The Debate on the Lisbon Debate

hmmm

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

You really don't see the relevance of all the above to the Lisbon debate?

It's supposed to be a debate, not a mind-dump of everything you have in your head. Blitzkriegs first reply was an excellent example of how to debate - he layed out the point he was debating, he explained why it was important, he justified his position and he summed it up at the end. Posts like that can be debated because there is a central point to be argued. Sparks43 also laid out his point and supporting argument but I would argue had a weakness in not explaining why his particular point should be of relevance to the votes of the wider population (as it was a relatively technical issue).

FT's post have no coherent argument running through them. E.g. he could have started by saying he had 2 fundamental arguments to make about the functioning of the EU as a whole and 4 technical arguments relating to aspects of the treaty which are sufficiently negative for Ireland as to warrant rejection. Instead we get a big splurge of words and his points are lost - not only that but as a debate it becomes pointless when your opponents don't seem to have a central argument.

Stainless_Steel

hmmm wrote: »

It's supposed to be a debate, not a mind-dump of everything you have in your head. Blitzkriegs first reply was an excellent example of how to debate - he layed out the point he was debating, he explained why it was important, he justified his position and he summed it up at the end. Posts like that can be debated because there is a central point to be argued. Sparks43 also laid out his point and supporting argument.

FT's post have no coherent argument running through them. E.g. he could have started by saying he had 2 fundamental arguments to make about the functioning of the EU as a whole and 4 technical arguments relating to aspects of the treaty which are sufficiently negative for Ireland as to warrant rejection. Instead we get a big splurge of words and his points are lost - not only that but as a debate it becomes pointless when your opponents don't seem to have a central argument.

Apologies, I thought you were implying that FT's points had nothing to do with the Lisbon topic as a whole.

Point noted - but bear in mind the YES side have only refuted a small number of his points, and have given no reason for voting YES. In my eyes, they are losing.

K-9

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Dont fully agree, he addressed blitzkrieg's points very well IMO.



You really don't see the relevance of all the above to the Lisbon debate?

No, he addressed the weightings in QMV and just states it is a bad thing. No examples of big countries over ruling us.

Basically, it is the sovereignty is sacrosanct principle, without giving examples of how shared sovereignty Has affected us for the worse.

Immigration had nothing to do with that. We could have availed of a 7 year derogation, but only 3 Govts. didn't, us included. His economy points are weak too.

Blitzkrieger

nesf is talking about conspiracy theroies now, but I genuinely do think we should question anything so heartily endorsed by our politicians. The same ****wits who led us into the current economic crisis now want us to vote yes as if our lives depended on it?

I also question why so many big corporations are endorsing it and none seem to be telling us why. Their interests are seldom the same as ours...

nesf

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

nesf is talking about conspiracy theroies now, but I genuinely do think we should question anything so heartily endorsed by our politicians. The same ****wits who led us into the current economic crisis now want us to vote yes as if our lives depended on it?

I'd 100% agree with you if only the Government parties supported this but it's broader than that and mainstream parties in other EU countries are also endorsing this.

Blitzkrieger wrote: »

I also question why so many big corporations are endorsing it and none seem to be telling us why. Their interests are seldom the same as ours...

Again, I'd agree if it was only businesses that were endorsing this but the Irish Congress of Trade Unions is also endorsing this and you can be damn sure they'd not support anything that wasn't in the interests of their members.

RandomName2

hmmm wrote: »

It's supposed to be a debate, not a mind-dump of everything you have in your head. Blitzkriegs first reply was an excellent example of how to debate - he layed out the point he was debating, he explained why it was important, he justified his position and he summed it up at the end. Posts like that can be debated because there is a central point to be argued. Sparks43 also laid out his point and supporting argument but I would argue had a weakness in not explaining why his particular point should be of relevance to the votes of the wider population (as it was a relatively technical issue).

