Thursday, May 20, 2010

Proposal: Argument: “Congress is the Opposite of Progress”

Times out and passes 8-5.  As per the last sentence in Rule 2.11, the conclusion is added to Rule 2.12 even though the proposal doesn’t explicitly say so. -Bucky

Adminned at 23 May 2010 11:33:35 UTC

Since rule 2.13.1 defines progress as the opposite of congress. Therefore Progress is the subset of Blognomickers who are not a part of Congress.

This is assuming that Progress is a hook.

Comments

spikebrennan:

20-05-2010 01:12:57 UTC

for
Sounds sensible to me

dbdougla:

20-05-2010 02:25:59 UTC

for

lilomar:

20-05-2010 02:53:21 UTC

for
It’s only logical.

Klisz:

20-05-2010 02:55:18 UTC

for

Bucky:

20-05-2010 03:05:42 UTC

for

ais523:

20-05-2010 04:31:40 UTC

for

flurie:

20-05-2010 19:09:12 UTC

for

Jumblin McGrumblin:

20-05-2010 20:37:12 UTC

for

Qwazukee:

20-05-2010 22:17:40 UTC

against because the first “sentence” of this Proposal is a dependent clause.

Rodney:

21-05-2010 00:52:39 UTC

for

Tiberias:

21-05-2010 15:59:11 UTC

for

redtara: they/them

21-05-2010 22:03:15 UTC

for

omd:

22-05-2010 04:37:10 UTC

against

Igthorn:

22-05-2010 05:44:18 UTC

against
I am with Qwazukee

Klisz:

22-05-2010 21:37:54 UTC

against  CoV as it should be put into the Ruleset.

lilomar:

23-05-2010 03:09:32 UTC

against COV per darth