31
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 14:
Line 14: +
Debate:The 90/10 rule exists soley to squash debate, and should be eliminated (view source)
Revision as of 17:30, October 4, 2010
, 17:30, October 4, 2010no edit summary
I definitely think there is room on the web for ALTERNATIVE articles on a wide range of subjects, particularly those which are overtly political and religious. Is there any such thing as objective truth? Good question. Meanwhile, what we need is CHOICE. When I search for something on the internet, I search using its name and add "-Wikipedia" .[[User:HenriettaVanLaer|HenriettaVanLaer]] 07:52, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
I definitely think there is room on the web for ALTERNATIVE articles on a wide range of subjects, particularly those which are overtly political and religious. Is there any such thing as objective truth? Good question. Meanwhile, what we need is CHOICE. When I search for something on the internet, I search using its name and add "-Wikipedia" .[[User:HenriettaVanLaer|HenriettaVanLaer]] 07:52, 25 May 2010 (EDT)
Wasn't Conservapedia created as a learning resource? Openly debating is the best way to learn because it forces you to really look at your arguments and justify them. If you want to become a faster swimmer, would you jump into a river and swim with the current or against it?--[[User:CainR|CainR]] 13:30, 4 October 2010 (EDT)
==No==
==No==
The purpose is to encourage development and growth of CP. This is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum or chat room, and although some debate over articles can be necessary and welcome, to allow endless round-the-block-and-back-again arguments is counter-productive, does not resolve disputes, and is a distraction from the main purpose of the site. Also, the 90/10 rule is quite generous to 'talkers' as it stands. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
The purpose is to encourage development and growth of CP. This is an encyclopaedia, not a discussion forum or chat room, and although some debate over articles can be necessary and welcome, to allow endless round-the-block-and-back-again arguments is counter-productive, does not resolve disputes, and is a distraction from the main purpose of the site. Also, the 90/10 rule is quite generous to 'talkers' as it stands. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 04:17, 20 June 2008 (EDT)
:Exactly. This is not AIM, this is an encyclopedia. [[User:JY23|#1denverfan]] 20:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
:Exactly. This is not AIM, this is an encyclopedia. [[User:JY23|#1denverfan]] 20:56, 24 September 2008 (EDT)
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]
[[Category:Conservapedia Debates]]