FT's post have no coherent argument running through them. E.g. he could have started by saying he had 2 fundamental arguments to make about the functioning of the EU as a whole and 4 technical arguments relating to aspects of the treaty which are sufficiently negative for Ireland as to warrant rejection. Instead we get a big splurge of words and his points are lost - not only that but as a debate it becomes pointless when your opponents don't seem to have a central argument.

Oh well... guess you're just going to love my post in that case .

Any chance of getting a link to the debate in the Politics forum?

claireloopy

Hope this isnt a stupid Question but what will the lisbon treaty do for animals in this country?

ei.sdraob

claireloopy wrote: »

Hope this isnt a stupid Question but what will the lisbon treaty do for animals in this country?

not much directly, indirectly

It helps ensure their habitats dont get flooded or disappear due to other climate change events

as fighting climate change is one of the main parts of Lisbon

ei.sdraob

a little observation about the debate so far

* using
* bullet
* points
* would
* surely
* improve
* readability

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

ei.sdraob

Is it me or is FT

trying to do a classic

information overload trick?

how many of your average AH members would read all of that? without their eyes glazing over

Stainless_Steel

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not much directly, indirectly

It helps ensure their habitats dont get flooded or disappear due to other climate change events

as fighting climate change is one of the main parts of Lisbon

Could you not just have answered 'nothing' rather than come up with that waffle?

If you were being humourous then I apologise.

ei.sdraob

Stainless_Steel wrote: »

Could you not just have answered 'nothing' rather than come up with that waffle?

If you were being humourous then I apologise.

well lookit this way its more plausable than the 1.84 min wage

Bob_Harris

ei.sdraob wrote: »

It helps ensure their habitats dont get flooded or disappear due to other climate change events

as fighting climate change is one of the main parts of Lisbon

It's argued the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more vigorous plants will grow therefore their habitats will be fine.

Climate change becomes an official objective of the EU under Lisbon, but why fight something that is natural?

You can be assured any "fight" against climate change will be purely a money making exercise via carbon taxes and the like.

brianthebard

ei.sdraob wrote: »

not much directly, indirectly

It helps ensure their habitats dont get flooded or disappear due to other climate change events

as fighting climate change is one of the main parts of Lisbon

Lisbon ends climate change? :eek: nobody told me that!

Seriously though to say that it 'ensures their habitats don't get flooded' is amazingly deceiving.

K-9

claireloopy wrote: »

Hope this isnt a stupid Question but what will the lisbon treaty do for animals in this country?

Probably nothing either way though the EU's track record does stand up.

Turf cutting in 92 bogs stopped and recompensing owners for it, will be spinned as all turf cutters out of jobs.

Would you trust the EU on this or Ireland?

Red Sleeping Beauty

The Lisbon helps climate change thing is nuts considering there's so few mentions of climate change in the treaty. The main purpose of the treaty is reform not particularly to deal with world issues like that. So there's nothing really new there.

smegmar

claireloopy wrote: »

Hope this isnt a stupid Question but what will the lisbon treaty do for animals in this country?

the Irish fisheries box in the Atlantic will be invaded by Spanish "armada", with a good chance of damaging the fish stocks permanently.

also for every time you vote yes a puppy and kitten are eaten by Mary Herney.:D:D

nesf

This isn't a debate it's rambling walls of text that without any central theme which fail to coherently address points. I honestly fail to see the point of this.

RedPlanet

turgon wrote: »

Valid point. However this doesnt relate to the French and Dutch as the Constitution is different to Lisbon, despite how much the No side want them to be the same.

Insofar as i can tell, the Yes side of the debate have essentially conceeded this point (they have not even attempted a rebuttal); and it is being hammered home by the No side. That the Lisbon Treaty is the EU Constitution re-visited.

Well done FT.

The Recliner

nesf wrote: »

This isn't a debate it's rambling walls of text that without any central theme which fail to coherently address points. I honestly fail to see the point of this.

