I am open to a debate, if it can be done with a defined structure. By structure, I mean, within defined objectives, scope, flow, and ground rules.
<i><b>Objective:</b></i> "The merits of this configuration of SSCP are worth damaging the Rama Setu"
<i><b>Scope:</b></i> Only the merits and demerits of the configuration is the scope. Everything else is irrelevant for this single discussion. (Such matter can also be debated in another one)
I announce to be 'against' the above statement, and am willing to debate. If there is someone 'for' this statement, and willing to debate, please announce yourselves as such.
Ground Rules:
1. No sarcasm. Only refer to what poster said and not to the poster. No abuses. No claims of victory or losing.
2. Anyone, including admins, can add value.
3. Discuss the merits/demerits, one-by-one, without mixing or intermingling with each other. One point shall be started. Don't move to another one until this single point has convincingly been resolved.
4. A poster, who gets abusive, angry, personal, posts irrelevant etc, will volunteerily disqualify him/herself from posting on this discussion.
5. Only one post per 3 hours per poster. To maintain the sanity.
6. (I wish we were living in a different age, as described by beautiful stories from Goraksha-vijayam, Shankara-vijayam etc, where debatees were so honest as to accept the defeat and take the winner to be one's Guru) However we live in a different era, where 'ego' hinders even free admission of truth, and it would be natural to expect that none would be willing to concede a point even if proven otherwise. So, we need to have a 'conflict -resolution' mechanism. Like any academic debate, we have to have a panel of people, who themselves dont participate in the debate, but in good faith, can moderate the debate and resolve any conflicts. Their decision on a conflict will be agreed by both parties. Both parties can nominate a person each from their side.
7. Nominated <i>panch</i>es have to be -
- from the 'senior members' group,
- is willing to moderate,
- has never posted on these or related threads,
- is known to have no locus standi whatsoever on the issue,
- is free from all conflicts,
- will not debate him/herself, and remain neutral,
- will only monitor, but not interrupt or give opinion, unless invited to
8. <i>Panch</i>es should offline discuss amongst themselves, come to a unanimous conclusion, and then give us their resolutions. Their resolution will be final and to be accepted.
9. Admins can still 'time out' a particular discussion, if it violates the general forum rules.
All the above rules are open for the discussion too. Let me know if there are any takers. If someone has any suggestion to modify/add/delete some of the above, please bring it up and it can be discussed.
Also those members who are not willing to post, but would like to see the debate, are welcome to send opinions.
In hope of a fair and intellectual dialogue.
Truth alone is victorious. Satyameva Jayate (Atharva Veda).
<i><b>Objective:</b></i> "The merits of this configuration of SSCP are worth damaging the Rama Setu"
<i><b>Scope:</b></i> Only the merits and demerits of the configuration is the scope. Everything else is irrelevant for this single discussion. (Such matter can also be debated in another one)
I announce to be 'against' the above statement, and am willing to debate. If there is someone 'for' this statement, and willing to debate, please announce yourselves as such.
Ground Rules:
1. No sarcasm. Only refer to what poster said and not to the poster. No abuses. No claims of victory or losing.
2. Anyone, including admins, can add value.
3. Discuss the merits/demerits, one-by-one, without mixing or intermingling with each other. One point shall be started. Don't move to another one until this single point has convincingly been resolved.
4. A poster, who gets abusive, angry, personal, posts irrelevant etc, will volunteerily disqualify him/herself from posting on this discussion.
5. Only one post per 3 hours per poster. To maintain the sanity.
6. (I wish we were living in a different age, as described by beautiful stories from Goraksha-vijayam, Shankara-vijayam etc, where debatees were so honest as to accept the defeat and take the winner to be one's Guru) However we live in a different era, where 'ego' hinders even free admission of truth, and it would be natural to expect that none would be willing to concede a point even if proven otherwise. So, we need to have a 'conflict -resolution' mechanism. Like any academic debate, we have to have a panel of people, who themselves dont participate in the debate, but in good faith, can moderate the debate and resolve any conflicts. Their decision on a conflict will be agreed by both parties. Both parties can nominate a person each from their side.
7. Nominated <i>panch</i>es have to be -
- from the 'senior members' group,
- is willing to moderate,
- has never posted on these or related threads,
- is known to have no locus standi whatsoever on the issue,
- is free from all conflicts,
- will not debate him/herself, and remain neutral,
- will only monitor, but not interrupt or give opinion, unless invited to
8. <i>Panch</i>es should offline discuss amongst themselves, come to a unanimous conclusion, and then give us their resolutions. Their resolution will be final and to be accepted.
9. Admins can still 'time out' a particular discussion, if it violates the general forum rules.
All the above rules are open for the discussion too. Let me know if there are any takers. If someone has any suggestion to modify/add/delete some of the above, please bring it up and it can be discussed.
Also those members who are not willing to post, but would like to see the debate, are welcome to send opinions.
In hope of a fair and intellectual dialogue.
Truth alone is victorious. Satyameva Jayate (Atharva Veda).