Tweet
I know this is an odd forum to have a game, but this one wouldn't fly on CS, and I want to play! I got this from a high school teacher. The rules are:
A topic is stated. It can be pretty much anything. You must argue AGAINST the statement made (you can also play this as "All in Favor," but "All Opposed" is more fun). There are only two real restrictions:
1. No fair answering if it's your signature issue-- the idea is not to know whether or not the person answering actually feels that way.
2. No fair suggesting topics being currently discussed here, since that would eliminate most posters due to rule 1.
So it would go like this:
Person 1 suggests the topic: "A law to ban cell phones in cars."
Person 2 must then argue against such a law. "What if there's an emergency? Should a person have to choose between obeying the law and answering a call from, say, a babysitter, knowing their children might be at risk?"
Person 2 suggests a new topic.
If you play this in person you can do it competitively, but here I think it's better played just for fun with no scoring or winners and losers.
The first topic is....
....
A 23-year-old former rugby player who became spinal cord injured has committed assisted suicide. In light of his youth and the short time (18 months) between his injury and his suicide, the Swiss clinic that helped him commit suicide should have refused him service. In the future, their regulations should be changed so that someone of his age, with the ability to continue living for years to come, would not be administered an assisted suicide.
All Opposed, say "Aye!"
A topic is stated. It can be pretty much anything. You must argue AGAINST the statement made (you can also play this as "All in Favor," but "All Opposed" is more fun). There are only two real restrictions:
1. No fair answering if it's your signature issue-- the idea is not to know whether or not the person answering actually feels that way.
2. No fair suggesting topics being currently discussed here, since that would eliminate most posters due to rule 1.
So it would go like this:
Person 1 suggests the topic: "A law to ban cell phones in cars."
Person 2 must then argue against such a law. "What if there's an emergency? Should a person have to choose between obeying the law and answering a call from, say, a babysitter, knowing their children might be at risk?"
Person 2 suggests a new topic.
If you play this in person you can do it competitively, but here I think it's better played just for fun with no scoring or winners and losers.
The first topic is....
....
A 23-year-old former rugby player who became spinal cord injured has committed assisted suicide. In light of his youth and the short time (18 months) between his injury and his suicide, the Swiss clinic that helped him commit suicide should have refused him service. In the future, their regulations should be changed so that someone of his age, with the ability to continue living for years to come, would not be administered an assisted suicide.
All Opposed, say "Aye!"
) But I am amused by the concept you have here, Saydrah!
)
Comment