I was thinking maybe there should be a word count limit so that people had to make their points succinctly and without rambling, it would be like having a time limit in a spoken debate

With a word limit more thought and shape would have to be made in a post in order to get your point across and it would cut down the walls of text that are currently being produced with very little to show for it

djpbarry

RedPlanet wrote: »

Insofar as i can tell, the Yes side of the debate have essentially conceeded this point (they have not even attempted a rebuttal); and it is being hammered home by the No side.

Insofar as I can tell, the only point being hammered home by the ‘No’ side is that they don’t know how to make a point succinctly.

ei.sdraob

brianthebard wrote: »

Lisbon ends climate change? :eek: nobody told me that!

Seriously though to say that it 'ensures their habitats don't get flooded' is amazingly deceiving.

What no sense of humor today?

deceiving is exactly what the NO campaign has been doing, have a taste of your own medicine so

turgon

Wheres Scofflaw and sink?


Its true the debate isnt living up to the hopes I had after reading the first two points.

FutureTaoiseach

The Recliner wrote: »

I was thinking maybe there should be a word count limit so that people had to make their points succinctly and without rambling, it would be like having a time limit in a spoken debate

With a word limit more thought and shape would have to be made in a post in order to get your point across and it would cut down the walls of text that are currently being produced with very little to show for it

That would prevent important - if longwinded - parts of the Treaty and the Charter from being explored as to their legal implications. I disagree.

BlitzKrieg

quatations are not counted in word limits as far as I know.

Dr Pepper

Poor debate!

FT is ruining it with the walls of text in my opinion. I'm half way through his third and largest wall and I give up.

From the wider debate I have read so far (on boards and other media) and the parts of the legal rants I have understood, it appears to me that the issue (for the general public) boils down to one simple question... "Do you trust the EU?". My answer is yes. FT's arguments so far mostly seem to point out chinks in the legal armour as if to say "Look, here's a place where the EU can shaft us!". Such chinks may or may not exist and well done you for finding them if they do. Frankly though, I don't care because I don't think the EU is out to get us!

Arg! This whole thing is a farce. It should never have been put to a referendum in my opinion. It is just going to come down to voters' personalities and their disposition.

RandomName2

Dr Pepper wrote: »

Poor debate!

FT is ruining it with the walls of text in my opinion. I'm half way through his third and largest wall and I give up.

From the wider debate I have read so far (on boards and other media) and the parts of the legal rants I have understood, it appears to me that the issue (for the general public) boils down to one simple question... "Do you trust the EU?". My answer is yes. FT's arguments so far mostly seem to point out chinks in the legal armour as if to say "Look, here's a place where the EU can shaft us!". Such chinks may or may not exist and well done you for finding them if they do. Frankly though, I don't care because I don't think the EU is out to get us!

Arg! This whole thing is a farce. It should never have been put to a referendum in my opinion. It is just going to come down to voters' personalities and their disposition.

I tend to agree. However, I think that the european voters were indeed shafted in terms of Lisbon. I believe that we are already being shafted in small ways. I personally trust free markets. I don't trust an unaccountable Commission - and that is fundamentally why I don't think it should be given more power by Lisbon.

And unfortunately, the wall of texts are symptomatic of a very stodgy legal document that like the Bible, seemingly contradicts itself at numerous turns (not to mention the yes and no political campaigns that contradict themselves, let alone each other, with every other breath)

Edit: I apparently, and inadvertently, made a good reference to faith-hood with my analogy. I BELIEVE in Europe.

Does Barosso have a direct line to EU? Let us pray, tomorrow!

turgon

Fair dues to Blitzkrieg. His last two posts have shown him to be a rational debater who is crucially able to support his points with wide varieties of sources.

The Recliner

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

quatations are not counted in word limits as far as I know.

