NationStates Jolt Archive

Be sure to give your name, and your political bias be it left or right. I will then update the post to include you in it. Fixtures will be decided once the necessary number of applicants has submitted. A time will be arranged for each match that suits both contestants - but a no show for one contestant will result in a forfeit.

The layout I want to achieve is 32 Debaters (16 from the Right - 16 from the Left) in knock out rounds all the way to the final. If this is not achieved we will have to use a small group stage at the start to decide who goes to the knock out stages.

This Championship will happen once every 6 Months.

Supreme Ruler Judge:

- Nazi Weaponized Virus


Sub-Judges (2):

*Apply in this thread*

Left Wing Debaters:

- New Astrolia

- Jello Biafra

- Kamsaki

- Huzen Hagen

Right Wing Debaters:

- Psylos

- Norse Lands

FIRST ROUND TOPIC:

"The War on Terror is not being handled in the best way possible and only helps to contribute to anti US feelings in the Arabic World - an example of this is Iraq. Explain whether you agree or disagree with this statement?"

Oh, I thought this was going to be more like proper debating comps where the people dont get to choose a position, and often end up having to argue a point of view opposite to their own or have to argue about issues that usually they dont even bother to form a position on. Is there even going to be a moot, or just a free for all?

A topic will be chosen for each round.

What about Libertarian and Communist?

Yeah. I gotta say I'm not much for debates. It would seem that it would leave the impression that at the end the "Correct" Viewpoint had won. Political discussion on forums is more about airing views and perhaps even people trying to convince themselves rather than eachother. No one ever convinces anybod anyway, only sometimes good points are raised. And People allied with political persusaions might not be representative of everything assosciated with that persusasion. It wont work well to have right and left facing off like that. Maybe you should just assign a topic and have two people disscuss it. If two leftis or righties get paired then it will still make for interesting reading.

How would this damn thing even work. Would it be a formal debate with prepared speeches, thats a moot point when you dont have to deliver the speeches in person. Or would it just be a thread between two people.

For the sake of being first I will enter.

New Astrolia
Left.

Man, the more I think about this the more it seems like a really bad idea. If your gonna have a competition you need to clarify the rules a lot more. Like, some. Cause right now theres none.

i like a good debate but i can't categorise myself as left or right untill i see the issue.

I'll make my decision once you've given more details. I would be more interested in non political type debating where the point is to prove debating abilities and the debaters/judges/audience are not so tied up personally in the moots.

im up 4 it :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :gundge:

More people sign up

I demand clarification! And Also satisfaction!

Psylos, right wing.

Sign me up,

Norse Lands, right wing

I'm all for it. Jello Biafra, left wing.

Ahh, whatever. Sign me up.

Kamsaki - Barely left. I think of myself as centrist, but put me down as socialist anyway. The political compass had me down as -3, +1, if that helps at all.

Updated.

Sign me up,

Norse Lands, right wing...

Sorry, I choose to withdraw. Hence why I just deleted my last post. I've realised that with my leadership duties, I probably won't have time to debate topics.

what the hell, huzen hagen left_wing

"The War on Terror is not being handled in the best way possible and only helps to contribute to anti US feelings in the Arabic World - an example of this is Iraq. Explain whether you agree or disagree with this statement?"
[/I]Who cares about what the arabs feel?

FYI: The supreme ruler judge is biased toward the extreme left, and he doesn't know how to debate because he thinks that citing family members constitutes conclusive proof in debate.

FYI: The supreme ruler judge is biased toward the extreme left, and he doesn't know how to debate because he thinks that citing family members constitutes conclusive proof in debate.I demmand a neutral supreme ruler. Preferably white.

I don't know how we would find such a person but a good neutral judge would be someone who has absolutely no knowledge or opinion about the subject being debated, and each debater tries to convince him.

i like a good debate but i can't categorise myself as left or right untill i see the issue.

