A challenge debate thread part 2

[jgoodguy]

That works, although if you're really going to be technical about it, Vicksburg was a siege, not a battle. I would be willing (in a week or two) to take the position: "The Union victory at Vicksburg was of more strategic importance to the outcome of the war than the victory at Gettysburg was". But like I said, I'll be an eager audience if anyone else wants to take up the topic before then.

Campaign may even be more accurate, but be nice to stop debating terms and start debating. Personally I think the debate would be fun. Unfortunately, I have to work out the kinks in the moderator side.

 

[jgoodguy]

I have never done debate, but would guess you would just about have to make it a statement rather than a question.
Ok, he had a good subject and you have refined it into a debatable form.
Now you got to find one willing and able Gettysburg debater!
From my reading I would probably flip the battles because Gettysburg always seems to get the nod. IDK, maybe that would make it easier to attack. Need a debater to decide that.

I personally always like taking the minority position in a debate.

 

[alan polk]

Peteanddelmar has touched on this so I am kinda reiterating it. Brass has volunteered to take on one side of the debate. If he's willing -- and I don't, for the sake of losing the idea of this project, want to lose him because we are stagnating over procedure-- why don't we allow Brass to title the debate (I think he's tried) in a way he thinks reasonable, then see if we can locate someone to take on the opposite side per that debate context. If this occurs, then we get over this stagnation and focus on another debater. At some point the trigger's got to be pulled. If not, we'll never get this thing off the ground! Having said that, Jgoodguy, your doing a heckuva good job!!!

 

[brass napoleon]

Peteanddelmar has touched on this so I am kinda reiterating it. Brass has volunteered to take on one side of the debate. If he's willing -- and I don't, for the sake of losing the idea of this project, want to lose him because we are stagnating over procedure-- why don't we allow Brass to title the debate (I think he's tried) in a way he thinks reasonable, then see if we can locate someone to take on the opposite side per that debate context. If this occurs, then we get over this stagnation and focus on another debater. At some point the trigger's got to be pulled. If not, we'll never get this thing off the ground! Having said that, Jgoodguy, your doing a heckuva good job!!!

Yeah, I think any further refinement of the topic should involve both the debating parties - whoever they may be. We can have a debate about the debate! Kind of like diplomatic negotiations where they spend months wrangling about the shape of the negotiating table.

 

[alan polk]

Yeah, I think any further refinement of the topic should involve both the debating parties - whoever they may be. We can have a debate about the debate! Kind of like diplomatic negotiations where they spend months wrangling about the shape of the negotiating table.

Funny!! Yep, I think we are reenacting the Paris Peace Talks!! Or Accord or whatever its name!!

 

[jgoodguy]

Yeah, I think any further refinement of the topic should involve both the debating parties - whoever they may be. We can have a debate about the debate! Kind of like diplomatic negotiations where they spend months wrangling about the shape of the negotiating table.

or who has the highest chair.

 

[brass napoleon]

or who has the highest chair.

They all need high chairs. Budda Bing!

 

[alan polk]

On a serious note, though. What do you think, Jgoodguy, on the present proposals?

 

[peteanddelmar]

They all need high chairs. Budda Bing!

Very good.

 

[jgoodguy]

On a serious note, though. What do you think, Jgoodguy, on the present proposals?

I like them.

 

[alan polk]

I like them.

Cool. Brass, you want to make a debate statement?

 

[peteanddelmar]

Campaign may even be more accurate, but be nice to stop debating terms and start debating. Personally I think the debate would be fun. Unfortunately, I have to work out the kinks in the moderator side.

Get another moderator and be the debater! I nominate you.
Hand off the unfun part to someone else and do your thing.

 

[brass napoleon]

Cool. Brass, you want to make a debate statement?

I'll wait a week or two to give me time to wrap up these projects I'm working on. Hopefully in the meantime we'll get a challenger. I'd also like to give the challenger an opportunity for some input on the topic.

 

[alan polk]

I'll wait a week or two to give me time to wrap up these projects I'm working on. Hopefully in the meantime we'll get a challenger. I'd also like to give the challenger an opportunity for some input on the topic.

I've kind of become bored with all the recent happenings in politics, etc. Is this thread-idea dead? I was so looking forward to it! Hope it has life... Thanks

 

[jgoodguy]

It is alive. I will moderate or participate as needed to make it work.

 

[Scotsman]

Brass Napoleon mentioned in another thread the need for a "Gettysburg" advocate in a debate over whether Gettysburg or Vicksburg was a more significant Union victory. I might be up for it.

I usually argue that Gettysburg is overrated, but it might be fun to take on the pro-Gettysburg position in a comparison with Vicksburg to see how the conversation develops.

 

[brass napoleon]

Brass Napoleon mentioned in another thread the need for a "Gettysburg" advocate in a debate over whether Gettysburg or Vicksburg was a more significant Union victory. I might be up for it.

I usually argue that Gettysburg is overrated, but it might be fun to take on the pro-Gettysburg position in a comparison with Vicksburg to see how the conversation develops.

Here's the debate topic as we've defined it so far, Scotsman:

"The Union victory at Vicksburg was of more strategic importance to the outcome of the war than the victory at Gettysburg was"

Let us know what you think about it.

 

[Boopsie]

Guess I arrived too late for this lively banter regarding healthy debate topic. We could what if all daylong long. I posted my first thread on the Vicksburg/Gettysburg endeavors. I'm fascinated by Grants decision making.

 

[Scotsman]

Here's the debate topic as we've defined it so far, Scotsman:

"The Union victory at Vicksburg was of more strategic importance to the outcome of the war than the victory at Gettysburg was"

Let us know what you think about it.

One question I have is about the word "strategic" within the statement. I am concerned that it may serve to limit the debate to technical military matters of troop movements, etc. I think a more comprehensive comparison of the two battles may be more useful and appealing to everyone.

How about simply: "The Union victory at Vicksburg was of more importance to the outcome of the war than the victory at Gettysburg was."

Just a thought.

 

[brass napoleon]

One question I have is about the word "strategic" within the statement. I am concerned that it may serve to limit the debate to technical military matters of troop movements, etc. I think a more comprehensive comparison of the two battles may be more useful and appealing to everyone.

How about simply: "The Union victory at Vicksburg was of more importance to the outcome of the war than the victory at Gettysburg was."

Just a thought.

Good point. That works by me. @jgoodguy, what do you think?