That was my thinking on it too and one of the reasons I suggested a word count limit

I have no issue with quoting chunks of text (aside from the fact that it veers away a little from the format of a spoken debate and can make posts difficult to read) but I do think that there should be a limit to what a person can say in their posts

It kind of undermines the point of only allowing 5 posts per day per debator if they can put up huge posts spanning a huge range of arguements that makes it very difficult to break down and argue against

ei.sdraob

The Recliner wrote: »

That was my thinking on it too and one of the reasons I suggested a word count limit

I have no issue with quoting chunks of text (aside from the fact that it veers away a little from the format of a spoken debate and can make posts difficult to read) but I do think that there should be a limit to what a person can say in their posts

It kind of undermines the point of only allowing 5 posts per day per debator if they can put up huge posts spanning a huge range of arguements that makes it very difficult to break down and argue against

one would think FT is trying to write a Lisbon treaty sized document

but maybe thats the game plan here? have the people give up on Lisbon as it all appears to complicated and long winded??

The Recliner

ei.sdraob wrote: »

one would think FT is trying to write a Lisbon treaty sized document

but maybe thats the game plan here? have the people give up on Lisbon as it all appears to complicated and long winded??

I wasn't aiming my suggestion at any one poster more a general idea to help the debate along

It doesn't seem like it has generated a huge amount of interest across Boards, most of the posters here are involved in the discussions in the Poltics forum already, I would have hoped it would draw in people who have not previously paid it much attention

Longwindedness is a fault of the Treaty not anyone here a proper cliff notes version of the treaty is all people need to decide on it and leave the Legalise to the legal people that need to worry about it

Dr Pepper

ei.sdraob wrote: »

one would think FT is trying to write a Lisbon treaty sized document

but maybe thats the game plan here? have the people give up on Lisbon as it all appears to complicated and long winded??

If the objective here was to try and enlighten your average boardster and help one to make up one's mind, I would think it has failed miserably. If the objective was to try and pin down the exact legal implications of the treaty, it has probably also failed (although I'm not following it any more so I can't say for sure). So, what is the objective? What has been or is likely to be achieved? Sorry to be negative and putting the whole thing down. I was enthusiastic about it before it started..

Maybe this futility of the debate is why a couple of parties haven't contributed?? Have they decided that there is no point?

ei.sdraob

The Recliner wrote: »

I wasn't aiming my suggestion at any one poster more a general idea to help the debate along

It doesn't seem like it has generated a huge amount of interest across Boards, most of the posters here are involved in the discussions in the Poltics forum already, I would have hoped it would draw in people who have not previously paid it much attention

Longwindedness is a fault of the Treaty not anyone here a proper cliff notes version of the treaty is all people need to decide on it and leave the Legalise to the legal people that need to worry about it

I think it can generate alot more debate

if boards admins

added bigger links to it, something that stands out more than the current announcement system

i mean whats wrong with this country when a thread like this gets more views or this


than a debate on the future of this country?


/

andrew

I had kinda assumed that this would be run like a spoken debate; ie. Each poster gets 1 post; as the debate progresses, posters rebut what has previously been said and the last two posters summarise what has been said. Or maybe each poster could get two posts; one for substantive material and one for rebuttal. At least this way, posters are forced to address only what they consider the most important points and address each other, rather than creating walls of text.

BlitzKrieg

I always knew tuesday would be difficult due to me filming til midnight and working til 9am the next morning, but I had planned when I put my name forward to do alot of work over the weekend beforehand in the private forum and focus primarily on picking up key issues and elaborating them where I could etc.


The Delay threw me and making tuesday the first day rather then the second just made it worse for me

tips for future debates (not criticisms mind you)

Allow the private yes/no forums to open earlier, give a week at least, working together as a team is as important as individual ability. Consider how broken up the issues where in the debate just gone the only sign of cooperation between speakers was a brief backing up of FutureTaoiseach's response to Nesf by Randomname2. Aside from that every other speaker was speaking from a diferent script. We had a random speaker on just fishing which personnally just threw me in its randomness (and that all he had said still migrated into one of FT's posts).

Secondly consider whether there should be questions or not. While some issues for debating would suit better without questions, Lisbon would have suited, due to its diverse nature a series of questions. One released each day of the debate, starting more general and getting more specific with each day, so the last one would require accurate quick responses over a short period of time.

