[Debatewise RRT] Re: debates
- From: Douglas Jefferson <thebigd003@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:25:27 +0000
Hi all,
Can I help take the religion conflict one, checking e-mails and think only one
person is on it though sorry if I have made a mistake.
Doug
From: alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Debatewise RRT] Re: debates
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:04:44 +0000
Dear Timothy
I have taken you off the list, done quickly as to prevent you getting the
weekly barrage of people taking debates. If you have any feedback from your
time on the RRT it would be appreciated. Otherwise I hope you will still visit
Debatewise and contribute.
Good luck with the future.
Regards,
Alex Helling
From: debatewiserrt-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:debatewiserrt-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
timothy.alderslade@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 24 November 2009 19:57
To: debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Debatewise RRT] Re: debates
Hi please can you delete me from your database i don't really have the time to
contribute at the moment, thanks.
Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
From: "Alex Helling" <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:54:37 -0000
To: <debatewiserrt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Debatewise RRT] debates
Hi all,
Eeeek im late! Sorry for being late with this – even if you don’t
mind it means I get home very late so I do mind! I think that I should mention
since we are getting more people on the RRT who are not necessarily taking
debates from our list but instead mostly coming up with their own debate titles
that there is an option for a digest version of the emails from the RRT. I
realise that particularly on Tuesday and Wednesday we create a large number of
emails so anyone who does not rely on getting the email ASAP in order to be
able to grab the topic they want may wish to get the daily digest. Email me if
you wish to have your preferences changed. I think you can probably do it
yourself but can’t be bothered to explain how!
Regards,
Alex
Debates:
Information should be translated into minority languages.
While the language of the nation is English in order for many minorities some
are not fluent enough in English to understand government information given out
in English. So even if the numbers are very small they need to have information
published in their language. Minority British languages such as Gaelic or Welsh
appear on road signs as well as information leaflets. Now the Scottish
parliament has even translated some of its website into scots. Pointless or
necessary?
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/language/scots/index.htm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1227837/Walcome-tae-Scottish-Pairlament-wabsite-The-internet-guide-Holyrood--translated-Scots-dialect.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6172805.stm
Should players loyalty be to their club over their country?
In most sports the best members of each team are likely to be called up to
serve the country in national matches. This can often be in direct conflict
with the interests of the club to whom the player belongs, either there are
clashes in fixtures or the club wishes their star players to be rested so that
they can be at their best for their key club matches. However for a player
playing for your country is something to be prized, especially if it is in
prestigious matches, it helps them get noticed internationally.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup-2010/teams/england/3479028/The-Debate-Should-England-players-put-country-before-their-clubs-Football.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/may/25/theo-walcott-arsenal-england-wenger
http://www.cricketworld.com/internationalcricketnews/new_zealand/article/?aid=21428
U2 the right band to headline next year’s Glastonbury festival?
U2 is finally to headline at Glastonbury. While they are a major band who have
been roumered as a possible headline for years their style of concert does not
fit in well with Glastonbury. Their concerts are too big for the context of
being set within a festival so U2 have tended to avoid festivals.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/nov/23/u2-glastonbury-festival
http://www.nme.com/blog/index.php?blog=10&title=u2_to_headline_glastonbury_5_reasons_it_&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
Today’s children are "over sanitised" by health and safety regulations.
Children used to be much freer in their possible activities, they would play
football on the streets, could spend all day out and about engaging in
activities like fishing without adult supervision. Now health and safety may
keep children safe and healthy as advertised but it stifles their freedom, they
can no longer do anything without an adult present, and the adults in turn are
tightly regulated. Is there any adventure left for children?
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2009/11November/Pages/Is-dirt-good-for-kids.aspx
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8373690.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/mar/30/children.health
China should be responsible for security in South Asia.
China’s role in South Asia has not often been positive, propping up the junta
in Myanmar, helping Pakistan no matter what Pakistan does, aiding the Maoists
in Nepal. China has certainly not gone out of its way to recognise that India
might have a sphere of influence. However in his visit to China Obama appeared
to support a more active role for China in South Asia, not the way to win over
the Indians!
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK21Df03.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KC14Df01.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/world/asia/24india.html?ref=asia
New York is the right place for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial.
9/11 is imprinted on New York’s consciousness. As the place where the
spectacular attacks on the world trade centre took place it can be seen as both
the best and the worst place to hold Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s trial. It has
huge symbolic meaning, but there is less chance of a fair trial in a city that
has lost so many people in the attacks. There may have been dislike at the
possibility of a military trial but such a trial would be less likely to be
swayed by public opinion and the inevitable media blitz. So is New York the
right place?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14terror.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/13/911-mastermind-trial-challenges-analysis
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/opinion/24iht-edgerson.html
Cadbury should not be sold.
Cadbury is an iconic business. As it was a Quaker company Cadbury is a business
with a soul. The vultures are however circling, Kraft has launched a hostile
bid and others may follow suit. Most big business mergers and acquisitions do
not result in the savings advertised and instead destroy the culture of one or
other firm. So do the benefits outweigh the costs of a takeover, or should we
hold onto a national asset?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1229813/Keep-Cadbury-British-New-union-fears-jobs-Americans-sweet-iconic-UK-chocolate-maker.html
http://www.confectionerynews.com/The-Big-Picture/Chocolate-market-set-to-consolidate-says-analyst
(there is a magazine to have on ‘Have I got news for you’ eh?)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/poll/2009/sep/07/cadbury-kraft-british-brand
Will Europe always be considered the foreign land for the British?
Europe as an island nation has always been a bit isolated from the rest of
Europe. While the continental Europeans seem to get along well with each other
and be increasingly considering themselves European we lag behind. Britain is
as Euroskeptic as ever. No one is willing to make the case for us becoming
closer to Europe and increasing trade does not seem to be working. Europe
remains a foreign place to go on holiday rather than part of the national
identity.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/dominic-lawson/dominic-lawson-europe-will-always-be-a-foreign-land-for-the-british-1826457.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8045178.stm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-britain-must-be-at-heart-of-europe-1826290.html
Does religion cause conflict?
Religion is at the heart of many conflicts in the world today. Samuel P.
Huntingdons Clash of Civilisations based civilisations upon religion,
civilisations will clash so religions will clash. And it is religion that
causes this. Religion unifies within a religion but creates an ‘other’ against
which to fight. It becomes easy to justify conflict based upon religious
principles. However religion also preaches peace. So does religion create
conflict, or bring us together?
http://www.thebcobserver.com/2009/10/27/does-religion-cause-more-conflict-than-good/
http://www.secularism.org.uk/religioncauseswarsitdoesntsolvet.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/49414/samuel-p-huntington/if-not-civilizations-what-samuel-huntington-responds-to-his-crit
http://history.club.fatih.edu.tr/103%20Huntington%20Clash%20of%20Civilizations%20full%20text.htm
(as this is a very big question I suggest at least two of you take it on)
Use Revisewise @ http://revisewise.debatewise.com/
_________________________________________________________________
Add your Gmail and Yahoo! Mail email accounts into Hotmail - it's easy
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/
Other related posts:
