Debate Applications

[Dean]

Per my discussion with Sentinel and TomK here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-t90278/index2.html), I would like for any member - OI or not - who would like to have a formal debate with 1-3 other members to post here.

Debate Competitions Forum (http://www.revleft.com/vb/debate-competitions-f151/index.html)

What you need to agree on:
1. Topic
2. Who will be in the debate
3. Length of the debate
4. Whether or not you want a vote at the end to decide a "winner."

Debates typically allow up to a week to respond on either side, and any semantic or material inconsistencies arising out of the topic need to be discussed beforehand or in the first few posts of the debate, so that there wont be confusion later on.

Jazzratt, do you mind stickying this?

[Bud Struggle]

I'm up for it. On the religion thing. It means I'd have to give up my Steel Reserve* for a couple of days. But I'm in.


*Don't know what Steel Reserve is? Let the Ramones tell you:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gr2TxVuNvKE

:thumbup:

[jasmine]

I'm up for it too! But not on religion. Debate is a waste of time. I'll debate "how should society treat the weak, those that fail?" Any number can be involved but don't expect to be spared. There can be a vote but I don't care.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

TomK, I will debate you on religion if you like. What sort of debate were you looking at, social-implications or truth/falsehood?

I expect we'd sit on opposite ends of the spectrum so we could get some interesting discussion going! :)

Jasmine - I'm somewhat interested in your question, although I feel it might be a little open-ended. I would quite like to debate the question of historical progress with you, something we've clashed on before but usually with ad hominem as the main form of argument.

-Alex

[Bud Struggle]

TomK, I will debate you on religion if you like. What sort of debate were you looking at, social-implications or truth/falsehood?

I expect we'd sit on opposite ends of the spectrum so we could get some interesting discussion going! :)
-Alex

Social implications. I don't know about you, but if one could prove truth or fasleshood--that discussion would have been over long ago.

Fair?

[Bud Struggle]

I'm up for it too! But not on religion. Debate is a waste of time. I'll debate "how should society treat the weak, those that fail?" Any number can be involved but don't expect to be spared. There can be a vote but I don't care.

I'd debate you, too. Don't get personal or rude--I'd debate you on ISSUES.

[Shades of D'Artanign! :D]

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Social implications. I don't know about you, but if one could prove truth or fasleshood--that discussion would have been over long ago.

Fair?


Well if we talk about specified gods like the judeo-christian one I think they're demonstrably false, because the accounts of them are usually self-contradictory, i.e they could not even possibly exist. But, evidently, that's another story for a different day. :p

Okay well if you'd like to make a proposal then we can agree on it and get this thing going. :thumbup:

-Alex

[Sentinel]

Yup, stickying this would be good for boosting the activity of the new Debate Competitions forum. I suggest you do it Jazzy. :)

CC polls started on whether or not TomK and Jasmine may be granted access to the Debate Competitions forum.

[Bud Struggle]

Well if we talk about specified gods like the judeo-christian one I think they're demonstrably false, because the accounts of them are usually self-contradictory, i.e they could not even possibly exist. But, evidently, that's another story for a different day. :p

Okay well if you'd like to make a proposal then we can agree on it and get this thing going. :thumbup:

-Alex

I'm Christian, but in all fairness I can't hold you to arguing aginst my beliefs specificly--but maybe for a discussion topic--a life without a belief in God is better than a life with a belief in God.

PLEASE! that is only a beginning suggestion--augemnt or change as you choose.:thumbup:

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Hrmm. Depends what you mean by a better life I think. Do you mean you'd be happier personally believing or not believing in a god?

I would personally be more interested in a more widely framed debate, something like:

Religion has a positive effect on society, overall.

You could argue for that proposal and I against. What do you think?

-Alex

[Bud Struggle]

Hrmm. Depends what you mean by a better life I think. Do you mean you'd be happier personally believing or not believing in a god?

I would personally be more interested in a more widely framed debate, something like:

Religion has a positive effect on society, overall.

You could argue for that proposal and I against. What do you think?

-Alex

Hmmm. I don't know. I'd agree to that --but there has to be a personal application. Otherwise it's Christanity--killed millions of people. Communism--killed millions of people. Fascism--killed millions of people.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Cool beans. :)

Okay we just need to wait for you to get permission to post on our forum, which is a bit tedious.

