I mean, it would be one thing if there were two extremes and I were in the middle, but being more extreme than both parties makes it a little less interesting for me.
I'll observe anyway, if only to try my hand at attempting to make an unbiased comment as to the winner.
Verarde
Pondering Wearing A Hat
This is most interesting.
I'd like to offer more complete comments, but it's a busy night for me. Perhaps tomorrow.
Don't be afraid to comment as it goes on either. If nothing else, it helps show the concept is viable.I wasn't here for most of today as it was going on but catching up, I like the debate so far.
I also think warpus made better opening claims, that were still fair and straightfoward, and he's defended well so far - maybe more thoughts on the discussion when I've caught up a little more. The format and particularly the opening seemed to work out for guiding discussion though I think catching an unprepared opponent (when the topic allows widely varying initial claims to be made) would make a difference in general debates of this format.
Part of it was my concern over the specifics of the original topic opened some avenues that would be extremely difficult rhetoric to counter. Looks like we're not going to see this but I think it would have been an easy shot for warpus' side to argue against space exploration because of better particular uses of any available scientific funds, say for medical research. Or, as this is from the government side it would also be possible criticize the political/military workability of potential large scale space proposals like a moon base.
I also think warpus made better opening claims, that were still fair and straightfoward, and he's defended well so far - maybe more thoughts on the discussion when I've caught up a little more. The format and particularly the opening seemed to work out for guiding discussion though I think catching an unprepared opponent (when the topic allows widely varying initial claims to be made) would make a difference in general debates of this format.
Part of it was my concern over the specifics of the original topic opened some avenues that would be extremely difficult rhetoric to counter. Looks like we're not going to see this but I think it would have been an easy shot for warpus' side to argue against space exploration because of better particular uses of any available scientific funds, say for medical research. Or, as this is from the government side it would also be possible criticize the political/military workability of potential large scale space proposals like a moon base.
