The Debate Club

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

So, does Friday count as the weekend? And what are we going to debate?

[Straw he/him]

The weekend is 3PM Friday to 3PM Sunday.

The topic is... should cookies be offered to new sharders?

At 3PM Sunday I will ask for your final votes on the topic.

[Delightful]

Which Timezone?

[Young Bard he/him]

I'd like to join. Here's my resume:

 

Meticulously places a fancy wig on his head

 

The wig blows off, and the man starts chasing after it

 

Many hours later he returns triumphantly with a much worse-for-wear wig on his head, with a few twigs sticking out and a nasty brown stain that you're not sure you want to know where it came from

 

In response to the prompt, I have two questions:

 

1. Define 'offer'

2. Are we considering the existence of the Dark Alley to be physically present in the 'real' world, or are we accepting the fact that it, and all of it's wares, are essentially fictional, and don't truthfully exist in the physical world.

[Straw he/him]

Which Timezone?

EST

1."would you like a cookie"

2.we are accepting that all its wares are fictional.

[Delightful]

We need to set up some parameters. For example, are we discussing spiked cookies, non-spiked cookies, or cookies of ambiguous spiking?

Handed out by the Dark Alley, known friends of the Dark Alley, known Enemies of the Dark Alley, or someone else entirely?

We also need to consider which sharders are considered new? Is this based on the time spent lurking, time spent logged in, or simply by who creates an introductory thread? Would a veteran member creating an introductory thread and being offered a cookies fall under the jurisdiction of this question?

Also, by 'cookies' are we speaking of multiple cookies into individual sharders, single cookies to individual sharders, or ambiguous amounts of cookies? to ambiguous amounts of new sharders?

 

 

I will henceforth describe out topic as follows

 

Should any member of the Shard offer at least one cookie of any description to the creator of an introductory thread in said thread?

 

My answer?

Non-spiked cookies, yum but a little standard for a welcoming gift.

Spiked cookies from the Dark Alley? Either they take the bait spike and truly become a member of the Shard under our influence, or their mettle is tested and we see whether they are truly worthy of worldhopping glory.

 

In short, yes. Cookies. ALL OF THE COOKIES.

Edited March 26, 2016 by Delightful

[Young Bard he/him]

In accepting that 'cookies' do not exist in the physical sense, and are merely referred to as part of an in-joke, I see no objection to referring to them/"offering them". Particularly since people can just as easily "refuse the offer" of a cookie and not take part in the in-joke.

[Alomantisist he/him]

Hmm. I appear to have arrived late. My apologies! But on the subject of cookies... should we also consider the Knights Awkward invention of bookies?

On the subject of the dark ally. It is a time honored tradition of Hemalugy. Spiking new members is an honor that can be refused. Therefore it must be accepted. But I am open to counter arguments.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Alomantisist

[Straw he/him]

The will of the people is... Cookies are OK to give to new members!

[Vander]

Can I join?

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

I think we should ha e more time than a single weekend to debate a question. And what is our next question?

[Young Bard he/him]

Unless TinyStrawMan overrides me, I'll pick your brains. When is capital punishment (or just killing someone) acceptable/the 'right' thing morally to do? Is it ever?

[Bugsy he/him]

Unless TinyStrawMan overrides me, I'll pick your brains. When is capital punishment (or just killing someone) acceptable/the 'right' thing morally to do? Is it ever?

Capital punishment is the right thing to do when the one being punished is known to pose such a threat to society that leaving him/her alive is irresponsible and poses a danger to innocents/society as a whole. An example of this is a prisoner who is known to lead jailbreaks or a person whose imprisonment risks motivating others to violently fight for said individual's freedom. Mass murderers who are not known to have the capacity to motivate or organize a jailbreak should also be killed because the risk of leaving them alive is too great based on the small chance that they do escape. It should be done when and only when the evidence is conclusive and irrefutable, and only by the decision of a body of randomly selected, unaffiliated citizens that puts forward a 2/3 majority vote

[Straw he/him]

I don't have the time to do formal debates so you guys can start one whenever you want to.

[Jo and the Bush all/any]

Unless TinyStrawMan overrides me, I'll pick your brains. When is capital punishment (or just killing someone) acceptable/the 'right' thing morally to do? Is it ever?

 

When there is irrefutable proof that someone has either taken a life, attempted to take a life, or is actively preparing to take a life for 'unjust' reasons.

 

Unjust reasons, in this case, being reasons that would be widely considered 'wrong', such as killing for power or money. Killing in self-defense, or in defense of an innocent is not unjust.

[Straw he/him]

Yes! This thread is hot!

[JPine]

I'm in. I will win all debates!

[Ataraxian Wist she/her]

I would like to join.