Debate question!!?

Question

hypothetical debate round:

Two debaters in a Congress round. (or Public Forum)

a) If the ontological disposition of both pedantic senators are unvarying, should they work towards a resolution?

b) If they are indistinct, shouldn't they try to come to a bilateral concord?

First to come up with a COHERENT answer gets the points.

Answer 1

Spose so.  Since in scenario a both senators (though they be pedantic) agree on an issue (because their dispositions are unvarying) then they should work towards the creation of a resolution.  Though if their dispositions are not the same towards the same goal, but rather simply in their mindsets, they should find common ground in pursuing that goal first.

In scenario b, the situation is reversed, though a bilateral concord allows some agreement it is not always advisable.  Their opinions still have to be at least somewhat similar, for if their opinions are entirely opposite then no one would be satisfied by this concord and it would lead to nothing.  Once again, finding mutual ground is the only way to lead to any sort of solution.

Answer 2

well, you would think.  I think one of them actually just has a bug up his ***.

Answer 3

Compromise

Answer 4

Well, if there philosophical differences cannot be changed, how can they work toward a solution?

And if they are malleable, than what's the problem?  They have more pressing piscine creatures (fish) to fry.