Editing posts. Should not be allowed full stop. I was guilty of it in my last post. But editing posts is a sneaky way of getting around the post count limit and can be abused.

I am not accusing of anyone of abusing them in this debate, but the debate has longer more rounded posts which take time to dismantle and construct a well suited response. Making such a response to a post only to find that it has doubled in length and touches on new issues or has changed sources or has removed bias sources is not productive. It requires me then to either edit my post in response or post a new post on the new issue. It just looks untidy.

Finally I agree with the post count limit, especially if you dont have questions to direct the debate. There is normally a time limit to each speaker, there should equally be a word limit here. It encoruges debators to focus on key issues and consider presentation.

FutureTaoiseachts first post was by far his best because it was on three issues, each one had a paragraph and a quote and it was relatively easy to read. Short, to the point and supported.

Ater that it got messy, I'm not saying he didnt bring up bad points, but it was very dificult to work out when one point ended and another started, especially when some points get repeated across posts.

Overall though, thank you for your time I'm off home to Tipp now to play beatles rock band with my sister and mother and to vote tomorrow.

And remember dont vote with your brain, dont vote with your heart.

vote with both of them. Know what you are voting on and why you are voting.

Scofflaw

Dr Pepper wrote: »

If the objective here was to try and enlighten your average boardster and help one to make up one's mind, I would think it has failed miserably. If the objective was to try and pin down the exact legal implications of the treaty, it has probably also failed (although I'm not following it any more so I can't say for sure). So, what is the objective? What has been or is likely to be achieved? Sorry to be negative and putting the whole thing down. I was enthusiastic about it before it started..

Maybe this futility of the debate is why a couple of parties haven't contributed?? Have they decided that there is no point?

Largely, although real life has also intervened very heavily. I keep meaning to post, but I haven't time to write anything in response to 5 pages of obfuscation. Some of the posts are already a good deal less clear than the Treaty.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Flamed Diving

I wish FT would use paragraphs, his posts are just large blocks of unreadable text so I just tend to skip past them.

RedPlanet

turgon wrote: »

Fair dues to Blitzkrieg. His last two posts have shown him to be a rational debater who is crucially able to support his points with wide varieties of sources.

A wide variety of sources?

On Page 1 i did a quick count, Blitzkrieg put up 8 sources.
FutureTaoiseach. 20+ ?

humanji

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

so thats it over? (my last post was 3 minutes after the deadline so I assume its disqualified)

Doesn't it end tonight?

Scofflaw

humanji wrote: »

Doesn't it end tonight?

That was the impression I was under.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BlitzKrieg

*doh*

sorry misread the pm, thought he said 12:59pm (it was 23:59)


well crap. I blew my load anyway.

Procasinator

Why is everyone scared of walls of text from FutureTaoiseach?

Most of his paragraphs are not that long, it predominately quotes that take up space. His even been so nice to emphasis in bold the relevant information, while not omitting the surrounding contents.

While the posts are a bit long, the flow between topics appears mostly natural. In one post he was refuting points made my other posters, and hence, the order molded based on the users points (which failed to address raised concerns one by one of FutureTaoiseach).

While a verbal speech needs to be short and concise, lest attention wanes, this is written down. You can read at your own pace.

I want information about the Lisbon treaty, not the posters from the side of the road put into a thread. I'm not scared to read.

turgon wrote: »

To say that the No side is winning outright is clearly to let your position on this Treaty distort your objective evaluation of this particular debate. BlitzKriegs retort was more factually and less based on "in my opinion" compared to FutureTaoseachs.

Hopefully the judges whoever they are will not let their Lisbon bias impede their evaluation of the debate. Ive been judging it objectively enough so far I think, its not that hard you know. Its ok to admit the side you dont agree with is doing better.

Seems a little bit ironic considering the bumper stickers in your signature. Whether or not you think you are being impartial is obviously biased.

