Debate challenge

[radical_logic]

1 on 1, moderated. The focus will be a significant unresolved contradiction in official story of my choosing. Any takers?

[chillzero]

OK. On occasion, when asked nicely, the mods will assist members with moderated threads. This was not a good a good example of how to attain this.

radical_logic, if you want a moderated thread, ask a mod before starting it, and identify the following:
- a clear OP advising on the topic
- a clear OP advising guidelines for how you wish the topic to be tackled (e.g. sometimes people want only citations included)
- a clear note if necessary on what should not be approved in discussion

See here for further guidelines:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=81399



The next post in this thread will not be approved, unless it comes from radical_logic with a clear definition of the thread topic as noted above.

Please note that posts may not be approved for quite some time, dependant on mod team loads. Don't expect posts to be approved within any given timeframe.

I sent the rest of the thread to AAH. Shame on all of you. The topic may not have been defined yet, but there was a clear question that required nothing more than "I am", "no thanks" or "maybe, what will the topic be?" - not the uncivil bickering and nonsense that followed. Please review the Membership Agreement when you choose to participate in any thread.

[radical_logic]

Resolved: There is an unresolved contradiction regarding the number of cell-phone calls made on Flight 93. I will affirm the resolution, while my opponent will deny it.

Proposal: 6 rounds, Word limit: 3,000 (including quotes)

1. Opening statement (me)
2. Rebuttal 1. (my opponent)
3. Rebuttal 2. (me)
4. Rebuttal 3. (my opponent)
5. Rebuttal 4/conclusion (me)
6. Conclusion (My opponent)

List of items prohibited:

1. Personal attacks/insults.
2. Plagiarism (i.e. all quoted statements must be cited)
3. No links to rebuttals and refutations (all refutations and rebuttals must be made in the debate)

[chillzero]

This is not the standard manner by which these threads are managed, but on this one occasion, since there's already been fuss over this thread, I will allow it. I will refrain from comment on why this OP is inappropriate so as not to skew the discussion.

A reminder for future reference, no one should expect the mod team to agree to one of these threads. It is entirely at our discretion and availability, and should be requested beforehand.

I will un-moderate the thread for comments after the final rebuttal and conclusion have been completed.

Prohibited items 1 and 2 are breaches of the MA anyway. Any posts breaching the MA - even the first 6 as outlined, will be rejected.

radical_logic, you have missed an important item. You have not identified your opponent. Please do so in your opening statement, and ensure they are both aware of the thread and happy to debate with you.

[radical_logic]

If anyone is willing to debate the proposed resolution (with the above parameters), please give your indication in this thread. After my opponent accepts the challenge, further posts up and until the Conclusion will be moderated.

I forgot to add one item to the above parameter list: time restraints. I will have my opening statement written and submitted no later than one week from the day my opponent accepts the challenge. Subsequent responses will be submitted no later than two weeks from the last posted response (if the moderator is willing, there can be a 3-day grace period).

[chillzero]

What radical_logic forgot to add was our agreement that I will approve the first person to respond as willing to debate this in this format. I will reject any one after that as too late. (This may not happen today).

There will not be any time restraints, although ti would be ridiculous to drag this out exponentially. The debate will proceed as already outlined above.

[chillzero]

This thread gets one bump - any takers? First member to say yes, is the one allowed to debate as outlined above.

[1337m4n]

You know what, sign me up. I haven't done a one-on-one debate in years; this could be fun.

[chillzero]

OK folks, we have a taker.

The next post here will be radical_logic's opening statement.

radical_logic, please make sure it is one post only, and fully reviewed before submission.

[chillzero]

bumping thread in case R_L forgot about it.
Opening statement please?

[chillzero]

one last bump, although r_l has been offline since 23rd Sept

[chillzero]

OK,
radical_logic has not been back online, but I'm opening this up for discussion, if you guys want it.

Should anyone want a formally moderated debate, the explanation of how to do so is above. Please note your request may not be granted, because this is outside the scope of the MA or mod responsibilities. It will depend on the availability and inclination of the individual moderator.