Do you want to have a poll for when we're done deciding who has won? I'm fairly ambivalent about it, I feel like it might be slightly unfair to you since most revlefters will likely share my perspective.

-Alex

[Bud Struggle]

Cool beans. :)

Okay we just need to wait for you to get permission to post on our forum, which is a bit tedious.

Do you want to have a poll for when we're done deciding who has won? I'm fairly ambivalent about it, I feel like it might be slightly unfair to you since most revlefters will likely share my perspective.

-Alex

You win.

If we can react the same debate on Vatican.com...My guess is that I'll win.:rolleyes:

No matter--vote or not--we'll do it for the fun of it and the best man take the souls of all the viewers. :lol:

[Dean]

I'd debate you, too. Don't get personal or rude--I'd debate you on ISSUES.

[Shades of D'Artanign! :D]

I'm sure that being courteous isn't too much to ask for in a formal debate. But TomK, you often have the attitude that you can make jokes in the stead of real debate, and you often refuse to discuss things analytically - you tend to take a firm stance against any discussions dealing with issues below the surface - the Unabomber thread is a good case in point, where I tried to talk about the psychological character of Ted and criticized the socially narrow, political sense of "sanity."

I would like you to refrain from the silliness and really try to challenge yourself by accepting the terms of debate when the analysis goes deeper - and hopefully offer your own analysis of the opposing view. While I can't tell you how to carry yourself, and I don't want to, I think this would be beneficial for all parties, and a chance for you to grow as a person.* Also, I understand that you feel rushed during a lot of the longer responses, but I would prefer that you respond with multiple posts, each thoughtful, rather than making one long, rushed response. I will merge your posts for you if you respond this way.

*I'm not trying to be condescending; we can all learn from this advice and grow, including myself.

[pusher robot]

I'd be willing to participate if we have specific resolutions to posit or negate.

[Bud Struggle]

I'm sure that being courteous isn't too much to ask for in a formal debate. But TomK, you often have the attitude that you can make jokes in the stead of real debate, and you often refuse to discuss things analytically - you tend to take a firm stance against any discussions dealing with issues below the surface - the Unabomber thread is a good case in point, where I tried to talk about the psychological character of Ted and criticized the socially narrow, political sense of "sanity."

I would like you to refrain from the silliness and really try to challenge yourself by accepting the terms of debate when the analysis goes deeper - and hopefully offer your own analysis of the opposing view. While I can't tell you how to carry yourself, and I don't want to, I think this would be beneficial for all parties, and a chance for you to grow as a person.* Also, I understand that you feel rushed during a lot of the longer responses, but I would prefer that you respond with multiple posts, each thoughtful, rather than making one long, rushed response. I will merge your posts for you if you respond this way.

*I'm not trying to be condescending; we can all learn from this advice and grow, including myself.

True. I sometimes take a cavalier response to the same old arguemnents over and over again. I have no interest in going down the same old paths to find the same old disagreements. The point of them being...?

If I discuss with Olive, I'll take a tact never discussed here before. Let's take an article of faith--the Our Father.

I will frame all my responses in terms of the Our Father--as a way to live one's life.

[TheRedRevolutionary]

I will be more than happy to accept a debate with the pro capitalist pigs here

[danyboy27]

I will be more than happy to accept a debate with the pro capitalist pigs here

that was not verry nice

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'll participate in a debate over the most pressing of matters: Ninja Turtles or Power Rangers.

Or general economics/politics. :)

[Killfacer]

Turtles kill power rangers, unless they are in their megazord..

[Dean]

A thread has been started for Pusher Robot as well.

TheRedRevolutionary, you can participate regardless, since you aren't restricted. Just go and check the Debate Competitions forum.

[jasmine]

Obviously there can be a debate about religion - but what's the point? Positions are so entrenched. Also religion doesn't = religion. My view of religion and that of TomK are polar opposites. The real division here is how to make a better society and what constitutes a better society, so that is what should be debated. It's an interesting moment to do it given that the house of cards would have collapsed without the much vilified government intervention - so emotionally desired and begged for by free-market lover President George Bush.