While opinions don't have much of a place in the debate, I must say I thought BlitzKriegs last post was good, and in the very least went to show the common fear of all decision making happening in Brussels is over-exaggerated.

Looking forward to the appearance of further debaters.

(Disclaimer: I am not in a position to vote, and the fence is stuck firmly in my behind even if I was)

turgon

Procasinator wrote: »

Whether or not you think you are being impartial is obviously biased.

How about this: You go back through every poster who has posted on this thread and rate them in terms of level bias. Im pretty sure I would rank low. Im not saying Im unbiased, Im saying Im a lot less biased than most people here. Contrast the way I was able to complement FT pretty heavily with the fact that most No voters here wouldn't even admit that Blitzkriegs first post attained any kind of merit.

Dr Pepper

Procasinator wrote: »

Why is everyone scared of walls of text from FutureTaoiseach?

Most of his paragraphs are not that long...

While the posts are a bit long...

Just for fun , I spent 5 minutes copying only FT's posts into a word document to get a feel for their length. The 32-page text document is attached if anybody would like to take it to bed with them tonight to help them make up their mind on the legalities of the Lisbon treaty. I have included quoted text which appears in the posts (because presumably if you are quoting it directly in your posts, you expect it to be read to back up your points) but not 'linked' quoted text.

If you want to read that and you have that kind of time, fair play to you. I personally think it's a long way beyond the scope of what this debate set out to do - help people who are undecided on how to vote.

Who is following this debate at this stage? A handful of people with an awful lot of time and patience.
Are any of those people likely to be influenced by it (i.e. change their mind)? I could be wrong but I doubt it! One or two maybe.
What is the objective of this debate at this stage?

Flamed Diving

It's 17,000 words. Blocks and blocks of text.

turgon

And to supplement my previous assertion that I was relatively unbiased, I print here this post from RedPlanet:

RedPlanet wrote: »

On Page 1 i did a quick count, Blitzkrieg put up 8 sources.
FutureTaoiseach. 20+ ?

This post was in response to me saying Blitzkrieg used a "wide variety of sources." I never said he used more sources than FT. In fact my post in question didnt even mention FT. But RedPlanet appears to have jumped the gun and likened a compliment for one side to a direct insult on the other. I never even insinuated this.

RedPlanet: you also dont understand the differences between sources and quotes. A source is a document which is referenced, a quote is a part of that source which is reproduced. FT had 20+ quotes (ill take your figure) however many of these were from the same source (TEU). The "variety of sources" declaration was mainly made due to Blitzkriegs quoting of the French Constitution, which I thought was an novel move. But I supposed that just me being biased, huh?


I think this is the last post I make here. The debate surely had a lot of potential, but both the Public and Debating forums have failed to that potential, imo. Note how my first posts here were objective enough, complementing FT on his sterling start. Few other people were so liberal with complements of the other side. And yet Im labeled biased. Ah well, this is the Lisbon Treaty Campaign, what more should I have expected?

RandomName2

And the Yes side complain when the 'no' side don't refer to the treaty itself.

Or back up our claims with references.

Blocks of texts are pretty hard to read, sure, but what other solution would you put forward?

I was going to do something along the same time but I got bored going through page after page after page after page after page of Lisbon Treaty so I said, Christ, I'll try and talk about something which covers the whole of the damn treaty not some piffling sub-section that is overruled by another subsection that is already existing due to Maastricht or Nice!

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's 17,000 words. Blocks and blocks of text.

:eek: I had a very hard time reaching that for my thesis back in the day

Flamed Diving

RandomName2 wrote: »

Blocks of texts are pretty hard to read, sure, but what other solution would you put forward?

In university, the reason they set fairly tight word limits is to encourage students to learn how to economise on words, etc. That is the skill to conveying a message through text, and is perhaps the most vital talent one can gain from uni, especially Arts students. Keeping the format neat and the words to a minimum, that's how to make a point. FT seems to have missed that class!