Big Sky Cairn

I was recently reminded that Congressman Rehberg is one of four House Republicans that were asked to debate four House Democrats on Energy. One can attribute this to his strong leadership on the issue, and it’s certainly good for Montana - with our tremendous potential for resource development - to have a seat at this table.

Being a fan of debate - unlike my counterparts on the Left - I asked my boss if I could take an early/long lunch break and she said it was fine. So for the first time, I’m going to try my hand at this live-blogging thing. We’ll see how it goes - and cross your fingers that my internet connection handles streaming video well.

Here we go.

Read the rest of this entry »

Colby has had to back out of the debate that I proposed earlier.  As I told him, I’m open to revisions in the specific of the debate but I think it’s an important discussion to have.   I know there’s someone out there who actually believes that the architects of U.S. foreign policy should be subject to international justice.  Care to discuss why?

On behalf of your contributors here at Big Sky Cairn, I Cody hereby challenge a Montana blogger to an online debate of the Resolution:

Resolved: Architects of U.S. foreign policy should be subject to international justice.

I will take the Negative (disproving the resolution or the case presented by the Affirmative). The debate will be hosted here - I’ll give whomever agrees a guest account to post with.

The debate will be structured with specific “speeches” that are governed by word-limits. Each”speech” will be posted as a stand-alone post, tagged as “Debate” and identified in the subject line.

Affirmative Constructive
3000 words max.
The Affirmative makes the case in support of the resolution.
The subject line should start with “1AC”

Negative Cross Examination of Affirmative
10 questions 400 words max
Response 600 words max
Posted as comments of the Aff Constructive, the Negative can ask up to 10 questions which the Affirmative must then answer.

Negative Constructive
3000 words
The Negative argues against the the Resolution.
The subject line should start with “1NC”

Affirmative Cross Examination of Negative
10 questions 400 words max
Response 600 words max
Posted as comments of the Neg Constructive, the Affirmative can ask up to 10 questions which the Negative must then answer.

Affirmative Rebuttal
1800 words
The Affirmative should reaffirm their case, staying within the bounds of discussion established by the Constructives and avoiding brand new arguments.
The subject line should start with “1AR”

Negative Rebuttal and Summation
2400 words
The Negative should make final arguments against the Resolution and summarize their position.
The subject line should start with “1NR”

Affirmative Summation
600 words
The Affirmative should summarize their position.
The subject line should start with “2AR”

A few more ground rules:

Editing of messages more than 20 minutes after their original posting is not allowed and will result in deletion of the messages.

For the sake of continuity and timeliness, each speech should be posted within 72 hours of the prior speech’s posting time. Time extensions, if necessary, should be requested via comments.

Debaters are free to quote evidence, although doing so counts toward the word limit. Hyperlinks are welcome, but material connected to the debate via hyperlink is not considered part of the “text” of the debate for purposes of rebuttal. In other words, you have to include the important points in the text of your argument.

The idea is a civil, but passionate discussion of a relevant issue. The format is based on a bit of a hybrid between several debate formats including Lincoln-Douglas, Policy and British Parliamentary Debate. If this goes well, I would encourage others to host similar debates.

So, who wants a piece of me? Any takers?