The Cthulhu mythos is fictional, therefore, Cthulhu itself is fictional. But he's an Elder God within that mythos, just as the FSM is a deity within his own mythologies.

The main problem with nuclear reactors is not only the risk of a meltdown - "when [it] blows up - but the highly radioactive waste they produce. Much of this has a half-life longer than ten thousand years: it will need to be stored securely during this time or it will irradiate living things, causing cancer and other problems.

Nuclear power isn't the only option, but the reasons you put forward are inaccurate.

The creator of the FSM website, Bobby Henderson, says this: "I don’t have a problem with religion. What I have a problem with is religion posing as science." In other words, it's pointing out the absurdity on imposing beliefs on other people as if they were truth. You talk about the offending the "sacred beliefs of others" and ridiculing people, but you're missing the point. FSMism is poking fun at fundamentalism, maybe. But it's not laughing at believers, Christian or otherwise. It's asking for religious freedom and tolerance, and for all believers to be able to believe what they want, without having Creationist dogma thrust upon them.

Why does that make them "a liar, a heretic, and someone insensitive to the sacred beliefs of others"? Using the FSM as an argument to rebut the teaching of Intelligent Design is no different from using any analogy; it's not "lying", it's demonstrating a point. And as to the charge of 'heresy', I can't see how you can call either someone of another faith or an atheist a heretic. That's religious totalitarianism and it's obnoxious.

But I don't understand what you mean by anti-American. That the leader's country has been known to criticise America, or what? I'm not really sure what you're getting at with it. I also don't know what the conditions of a conditional meeting with these anti-American people would be.

However an interesting parallel to this is that Mugabe came to a UN talk about food shortages. Is it OK to meet with leaders who're ruling undemocratically and who've committed human rights violations? When their presence at a summit of that nature is hypocritical? I'd say there's no reason they shouldn't be allowed to come if they're still recognised as leader of their country; if their presence is hypocritical, that'll be noticed and commented on and will highlight the problems that exist with them. So I don't really see a problem with meeting with any foreign leader, unless there's a risk they'll assassinate you or something.

I think, Borme, that the 'report' thing seems more like it should be reserved for spam or offensive stuff, not just "another boring clone debate". Voting on a debate to say "this is good" is would be a feature more people'd use and it'd help point to interesting debates, as well as just getting rid of bad ones.

And I'm not, I'm British! How would you like it if I asked for your views on the Henley by-election? The Tory candidate is obese and creepy; quick, vote Lib Dem!

Aw well. Possibly the Canadians, Brits, Australians and all other forms of foreigners should just start obscure debates about what's going on in the world outside America and Iraq.

You say: "The point is it shouldn't matter what a leader's religious beliefs are even if it does have implications on their leadership ability." I don't agree. I'd say, the leader should be elected for their leadership ability, and anything that affects that does matter. Anything that influences that would also matter: I wouldn't want to vote for a hard-line Catholic who would oppose abortion and teaching people to use contraception. I wouldn't deny their right to be Catholic, I would have no prejudice against their Catholicism, but I'd disagree with their policies and I'd want to know what those policies would be. If knowing their religion gives me that information about their political convictions, I want to know it. Because of that, I want them to be open about their religion.

First problem: that hierarchy doesn't apply to arguing FOR a motion. It's about rebutting and counter-arguing, so it'd need to be adapted before you could use it.

It also doesn't let you give points for style, and it considers supporting evidence, which few people use on this site. I know, it'd encourage it, but if you're debating for fun in an informal argument, it puts you off to feel the need to go hunt down evidence (it also encourages the use of wikipedia...).

The other problem I have with that idea is that the general reader/voter doesn't necessarily have the critical ability to decide whether the "central point has been explicitly refuted"; besides, a lot of the voters are partisan. It'd be more appropriate to have someone neutral with recognised authority judge participants in a debate and put them on a level in that hierarchy than to encourage all feedback to be in that form.

I think that ladder ranking is interesting and you could probably make use of it, but I think the Total Points/Total Arguments would be a more practical adjustment to make to the system.

I think setting up debates that'll get judged 'professionally' and have start and finish times would be a good move. Maybe pick one motion every week or every day, post the title around in advance, and maybe even make it a closed debate that'll have a limited number of people. Judging the debate and evaluating the arguments in it should encourage a better quality of debate, I think. The practicalities of that kind of thing, I'm not so sure about. Still, I'll try and make it to the town hall. So long as I figure out what time 4pm EDT is in GMT... (8pm, counting daylight savings time, right?)

You goddamn reactionary; don't think you're coming running back to cyberpunk land after the steampunk fad catches on. Hmph.

(Also, your link brought me much joy and happiness. <3)

(though that's kinda somewhat the point of the Lovecraft novels; the Elder Gods are forces of nature and they care not one whit about their pathetic followers. It's all about the essential bleakness of existence, ;_;. But the FSM will protect and comfort them with His Noodly Appendages, so it's all okay.)