[jasmine]

Anticipating events over the next 2 days -may be wrong!

[jasmine]

Jasmine - I'm somewhat interested in your question, although I feel it might be a little open-ended. I would quite like to debate the question of historical progress with you, something we've clashed on before but usually with ad hominem as the main form of argument.


This is an interesting question too - very relevant to this forum. Maybe this would be better. I think this is my favourite. Yes, I'll do this, it's a serious issue. More important than arguing with convinced capitalists. Take it away Dean!

[BurnTheOliveTree]

This is an interesting question too - very relevant to this forum. Maybe this would be better. I think this is my favourite. Yes, I'll do this, it's a serious issue. More important than arguing with convinced capitalists. Take it away Dean!

Woah woah woah, hold your horses. :p Love the enthusiasm, but let's get a proposal together and agree some basics first, so far all we've got is the question of historical progress.

How about something like a discussion of the statement:

History tends to move in observable patterns.

And I think with you this would be more of a discussion than a polarised debate, more exploration than argument.

-Alex

(By the way, are you actually an anti-capitalist then? You're very clandestine about your actual poltical bent. :))

[Hit The North]

Hmmm. I don't know. I'd agree to that --but there has to be a personal application. Otherwise it's Christanity--killed millions of people. Communism--killed millions of people. Fascism--killed millions of people.

And capitalism has killed millions.

[Dean]

This is an interesting question too - very relevant to this forum. Maybe this would be better. I think this is my favourite. Yes, I'll do this, it's a serious issue. More important than arguing with convinced capitalists. Take it away Dean!
This would be very interesting, I'd like to see what you both have to say about it.


Woah woah woah, hold your horses. :p Love the enthusiasm, but let's get a proposal together and agree some basics first, so far all we've got is the question of historical progress.

How about something like a discussion of the statement:

History tends to move in observable patterns.

And I think with you this would be more of a discussion than a polarised debate, more exploration than argument.

-Alex
I think you'll have time to discuss a topic, we already have to go through the political process of giving jasmine access to Debate. Btw, Most people support it so far jasmine.


(By the way, are you actually an anti-capitalist then? You're very clandestine about your actual poltical bent. :))


She is a leftist, though she spends a lot of time criticising the prevalent theories here.

[jasmine]

Woah woah woah, hold your horses. Love the enthusiasm, but let's get a proposal together and agree some basics first, so far all we've got is the question of historical progress.

How about something like a discussion of the statement:

History tends to move in observable patterns.

And I think with you this would be more of a discussion than a polarised debate, more exploration than argument.

I just replied at length but my reply was lost due to a software glitch. Anyway, I agree, let's think about it. I see your point but this is probably too general - we need to look at whether or not there's a mechanism underlying human development and whether technology is a reliable indicator of human progress. It should be a real debate that doesn't have a yes or no quality. I'll make a suggestion tomorrow when I've had a little more time to think.

I've always been a leftist. I don't have time now to repeat the explanation lost in the glitch - maybe tomorrow.

[jasmine]

I will be more than happy to accept a debate with the pro capitalist pigs here

This really made me laugh:D Not sure how it was intended but I would never get away with this!

[pusher robot]

Obviously there can be a debate about religion - but what's the point? Positions are so entrenched. Also religion doesn't = religion. My view of religion and that of TomK are polar opposites.

That's why you need specific controversial revolutions, such as:
RESOLVED: That religion and superstition should be actively supressed.
RESOLVED: That religion has, on balance, done more harm than good.
RESOLVED: That organized religion and communism are inherently incompatible.

[jasmine]

Okay, here's my proposal. It's as succinct as I can get it - I don't think these issues can be summed up in a single line. Anyway, what do you think? I think it would be an interesting discussion.

It’s too early to say whether or not human history can be viewed as progress. Only if and when class society is replaced by a classless society based on equality, freedom from oppression, war and physical want will it be possible to say that the course of history has been unrelenting progress. History does not provide clear evidence that humanity is capable of ending what Marx referred to as its ‘pre-history’ thus it cannot be said with certainty that human development is anything more than technological advance in the service of varying forms of oppression.