I describe myself as a moderate, so I don't know if that would fit matters well. It also depends on the issue for me. For instance, I might be right-leaning on issues like abortion rights and defense; centrist on other issues and left-leaning on still others (on gay rights, I'm very much to the left).

Perhaps you might do better trying to find the people you think are best at debate and TG them to find out if they'd be interested in joining the discussions?

Just a thought.

no such person post here. I would shuggest Steph or Zep, but i suspect they wouldnt meet your particular specifications.

And I still dont know he rules. Nor care much for the topic.

Rather than have Leftwing/Right wing side you should have Pro/Con sides for each issue, and form the teams that way.

Boogiedown Production - Id like to be a judge, if its available. If I had to answer, id say I am a social liberal and economic moderate, but I pride myself on my ability to look at issues objectively, and judge thing on the straight facts.

I demmand a neutral supreme ruler. Preferably white.

why? aren't asian, for example, perfectly able to be neutral?
why white?

uuuh. I think it was a joke dude.

uuuh. I think it was a joke dude.
i suspects as much. since it's basicly impossible to find a "neutral" judge...
and since i respect Psylos to much to take it seriously. i just wasn't shure... (otherwise she/he (?) could always make up a fun reason ;))

why? aren't asian, for example, perfectly able to be neutral?
why white?
It is my personal experience. You must be a young anarchist guy so you don't know life yet.
In my experience, white christian republican males are more neutral than liberals, especially when it comes to war topics.

How would you know. dont you live in Australia. We dont need to find the most impartial person to be moderator. Just someone impartial enough. Whic wont be difficult.

no such person post here. I would shuggest Steph or Zep, but i suspect they wouldnt meet your particular specifications.
Well if you are talking about political slant then I don't have any particular specifications since Im not participating, and I doubt that the tournament will happen anyways. But from looking at Nazi Weaponized Virus' post history I am assured that he will judge a certain way if his suggested topic were debated, and I am also certain that he suggested the topic in order to judge a certain way. And you're right, a truly neutral person doesnt exist, I was just wondering what would constitute neutrality. Zep is a good choice, Our Earth and Black Forrest I think are pretty objective too.

In my experience, white christian republican males are more neutral than liberals, especially when it comes to war topics.

Then you need to get out of the house more often ...

And, no, I am not young (well, in the relative sense) and I'm not an anarchist.

Alright. Here's the deal. I'm a centrist in terms of policy, but an anarcho-capitalist in terms of my ideals. Since there's no way you could pigeonhole me into either of the generally accepted opposing groups, how would this work?

Hmm, maybe I am supreme ruler because it was MY IDEA?

And anyway - If a Republican trounces a Democrat then I'm not exactly going to give it to the Democrat.

Oh yes, and certain people such as Antabellum South (or whatever his name is) are not allowed to take part because of extremely stereoytypical comments about arabs that border on racism. I dont have a problem if you want to spout nazi stuff but at least *try* and justify it without using rhetoric.

Hmm, maybe I am supreme ruler because it was MY IDEA?

And anyway - If a Republican trounces a Democrat then I'm not exactly going to give it to the Democrat.

Oh yes, and certain people such as Antabellum South (or whatever his name is) are not allowed to take part because of extremely stereoytypical comments about arabs that border on racism. I dont have a problem if you want to spout nazi stuff but at least *try* and justify it without using rhetoric.
Moron. Rhetoric... that is in the eye of the beholder. You know you use it too. And you have failed, on repeated challenges, to point out where I have been racist in our debate about Islam. Try again.

Moron. Rhetoric... that is in the eye of the beholder. You know you use it too. And you have failed, on repeated challenges, to point out where I have been racist in our debate about Islam. Try again.

I pointed out several - for example - when you mentioned the majority of Muslim men beat thier wives. That is stereotypical, and thus, you are a racist.

Then you need to get out of the house more often ...

