*controversy

Adding video to channels (Controversy) - requested by EndAll.

I'm halfway through and finding it very interesting so far - I like the moderator - he's quick, engages the speakers' ideas and makes them elaborate on their points so there is no confusion in the message they are trying to get across - and he is certainly not shy, challenging contradictions instantly and keeping them on their toes. I've bookmarked it, and I'll be back to listen some more. Excellent sift, overcast.

Aha, I was very pleased with the results.

I was surprised by the results. It seemed like the more prominent voices were against the motion. But, there's no stopping change, and I probably should have had more faith in humanity.

However, you can call me culturally insensitive if you'd like, I'm surprised that this topic is even being debated at all. The question has an obvious answer to any modern, ethical human, imo.

Should really be in *long too ... damn my squishy lack of power.

Invocations (long) cannot be called by Mashiki because Mashiki is not privileged - sorry.

I'm frankly amazed that this is still considered a debatable topic. That there are still places in the world where this level of sexism is considered normal.

Religion is fucked up.

Moving this video to xxovercastxx's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter xxovercastxx.

Hell Yes!

*beg

Sending this video to Beggar's Canyon to plea for a little attention - beg requested by original submitter xxovercastxx.

I found the duo making the argument for the motion were idiots. I found that the fanatics making the arguments against were more articulate in their positions, and didn't rely on humanist appeals, or utter confusion that befell the side that was for the motion, but rather, the religious and societal absolutism espoused by the side arguing against the argument, bares the true face of their religion, one that cannot stand in the face of opposing veiwpoints without unveiling the bigotry behind their words in defense of their faith.

As a result, these speakers against the motion would have done themselves a service if they would have just boycotted the debate in the first place, as their interactions with the audience and the moderator truly damaged them in this instance. To have young woman stand up, and state that the female arguing for the rights of the family over those of the individual, was insulting her intelligence and mocking her ability to make sane choices, is probably the worst PR you can get from a debate of this type. It patronizes those you need to convince most. They spoke more to the religious absolutists and to the families, rather than to those rasing the issue, and that is where they have lost this debate.