Debate talk:The Dialogue of the Deaf

It won't work. MarcusTrolliusCicero (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Could we not? - π 03:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Pi. This game is boring. Aceⁱ⁹ 03:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

May as well let it happen. If all the participants involved are willing to waste their own time, let them. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I predict the talk page will soon be longer than the debate page. ħuman 03:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Not when MC gets going with his long-winded Edmund Burke quotes. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I could always transclude the debate to the talk page to make my prediction come true... ħuman 03:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that would be cheating. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 03:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that would be playing. Of course, it would get reverted or nowikied anyway... ħuman 03:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unschooled in the ways of erudite debate, I ask: are there halting criteria commonly used for this sort of thing? For example, will the threefold repetition of a position, or something like it, be grounds for striking the big top and moving on? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 07:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I considered some method of ending the whole matter, but I couldn't think of anything that would work. Repetition of a point is occasionally warranted and often a judgment call - after all, who's to say when a restatement becomes repetition? And any sort of jury or tribunal would be prejudiced strongly against MC, because he is such an asshole. My feeling is probably that he won't be able to keep up a discussion, anyway. In the past he hasn't been able to take the pressure and has cracked and resorted to vandalism. I think that's what will probably happen here, if he does start debating. If he had any stick-to-itiveness, after all, he would have adhered to his several declarations of self-exile.--Tom Moore^{fiat justitia} 07:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Groan. Yet another opportunity to let Marcus see that people are talking about him. Now it's going to be all about who he debates and under what circumstances. People, it seems, never learn to not feed the troll.--Bob^{Bring back the hat!} 07:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall require some time to ponder my opening statement. Later, you shall have a speech that will bring tears to eyes of stone. MarcusCicero (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Another way of looking at it

Admittedly this debate is a giant trollfeed, but since Tom Moore controls the terms of the debate it is a safer way of feeding the troll than our usual HCM flame wars. Furthermore, I think Tom's purpose in accepting MC's offer is to show the rest of us how infantile MC is (but correct me if I'm wrong, Tom). Thus, I think if Tom is willing to put forth the effort and do this, I don't see why it shouldn't happen. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 14:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)