And, no, I am not young (well, in the relative sense) and I'm not an anarchist.
I get out often and my neightbour agrees with me. I don't need to travel all over the country to know that.

Communist? Or arab maybe?

I pointed out several - for example - when you mentioned the majority of Muslim men beat thier wives. That is stereotypical, and thus, you are a racist.
You are a pathological liar. Find where I said Muslim men beat their wives.

Hmm, maybe I am supreme ruler because it was MY IDEA?
This tournament thingy probably isnt going to happen anyways, and it's not your idea... There have been organized debate competitions on nationstates before, and they were managed by mods so I don't see why you are so special.

Why are you even asking about impartial judges? The people who ask to be one aren't suitable, while the ones who would be best aren't the sort to volunteer for things like that because they're too humble to blow their own horns (or know that saying something is likely to damage their chances at being one...).

I get out often and my neightbour agrees with me. I don't need to travel all over the country to know that.


Your white christian republican neighbor?

The mind boggles ...

It has been my experience that white christian republicans are the most hell-bent on war and are most often the ones who say that bombing the hell out of something is the best way to resolve conflict.

I live in a predominantly white baptist republican part of the country.

I also find it fascinating that since our experiences differ, I must therefore be some form of left-wing radical ... or arab.

What a strange world view you have.

Oh yeah Nazi Weaponized Virus, Islam is a religion not a race you retard.

You are a pathological liar. Find where I said Muslim men beat their wives.


"But in the vast majority of Muslim societies women are officially second-class citizens who are frequently exposed to injustices ranging from irritating indignities to vicious psychological and physical abuse."

Hmmm?

Oh yeah Nazi Weaponized Virus, Islam is a religion not a race you retard.

Says the double, nay, triple poster. :D

You are a pathological liar. Find where I said Muslim men beat their wives.

In saudi Arabia I believe it is. But women are legally able to divorce their husbands if they do not keep them well supplied with Coffee.

You heard me.

(Whoops, sorry) I meant to say they are legally able. Actully im not sure if thats tre. There was a well publicised case a few months ago of a prominent Saudi Female News caster who got badly beaten. I think because of that her husband was running from the law. Maybe because he got her particularly badly.

"But in the vast majority of Muslim societies women are officially second-class citizens who are frequently exposed to injustices ranging from irritating indignities to vicious psychological and physical abuse."

Hmmm?

This does NOT say that the majority of Muslim men beat their wives.

Your white christian republican neighbor?And proud to be. Do you have a problem with whites?

The mind boggles ...

It has been my experience that white christian republicans are the most hell-bent on war and are most often the ones who say that bombing the hell out of something is the best way to resolve conflict.Yes the whites are more inclined to see the truth.

I live in a predominantly white baptist republican part of the country.

I also find it fascinating that since our experiences differ, I must therefore be some form of left-wing radical ... or arab.

What a strange world view you have.
Oh no not a liberal, they always lie and say stupid things.

Alright. Here's the deal. I'm a centrist in terms of policy, but an anarcho-capitalist in terms of my ideals. Since there's no way you could pigeonhole me into either of the generally accepted opposing groups, how would this work?
I should think that that would make you right wing.

This does NOT say that the majority of Muslim men beat their wives.

It all but does. He firstly mentions the 'vast majority' of Muslim Societies. This insinuates he is referring to all Muslim societies, he then goes on to say that this 'vast majority' are subject to 'physical abuse'. Link the two together and what do you have?

A vast majority of people within these societies committing the acts he refers to. Thats stereotypical, its borderline racism. But its subtly hidden - this signals that he may be a closet racist.

It all but does. He firstly mentions the 'vast majority' of Muslim Societies. This insinuates he is referring to all Muslim societies, he then goes on to say that this 'vast majority' are subject to 'physical abuse'. Link the two together and what do you have?
So now "vast majority = all"? Enough of your word games.

