Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Well, thanks for ridiculing Elphaba's creative idea, as well as her and my hard work in creating this thread. If you had read my original post, you would know that, from the very beginning, the intention was to have Elphaba and I write our point-conterpoint-point-counterpoint and then to open the floor for discussion as usual. We wanted to have both points of view represented in the opening of the thread, as is not the case in the typical thread one would find here.
|
And thank you for flying off the deep end. I don't see anything that I wrote that could be considered ridicule. And I did read the original post (after which I stopped reading the thread until I saw others post, because it was made clear that outside comments would not be appreciated until the adults had finished talking). And you prove my point with the "both points of view represented" comment. There may be *gasp* more than two points of view on a subject. And in subjects where there are two points of view, i generally see both sides voiced (or attempt myself to voice the unrepresented side).
Quote:
|
Furthermore, what is not interactive about debates, especially if the "audience" is allowed to respond afterwards? This was a well-constructed dialogue between two disagreeing parties, not an interaction-deviod monologue, so I have trouble sympathizing with you here. If you really are so concerned about the lack of interaction, why don't you start us of with your thoughts on the issue of partial birth abortion?
|
A debate is very interactive, for those involved in the debate. I was not questioning if it was interactive for the two named participants. However, it did lack interaction for the however many other people visit the board, who were politely told to shut up while you two had your debate. And what could I have to add to the subject, when obviously the only possible two sides of the issue have already been covered.