That's why you need specific controversial revolutions, such as:
RESOLVED: That religion and superstition should be actively supressed.
RESOLVED: That religion has, on balance, done more harm than good.
RESOLVED: That organized religion and communism are inherently incompatible.


However you slice it you run into the problem that religion here is overwhelmingly identified with organised religion (with good cause - but it's not my perspective) and from a socialist perspective the role of organised religion has been overwhelmingly negative. You're not going to change that perception however you phrase the proposition. So what's the point? The religion debate has been done to death here, resurrected and done to death again many times.

[Dean]

That's why you need specific controversial revolutions, such as:
RESOLVED: That religion and superstition should be actively supressed.
RESOLVED: That religion has, on balance, done more harm than good.
RESOLVED: That organized religion and communism are inherently incompatible.

We won't be having this form of debate, where one or the other is considered the "winner" in that way. If a debate yields mutual agreement, then that language could be used, but it is disingenuous to think that the debate will end in a uniform resolution like that.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Actually, I'd like to put up a different challenge for a debate - this one oriented more towards non-OIers, but OIers are welcome:

The subject matter will be libertarian socialism. Some debate topics I would like to engage in.

- Individualist anarchism (and why I think it's legitimate).
- How anarchism is not compatible with direct democracy if there isn't free association.
- If libertarian socialism must exist as a state, it should incorporate individualist notions.
- Why communism cannot operate without supply outstripping demand.
- Why market socialism (mutualism) is a legitimate form of socialism.
- Why wage agreements aren't always bad.
- Why welfare capitalism is better and more reasonable than laissez faire capitalism.

[pusher robot]

We won't be having this form of debate, where one or the other is considered the "winner" in that way. If a debate yields mutual agreement, then that language could be used, but it is disingenuous to think that the debate will end in a uniform resolution like that.

Sorry if you misunderstood. I wasn't claiming that there would be an adjudged winner. I was saying that's where the debate should start. I simply used the term "RESOLVED:" to indicate a definitive statement that would narrow the space for both sides to argue.

So, for example, if the debate topic was:
"RESOLVED: That religion has, on balance, done more harm than good."
Then the affirmative side would argue that this statement is correct. The negative side would argue that this statement is incorrect. This helps to focus the debate, keep it interesting, and prevent it from going way off topic and on tangents. It also guarantees that both sides will actually fundamentally disagree and won't try to co-opt each other's positions or argue towards a compromise.

[chris_strange]

im up for a debate on personal rights in a leftist state
dont know who with
any takers?
-chris_strange

[Schrödinger's Cat]

im up for a debate on personal rights in a leftist state
dont know who with
any takers?
-chris_strange

What argument will you defend?

[Dean]

Sorry if you misunderstood. I wasn't claiming that there would be an adjudged winner. I was saying that's where the debate should start. I simply used the term "RESOLVED:" to indicate a definitive statement that would narrow the space for both sides to argue.

So, for example, if the debate topic was:
"RESOLVED: That religion has, on balance, done more harm than good."
Then the affirmative side would argue that this statement is correct. The negative side would argue that this statement is incorrect. This helps to focus the debate, keep it interesting, and prevent it from going way off topic and on tangents. It also guarantees that both sides will actually fundamentally disagree and won't try to co-opt each other's positions or argue towards a compromise.
Alright, now it makes sense. I think a good number of thoese topics would be alright, but I still think we can focus debate to more interesting topics. Religion is - how you say - "played out."

[revolution inaction]

im up for a debate on personal rights in a leftist state
dont know who with
any takers?
-chris_strange


What argument will you defend?


And what do you mean by a leftist state?

[chris_strange]

i mean a state that belives in left sidded way of governing
so ur communist, socialists ect ect.
i would deffeand that u have more personal and human rights in a state controlled world than in capitalist
- chris_strange

[Schrödinger's Cat]

State-run world? Holy hell, batman. I would join rank with vulgar libertarians before that happened. A global state - *shudders.*

[Dean]

An update: polls are still pending for members admittance. All of you are winning so far, but another is pending to try to put a freeze on the OIer debate access. It is losing, but its close. Polls will be ending soon.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Any chance you can get one more in for myself, Dean?

[Sentinel]

The poll on whether or not to allow individual OIers by vote into the debate forum has now ended, and I'm pleased to inform you that the CC voted in favor.