And I stand by my claim that violence against women in Islamic societies is accepted. For example there have been many honor killings for girls who have pre marital sex or are raped (and the male rapist goes free!). And of course the high profile Saudi broadcaster who was beaten into a pulp which New Astrolia referenced.

A vast majority of people within these societies committing the acts he refers to. Thats stereotypical, its borderline racism. But its subtly hidden - this signals that he may be a closet racist.
Lol what a farce. Instead of being fixated on 'subtly hidden signals' you should get your penis enlarged.

I dont like the concept of racism as its understood in discourse. It all too often gets thrown around as a dismissal.

Says the double, nay, triple poster. :D
Quadruple post:

Suck. My. Dick.

And you still haven't replied in our Islam debate thread.

I would like to sign up as judge from the right wing side, if you would even let somebody with my political persuasion be a judge. If I cannot be a judge, then I would gladly debate from the right.

And proud to be. Do you have a problem with whites?

No more so than anyone else does, I suppose.

Yes the whites are more inclined to see the truth.

So, you agree that white christian conservatives are hell-bent on war and believe that bombing the hell out of something is the best way to resolve conflict ... yet you also believe them to be the most neutral when it comes to war?

Am I understanding this duality correctly?

Oh no not a liberal, they always lie and say stupid things.

Well, it was in reference to the Communist comment.

I should think that that would make you right wing.

Right wing in terms of economics, yes, but my views on social issues would lump me in with the left wingers, even extreme left wingers.

Well this is going to be a hell of a debating contest if people arent even allowed to state certain positions for fear of being dismissed from standing. lol! Of course personal insults have no place in an organised debate. Yet banning remarks that are negative towards Islam, when the whole purpose of the debate is purportedly about Arab terrorism and its causes, reduces this whole exercise to farce.

Also, the right wing - left wing pairing doesnt work, let alone the democrat - republican angle when this is an international board. For example im openly and proudly racist, yet im 100% against the way the 'war on terror' is being handled. Would that put me on the left or the right in this issue???

No more so than anyone else does, I suppose.So you think all the races are the same? You must be a lying anarchist then. Or even worse, a communist.

So, you agree that white christian conservatives are hell-bent on war and believe that bombing the hell out of something is the best way to resolve conflict ... yet you also believe them to be the most neutral when it comes to war?

Am I understanding this duality correctly?
Hell yes. We wouldn't have conquered the world else.

Well, it was in reference to the Communist comment.So you're a communist but you don't want to say it because you are a coward.

I dont like the concept of racism as its understood in discourse. It all too often gets thrown around as a dismissal.
True... the politically correct establishment labels anything it doesn't like as 'racist'... including things that have nothing to do with race, such as the religion of Islam. By calling my comments racist Nazi Weaponized Virus can hope to avoid confronting points he is unable to refute.

Well this is going to be a hell of a debating contest if people arent even allowed to state certain positions for fear of being dismissed from standing. lol! Of course personal insults have no place in an organised debate. Yet banning remarks that are negative towards Islam, when the whole purpose of the debate is purportedly about Arab terrorism and its causes, reduces this whole exercise to farce.

As much as I hate to say it, I actually *cringe* have to agree here.

It would be like calling for an open debate concerning the current State of Israel and not allowing anyone to say anything about Jews or calling for a debate about the Inquisitions and not allowing anyone to say anything about Catholics.

The debate topic concerns Arabs and one, therefore, must accept that Arabs will be put into a certain light - either good, bad, or indifferent - by those participating in the debate.

Well this is going to be a hell of a debating contest if people arent even allowed to state certain positions for fear of being dismissed from standing. lol! Of course personal insults have no place in an organised debate. Yet banning remarks that are negative towards Islam, when the whole purpose of the debate is purportedly about Arab terrorism and its causes, reduces this whole exercise to farce.

