Debates

[Inseriousity.]

Bias is unavoidable. In fact, most of the time I reckon it should be applauded as if you have the right subject, it can often spark off critical and intriguing responses to said bias (see pretty much all of dan's EU threads when alexxx was around). The problem I find with official debates is that they're so trying to be new that they often fall flat as there isn't much room for debate. There is nothing wrong with having a classic debate aboutthe existence of God, abortion etc. They're classics for a reason

[GommeInc]

Bias is unavoidable. In fact, most of the time I reckon it should be applauded as if you have the right subject, it can often spark off critical and intriguing responses to said bias (see pretty much all of dan's EU threads when alexxx was around). The problem I find with official debates is that they're so trying to be new that they often fall flat as there isn't much room for debate. There is nothing wrong with having a classic debate aboutthe existence of God, abortion etc. They're classics for a reason

Depends what the bias involves, sometimes it side-tracks a topic but in some cases I agree. As for the topic themselves, sometimes the classics are too often talked about. The moon landing debate and I think the 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions fell a bit flat because they're often talked about and easily disproven, they're a bit of a dry well these days Perhaps debates that are based on extreme conspiracy theories should be left to one side? At the very least, the ones we all know too well like the aforementioned ones. A debate on 2012 could be quite interesting, as I think there is quite a lot of scientific, religious and cultural facts linked with the date unlike the 9/11 and moon landing theories.