New Feature: Secret Debate Categories

If you now want to debate a topic from a specific category, like science or arts, you can now do that using the category drop-down with secret topics. In order to do this I've had to drum up 318 new topics. The new topics have not been added to the uncategorised secret topic list at http://www.edeb8.com/motions.txt , but can instead be found at http://www.edeb8.com/extended_motions.txt .

Due to a lack of topics, this does not work for the humor category. To see stats on how many different topics are available in each category see: http://www.edeb8.com/motion_stats.php

Over time, many topics will probably migrate from the extended list of topics only available with specific categories to the main list. Anyway, hope you guys enjoy this!

admin: What! How did I miss this?

If I am getting this right, the topics on the extended list are only available by choosing a category? Well, regardless, I'll give my thoughts.

Topics I do not like
That senescence is curable
Try to avoid topics based on if something is true or not. I make exceptions for topics that can be spinned and argued in a lot of different ways. This is not one of those topics. This debate would really end up being one about throwing conflicting sources and facts at each other, and one side attempting to make theirs stick.

That, when science is in conflict with faith, we should prefer faith
Does this not go off the assumption that one of the two is correct? Maybe it would be better worded "That when scientific studies conflict with faith, we should consider the study false?"

That time travel is scientifically plausible
How do you debate this? Like seriously? BTW, we already have a topic on the main list about time travel.

That Pluto ought to be a planet
This is a semantical debate based on the definition of planet.

That our society is over-educated
John and me once had a disagreement over debates where one side had an unfair advantage (to which I disagreed). I kind of agree with him on this topic. How can society be over-educated? Usually I can think up some argument for every resolution, but this one, and the time travel one......... well let's just say I'm having trouble.

That current affairs should be part of the curriculum
What about history currculum? Just a minor and interesting stipulation, but it doesn't matter a whole lot.

That we should ban smoking in all public places
This is the third smoking criminalization topic.

That ADHD is usually overdiagnosed
You either have it or you don't

That universal healthcare should be provided by the state
That universal healthcare is worth the expense
Take out the universal in the main list topic, and we're good here.
Otherwise they're essentially advocating the same thing.

That "bring your own device" is usually harmful for corporations
What?

That parents should choose to spy on their children's use of personal computers
Choose should not be in there

That flat tax systems are better than progressive tax systems
That progressive taxes are superior to flat taxes

That a priori knowledge is possible
That knowledge can be obtained through priori

That governments are a bad idea
That the world would be better without governments

That if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around, it makes no sound
This is a popular metaphorical saying. Not a debate topic. I mean....... what?

That the United States should pay reparations to families affected by forced segregation
What?

That the Qur’an has been perfectly preserved
That Shakespeare is probably the greatest English-language author of all time
Lol, but these are actually okay topics

That cell phones should be banned at concerts
I thought we talked about all these banning debates. How about "restricted?"

That we should ban ghostwriting
Sigh... That credit for publications should go to the ghost writer

That countries should choose not to bid to host major e-sports events
This would be an AWESOME topic without the internet part


That the number of subforums on edeb8 should be reduced
This topic tells me you are not yet willing to reduce the subforums.

That Sarah Palin is an embarrassment to US politics
Who in their right minds would disagree with this?

That Walt Disney was an alcoholic
Limited and conflicting sources. More intresting topic.... "Walt Disney's head is frozen under Disneyland."

For-profit prisons in the United States should be banned
Why not remove United States?

NATO should strengthen its relationship with Ukraine in order to deter Russian aggression
By the time somebody gets to debate this, Ukraine will have already joined NATO.

Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation
Why not remove United States?

That the United States should intervene in another nation's struggle for democracy
NATO

The United States federal government should permit the use of financial incentives to encourage organ donation
Why not remove United States?

In the United States, plea bargaining undermines the criminal justice system
Why not remove United States?

In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good
Why not remove United States?

Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations
NATO

That, on balance, the rise of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (BRIC) has had a positive impact on the United States
Why not remove United States?

The United States should significantly increase its use of nuclear energy
Why not remove United States?
Nations

That the United States should implement a military draft
Why not remove United States?
Nations

Blackflag: the topics on the extended list are only available by choosing a category?
Yes

All your "what's" / alternative suggestions:
Why

Try to avoid topics based on if something is true or not.
Isn't that kind of like a premise of science topics in general.

Does this not go off the assumption that one of the two is correct?
I guess that if con wanted to run a super-unorthodox case they could argue that neither is correct so we should not prefer either. But I don't see the problem.

How do you debate this? Like seriously?
It can be run as either a model, or a judgment. If the latter, then the case would be that we should accept as plausible concepts that haven't been confirmed, regardless of how fantastical they may appear now. That turns around the scientific method mostly.

This is a semantical debate based on the definition of planet
the resolution is ought to, not is. Taking the stance that we should just accept something because scientists at a particular astronomical union said so is a poor argument for this resolution.

How can society be over-educated?
Several arguments - just ask Pol Pot lol. No but seriously, what's the real value of a tertiary degree and does our society value it too highly, say? Could we be more productive without that higher educational focus?

You either have it or you don't
Irrelevant to discussions of the rate of diagnosis

This is a popular metaphorical saying. Not a debate topic.
No it's definitely an important question in philosophy. Concerned with what is meant by "existence" and to what extent it's influenced by our perception.

This is the third smoking criminalization topic
Otherwise they're essentially advocating the same thing.
I don't have a problem with similar topics appearing in both lists since this is only for particular categories on this list, so there's no duplication.

I thought we talked about all these banning debates. How about "restricted?"
Tournament wording.

Sigh... That credit for publications should go to the ghost writer
Why?

This would be an AWESOME topic without the internet part
I believe we have a very close variation without the internet part on the other motions list.

This topic tells me you are not yet willing to reduce the subforums
If the forums are reduced then the topic would still remain relevant.

Who in their right minds would disagree with this?
Quite easy to construct a counter-argument IMO.

Limited and conflicting sources.
That's the point. I was trying to think of debates for "people" that are a bit different and can't be resolved with an objective investigation now.

Why not remove United States?
Because those are NFL topics. I've tried not to change those too much.

By the time somebody gets to debate this, Ukraine will have already joined NATO.
This was an NFL topic - but more importantly, the resolution is not about joining NATO but strengthening ties with the rest of NATO.