User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4028641-20170311200857

User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-4028641-20170306172600/@comment-4028641-20170311200857 It's not as if the lack of opposing thoughts had been born entirely out of a lack of interest from editors. It's just that these stories were made "non-canon" in the days of old and it's pretty obvious in today's age that there's no real strong case for them not being "invalid."

People aren't posting in the thread because there's not much else to say -- even those who have agreed have simply said "I agree" before they've moved on. If someone wants to post an opposing side in the coming weeks I think that'll be a change of direction. But I don't see a point in keeping open a thread simply because we're used to waiting for a strong debate. There isn't one to be had here.

Even you, the first person to challenge anything that I've said, are posting not in disagreement with the thread but with me wanting to close the thread. You clearly didn't have anything to add to the actual debate, or else you would have posted something about these three stories. You are, in a sense, proof that there are people who are reading this thread who haven't posted simply because they don't disagree with it. They feel that if their opinion has already been said, they have no real reason to post. So we're waiting for someone to disagree so that we can make the forum long enough to justify setting a precedent.

How about this then? Old school debate style. Why don't we do a poll? All people have to do is comment "Yes" or "No" to each of these three stories being valid or invalid. Then people will be able to come and cast their ballot without worrying about if they're re-treading ground.

One last thing. The definition of "unanimous" is "(of two or more people) fully in agreement." So if five people take part in a debate and five people agree then it's pretty unanimous.