TomK, Jasmine and Pusher Robot have been granted access to the forum, and a debate arranging sticky for OIers has been started.

Good luck!

[Dean]

Here is the forum guys:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/oiers-debate-arranging-t91920/index.html

Lets get some debates started!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

It won't let me post in the other forum.

I'd like to debate super-bowl odds for every team in the league.

Failing that, That political action and nonviolent reform are superior methods towards establishing a more egalitarian society than violent revolution.

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Could I apply for entry to the debate action forum?

[Malezani]

I would like to debate with somebody about "the example of Spain , negates the anarchists" sometime in the future.

[Octobox]

Minarchism vs Anarcho-Syndicalism (Anarcho-Communists or any brand of Leftist are welcome -- as long as we stay on the following debate).

Debate: Consumer Unionism vs Trade Unionism; which is the fastest road and provides the most power to individuals and small groups

A note to communists: If I agree not to sight any real world example as representative of Communism you must agree not to sight America as an example of "free-markets" -- I do not believe in NAFTA - CAFTA - FISA - Patriot Act - War on Terror - Foreign Interventionism

[Rascolnikova]

That political action and nonviolent reform are superior methods towards establishing a more egalitarian society than violent revolution.

I would love to see that one.

[Octobox]

Abe: I would love to debate you on that one -- I would need to know what position you are taking; i.e., "what ideology, economic platform, or socio-political philosophy floats your boat."

My goal in Rev-Left is to come up with a very agreeable plan of revolutionary action that is practical -- I'm tired of great minds who believe in (voluntary gov'ts) such as Minarchist, Anarchist, Communist, Agorist, Libertarian-Anarchist, Anarcho-Communist, Anarcho-Syndicalists etc fighting for the dominate utopian "never gettin anything done" thrown of honor. I want to take part in the creation of a unifying field theory (for "voluntary idealist").

[Rascolnikova]

I want to take part in the creation of a unifying field theory

I hope you have better luck with that than Einstein did. . .

This is the funniest statement I've read all week. Intentional? If so, you rock.

[Octobox]

This is the funniest statement I've read all week. Intentional? If so, you rock.


It's rare anyone gets my sense of humor -- yes that was intentional and I meant it both literal and satirical.

We are "restricted" for a reason you know ;)

[Bud Struggle]

It's rare anyone gets my sense of humor -- yes that was intentional and I meant it both literal and satirical.

We are "restricted" for a reason you know ;)

Welcome to the "tell a joke and no one on RevLeft (except Rasco) gets it" club.

"Is not funny Comrade. Explain joke please. We laugh only if joke makes fun of Imperialist aggrssors."

[Octobox]

True Warriors, un-like these osteoclasts who tell the warriors where they should fight, have excellent sense of humor.

I've taught Defensive Tactics to Elite Military for nearly 20 years (calmness, breath control, and practicality)

I'm the resident Cuban on here and can tell you no Cubano is a respector of Che -- Now he had no sense of humor and was a pure sadist. So, I laugh at your Che-Chompsky picture, hahaha. Nice ;)

[Rascolnikova]

Welcome to the "tell a joke and no one on RevLeft (except Rasco) gets it" club.

"Is not funny Comrade. Explain joke please. We laugh only if joke makes fun of Imperialist aggrssors."

It's a science/science-history joke. The price of entry is supreme geekdom. :)

The metaphor works really well, though. :)


Also, you guys should have that debate.

[jasmine]

Well, tell you what, I'll debate TomK or/and Pusher on religion. Put forward a statement and I'll debate it with you. I know that both of you are opposed to anything that may enter my head so take your stand and debate it without refuge in one liners.

[Bud Struggle]

I think Pusher and I disagree a good deal on religion. So that's up to him. But I like the idea of discussing "race" with you since it's been brought up in the past. My current beliefs are all over OI. Maybe you can state a case why I'm wrong (Demo--seemed to do as much in his last thread.)

Anyway, on religion--I'm Catholic--so if indeed you want to take up that subject--that's the position I would take.

Brother Pusher?

[jasmine]

The question of race will inevitably come up in a discussion of religion with both TomK and Pusher but I think religion is a better starting point.