[Confuseling]

For sheer humour value; I'll take the devil's advocate position that the US government deliberately allowed the attacks to take place, and I'll argue it to death. If you're up for it l33t :)

ETA: and I'm sure we don't need moderation neither. I'll be gentle ;)

[Minadin]

This is a post I had moderated out before, because I wasn't specifically agreeing to the challenge:



1 on 1, moderated. The focus will be a significant unresolved contradiction in official story of my choosing. Any takers?

Resolved: There is an unresolved contradiction regarding the number of cell-phone calls made on Flight 93. I will affirm the resolution, while my opponent will deny it.

Proposal: 6 rounds, Word limit: 3,000 (including quotes)

1. Opening statement (me)
2. Rebuttal 1. (my opponent)
3. Rebuttal 2. (me)
4. Rebuttal 3. (my opponent)
5. Rebuttal 4/conclusion (me)
6. Conclusion (My opponent)

List of items prohibited:

1. Personal attacks/insults.
2. Plagiarism (i.e. all quoted statements must be cited)
3. No links to rebuttals and refutations (all refutations and rebuttals must be made in the debate)

Am I permitted to ask the OP in what way the number of cell phone calls made on Flight 93, let alone some supposed contradiction regarding the number (I suppose versus seat-back air-phones?), is a significant contradiction in the 'official story', or would questions like that have to wait for whoever is willing to accept the rigid guidelines of this "debate"?

Cell phones and cell phone technology circa 2001 isn't really my area of expertise, but I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what difference it would make whether there were 3 or 7 of them, as far as the 9-11 narrative goes.

Thanks.

[Mince]

How can you debate something you know absolutely nothing about?

I think I got in just under 3,000 words.

[Hokulele]

How can you debate something you know absolutely nothing about?


Exhibit A, the Religion and Philosophy sub-forum. ;)

[Bobert]

Did RL just disappear or was he banned?
Strange to start a thread offering to debate and then leave.
I do hope the guy is ok though.
Sucks to see someone leave and they come back later to say something tragic happened in their personal life.
Well if this debate gets off the ground it should be interesting.

[A W Smith]

Did RL just disappear or was he banned?
Strange to start a thread offering to debate and then leave.
I do hope the guy is ok though.
Sucks to see someone leave and they come back later to say something tragic happened in their personal life Again.
Well if this debate gets off the ground it should be interesting.

fixed that for you Bobert, His life is already tragic.

[pomeroo]

Book Report:

This was a wonderful debate. I learned a lot. Some might say that the actual content was a trifle skimpy, but others might not say that. I'm somewhere in the middle myself. All in all, this was a wonderful debate (Did I say that earlier?).

[Bobert]

fixed that for you Bobert, His life is already tragic.

Well ya ok there is that....
Soooo many Little Engines That Could'nt within the truth movment!

[chillzero]

Please post on topic, or don't post.

[Gravy]

Did RL just disappear or was he banned?
Strange to start a thread offering to debate and then leave.He stands on the shoulders of giants. Loose Change forum admin DJLegacy2KL set a strong precedent in 2006 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1691083&postcount=5). After repeatedly saying on LCF (where I couldn't post) that he was going to tear my arguments apart, he finally accepted my challenge to have that debate here. He posted 76 times that day when I was at work, then fled immediately on my arrival, never to return.

He was surpassed by Kevin Ryan, who posted that no one was willing to debate him on Tom Hartmann's radio show. When I informed him that Hartmann's producer had contacted me and I'd immediately accepted, Ryan promptly fled the field.

But both of them were surpassed by Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, who twice, over several months, posted that he'd accepted my debate challenge, then immediately changed his mind and said that instead, I should be killed.

Several others have backed out of debates with me after initially accepting, but those are the best.

Well if this debate gets off the ground it should be interesting.I haven't the foggiest idea why you say that...except perhaps out of an interest in psychology. Could anything be less consequential to the outcome of 9/11 than how many cell phone calls were made? This is exactly what I think people here should be smart enough not to engage in. It's this passion for nonsensical minutia that keeps the "truth" movement alive and David Ray Griffin in royalties. (Against my advice, Radical Logic recently purchased Griffin's latest book, on which his trivia debate challenge is based.)