[Dean]

I think Pusher and I disagree a good deal on religion. So that's up to him. But I like the idea of discussing "race" with you since it's been brought up in the past. My current beliefs are all over OI. Maybe you can state a case why I'm wrong (Demo--seemed to do as much in his last thread.)

Anyway, on religion--I'm Catholic--so if indeed you want to take up that subject--that's the position I would take.

Brother Pusher?
*Dean :-P

[Sentinel]

Ever closer union and Octobox, you have been granted access to the debate forum.

TheCultOfAbeLincoln, your poll failed. You are welcome to apply again in 3 months.

[Rascolnikova]

Ever closer union and Octobox, you have been granted access to the debate forum.

TheCultOfAbeLincoln, your poll failed. You are welcome to apply again in 3 months.

I don't suppose you two might humor me and just come have the debate in OI? It seems like it would work ok even without a moderator keeping other people out. .

[jasmine]

But I like the idea of discussing "race" with you since it's been brought up in the past. My current beliefs are all over OI. Maybe you can state a case why I'm wrong (Demo--seemed to do as much in his last thread.)


What do you want to discuss on race?

[Bud Struggle]

What do you want to discuss on race?

Nothing. It's just that we had done it before. But on reflection--not with good results. Best forget it. :)

[jasmine]

Nothing. It's just that we had done it before. But on reflection--not with good results. Best forget it.

Okay, but how about debating the validity of catholicism as a guide to life? It's an opportunity for you to elaborate your faith. We can look at the preachings of christ, the reality of capitalism and the nature of the church of Rome. Could be interesting.:cool:

[Bud Struggle]

Okay, but how about debating the validity of catholicism as a guide to life? It's an opportunity for you to elaborate your faith. We can look at the preachings of christ, the reality of capitalism and the nature of the church of Rome. Could be interesting.:cool:

You're on. :)

[edit]
he's disgusting Got this from another thread. I don't want to get in to a insult throwing name calling thing. Best to call it a day.

[jasmine]

Yes you are disgusting. You have utter contempt for the poor and oppressed. You and "brother pusher" and your ilk make me sick to the pit of my stomach.

Not only that but you have no spine. You use an excuse, I insulted you (called you by an appropriate name), to duck a debate on a faith you don't believe in. You're a pathetic coward and a fool that believes nothing and cares about less.

Debate me Tomk, on your professed faith. Try it. If you have the guts.

Or just post a stupid joke and a smiley.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes you are disgusting. You have utter contempt for the poor and oppressed. You and "brother pusher" and your ilk make me sick to the pit of my stomach.

Not only that but you have no spine. You use an excuse, I insulted you (called you by an appropriate name), to duck a debate on a faith you don't believe in. You're a pathetic coward and a fool that believes nothing and cares about less.

Debate me Tomk, on your professed faith. Try it. If you have the guts.

Or just post a stupid joke and a smiley.

It will just degenerate into name calling--and I really don't indulge myself in that kind of behavior, so I would find myself at a loss. I suggest you take a lesson from Rasco, who maintains her dignity all throughout her discussions with me. And maybe I completely off my rocker, but I don't think she "approves" of me any more than you do.

I understand this is a Communist web site, and I definitely have an Opposing Ideology, and I do expect to take a fair amout of abuse from the worthy Communist on the board, but I expect it should be in the context of a discussion rather than just snipping an sniping without any context--which it's pretty obvious you have done.

From what I see, you aren't offering me a debate challenge, you are setting me up to be a whipping boy for some frustrations (real or imagined) you have against the current state of society. Be that as it may--but without you having the ability to hold a civil tongue it is impossible for me to engage in any further discourse.

I wish you success in finding a suitable debate partner.

[pusher robot]

I think Pusher and I disagree a good deal on religion. So that's up to him. But I like the idea of discussing "race" with you since it's been brought up in the past. My current beliefs are all over OI. Maybe you can state a case why I'm wrong (Demo--seemed to do as much in his last thread.)

Anyway, on religion--I'm Catholic--so if indeed you want to take up that subject--that's the position I would take.

Brother Pusher?

I would take up the position that religion is not rational but that it has been on balance beneficial to humanity.

[Jazzratt]

What's the point in applying for the right to post in the debate competitions forum if you don't do it? Could some of you that have been accepted please actually start a debate there. THe forum is bloody stagnant at the moment.

[Bud Struggle]

What's the point in applying for the right to post in the debate competitions forum if you don't do it? Could some of you that have been accepted please actually start a debate there. THe forum is bloody stagnant at the moment.

The thing is--there are great debates on OI already. I just concluded one with Rasco on a couple of different threads. A bit all over the place--but each of us had our say.

Debates seem to be a bit more spontanious than the:
"I throw down the gauntlet!"
"Yes, I see the gauntlet is thrown!"
"Then we will meet at the apointed hour at the apointed place."
"I will meet you there, it is assured!"

You Mods might want to reposition arguments in the post zone that you feel worthwhile. "In the day" you Mods used to do "'TomK and Led Zep on Nazi Hate' broken off from the 'Daffodils or Impatience, Which is the Pretty Flower?' thread."

Not so much any more.

Jazz, the Graff von Malte doesn't pay you those big bucks for nothing.

Or did you Mods join a Union? :rolleyes::lol:

[danyboy27]

The thing is--there are great debates on OI already. I just concluded one with Rasco on a couple of different threads. A bit all over the place--but each of us had our say.

Debates seem to be a bit more spontanious than the:
"I throw down the gauntlet!"
"Yes, I see the gauntlet is thrown!"
"Then we will meet at the apointed hour at the apointed place."
"I will meet you there, it is assured!"

You Mods might want to reposition arguments in the post zone that you feel worthwhile. "In the day" you Mods used to do "'TomK and Led Zep on Nazi Hate' broken off from the 'Daffodils or Impatience, Which is the Pretty Flower?' thread."

Not so much any more.

Jazz, the Graff von Malte doesn't pay you those big bucks for nothing.

Or did you Mods join a Union? :rolleyes::lol:

i agree, this would be more fun!
keep a little bit of anarchy

[PostAnarchy]

I'd be willing to debate on the prospects of a authoritarian vs anti-authoritarian socialist revolution

[RGacky3]

Debates are rediculous, because intelectual dialog should be about learning and refining thinking, turning it into a competition kind of ruins the whole point.

[PostAnarchy]

I disagree respectfully RGacky I think debates have their merits and can be useful for outsiders to examine the opinions and positions of opposing beliefs.

[Rascolnikova]

Debates are rediculous, because intelectual dialog should be about learning and refining thinking, turning it into a competition kind of ruins the whole point.

I don't see how this makes sense. Competition can be a great way to learn, pressure can be a great way to forcibly refine thinking, and on top of it all you've ignored fun. :)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

All right, I understand that the CC told me to wait 3 months before re-applying. But that was about the time debates stopped happening, and I really feel I can contribute.

I promise to be very courteous and offer a stimulating debate that will actually happen. I'll be absolutely respectful to my opponent, and if I don't you can feel free to ban me (not that you aren't free to do so now but you get the idea).

[Octobox]

I'd love to debate someone -- but it seems like I do anyway in OI.

CultofAbraham -- Just open a new account and camoflouge your rhetoric.

It's fun and a great exercise to see how close I can take my Minarchist Model without being banned as a Capitalist (which in the American Corporatist sene of the word I am one of the least).

This board has yet to understand the subtle differences (subtle like rubber mallet blows to the head) between Voluntarism and Involuntarism. I'm staunchly a 93% Anarchist (Anacho-93) which makes me are more of a "leftist" than does all the Maoists - Stalinists - Trotskyites - and Marxists combined. The latter all being Involuntary Societies -- it is oxy-moronic to put the phrase "voluntary" in front of them; people who try to are "mornfully optomistic" (hahahahaha).

I'd love to debate my Anarcho-93 Model against any other form of Gov't :)

If someone is interested can you let me know by putting a message in my inbox.

Octobox

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

CultofAbraham -- Just open a new account and camoflouge your rhetoric.

I've thought about it, but I'm worried they have software which would flag my computer. Of course, I would never, on my life, do such a thing.


This board has yet to understand the subtle differences (subtle like rubber mallet blows to the head) between Voluntarism and Involuntarism. I'm staunchly a 93% Anarchist (Anacho-93) which makes me are more of a "leftist" than does all the Maoists - Stalinists - Trotskyites - and Marxists combined. The latter all being Involuntary Societies -- it is oxy-moronic to put the phrase "voluntary" in front of them; people who try to are "mornfully optomistic" (hahahahaha).


Do you mean voluntary in the economic sense alone?

[Jazzratt]

CultofAbraham -- Just open a new account and camoflouge your rhetoric.

Didn't we ban one of your sockpuppets recently?

I would bother, cult, if we find you and you keep trying you'll eventually get banned.

[Octobox]

Jazz -- Drug Laws create a desire to circumvent -- Suppression of free-speech is a violation of free-will (circumvention) -- Besides, it was obvious (PulpoBoxeo is spanish for Octobox) and only used on the intro page as a joke -- I got a lot of replies to my inbox where people were cracking up -- most of whom came from the non-restricted sector, hahahaha. Like tagging a wall with some grafitti -- it's rebellious. Let's not get Machevellian -- there was "one" sockpuppet and as I said I only used it once on the intro board with the most rediculous personal statement ever, hahahaha.

The whole reasons for me being "restricted" is non-sensical I make the most Voluntary arguments in here -- My Anarcho-93 or Minarchy-7 gov't model is the only practical transitionary idea being presented (on a regular basis) in all of Rev-Left.

If you disagree then lets debate it out :)

[Jazzratt]

Jazz -- Drug Laws create a desire to circumvent -- Suppression of free-speech is a violation of free-will (circumvention) --

You're actually insane. Did you know that?


Besides, it was obvious (PulpoBoxeo is spanish for Octobox) and only used on the intro page as a joke -- I got a lot of replies to my inbox where people were cracking up -- most of whom came from the non-restricted sector, hahahaha. Like tagging a wall with some grafitti -- it's rebellious. Let's not get Machevellian -- there was "one" sockpuppet and as I said I only used it once on the intro board with the most rediculous personal statement ever, hahahaha.

Really if you want to waste your time doing the equivalent of tagging a wall because you feel your free will is being violated it is quite funny. Probably not in the way you think but it is goddamned funny.


The whole reasons for me being "restricted" is non-sensical I make the most Voluntary arguments in here -- My Anarcho-93 or Minarchy-7 gov't model is the only practical transitionary idea being presented (on a regular basis) in all of Rev-Left.

You're a capitalist. We restrict your lot on a regular basis.


If you disagree then lets debate it out :)

I've no real urge to. Your posting style grates on my nipples.

[Octobox]

Jazz -- "grates on my nipples" -- nice.

According to many Anarchists in here "voluntary society" is the mark of "leftism" -- My argument given the current climate we are in (assuming you live in America) is the most practical voluntary transition toward Anarchy (no sovereignty or no rule).

We (in America) live under a 7% Anarchy while I'm advocating a 93% Anarchy -- how is this capitalistic?

It "grates" because I deal with reality and refuse (before debating) to create a fantasy world from which we escape into the purple-diadem-azure of communism -- the latter by all arguments I've read in here begins "voluntarily" by stripping all the assets and wealth from 46million Americans (the upper 28% that own 98% <assets and capital>).

My plan actually acknowledges that the upper 28% probably have at least two unique friends, family, or associates who would be "loyal" or "buyable" to their cause. Add on another 92million or 138M in total.

Most people in RevLeft (representing <militantly> less than .005% of the populace -- mostly poor college students and <philosophically> less than .1% of the populace -- mostly poor to middle class union workers) most of you believe that the "revolution" begins in the "mind" rather I believe it begins in practical organization and the daily-dollar-vote.

As for me being "insane" -- I'm not seeing that. As I said I created PulpoBoxeo (Cuban for Octobox) as an "obvious" joke -- a bit of sarcasm. I thought it was hysterical and so did many who sent me personal e-mails. There was only the one post.

Why is that "insane" -- a bit harsh don't you think?

Now had I created an account called "Emperor Trotsky" and was sublte, posting all over the place then that would have been wrong.

For that one would have to have more than one computer (unique IP address and all) -- I do have 4 computers actually, but I don't believe in "overt" deceit -- comical deceit is another thing.