Also, the right wing - left wing pairing doesnt work, let alone the democrat - republican angle when this is an international board. For example im openly and proudly racist, yet im 100% against the way the 'war on terror' is being handled. Would that put me on the left or the right in this issue???
Nazi Weaponized Virus has pre-determined the premises of a debate in a way to always favor his chosen positions while marginalizing all other opinions. Though I completely disagree with racism, I agree with you that all views, no matter how lunatic at first glance, should be allowed to be broadcast, and the way to discredit a view is not as NWV has done many times - by childishly threatening to ignore - but by a reasoned discourse in which an unpopular opinion may even prove correct.

So you think all the races are the same?

I believe all humans are inheretly the same, yes. Some varying shades of brown here and there, some cultural differences here and there, various degrees of hair curl, sure ... but as a whole, humans are basically the same.

Hell yes. We wouldn't have conquered the world else.

I'm pretty sure white christian republicans have not conquered the world. The majority of the world is not christian and certainly not white and not even the majority of the US is republican.

Otherwise, I might like to point out to you that it is impossible to be neutral about something when one feels so strongly about it.

Hence, I use said evidence - as concurred by the white christian republican - to state that a white christian republican would not be the best impartial judge on a topic of war.

So you're a communist but you don't want to say it because you are a coward.

I also use the above statement, in context, to show that by virtue of every known rule of debate that the baseless and assumptive personal attack against me in the form of calling me a "coward" renders any further discussion on this topic moot.

It is my personal experience. You must be a young anarchist guy so you don't know life yet.
In my experience, white christian republican males are more neutral than liberals, especially when it comes to war topics.

well of course. i see that now that you've told me so. how stupid of me, can you forgive me for this petty mistake?

I get out often and my neightbour agrees with me. I don't need to travel all over the country to know that.

taking your SUV back and forth to the supermarket atleast twice a week no doubt?

I also use the above statement, in context, to show that by virtue of every known rule of debate that the baseless and assumptive personal attack against me in the form of calling me a "coward" renders any further discussion on this topic moot.

now, you could always step up to the challenge. be a real man. be a republican. say it out loud. I AM A COMMUNIST... hmm, that just sounds wrong...

I believe all humans are inheretly the same, yes. Some varying shades of brown here and there, some cultural differences here and there, various degrees of hair curl, sure ... but as a whole, humans are basically the same.



I'm pretty sure white christian republicans have not conquered the world. The majority of the world is not christian and certainly not white and not even the majority of the US is republican.

Otherwise, I might like to point out to you that it is impossible to be neutral about something when one feels so strongly about it.

Hence, I use said evidence - as concurred by the white christian republican - to state that a white christian republican would not be the best impartial judge on a topic of war.



I also use the above statement, in context, to show that by virtue of every known rule of debate that the baseless and assumptive personal attack against me in the form of calling me a "coward" renders any further discussion on this topic moot.SO... you mean..... I've been lied to?????

SO... you mean..... I've been lied to?????

nono, for god's sake, not LIED to! absolutely not.. just MISINFORMED.

nono, for god's sake, not LIED to! absolutely not.. just MISINFORMED.
I knew it!
It's the KGB probably and their propaganda. Where are my guns?

I knew it!
It's the KGB probably and their propaganda. Where are my guns?

*rotfl*
sorry can't keep a straight face any longer..

SO... you mean..... I've been lied to?????

Lied to about what?

As much as I hate to say it, I actually *cringe* have to agree here.

It would be like calling for an open debate concerning the current State of Israel and not allowing anyone to say anything about Jews or calling for a debate about the Inquisitions and not allowing anyone to say anything about Catholics.

The debate topic concerns Arabs and one, therefore, must accept that Arabs will be put into a certain light - either good, bad, or indifferent - by those participating in the debate.

The majority of Islamic nations are not Arab.

Lied to about what?
I'm pretty sure white christian republicans have not conquered the world...

...

Ok ok ok ok .... I can't play along and keep a straight face anymore ...

Oh ... and, yes .... I AM A COMMUNIST!! (and a left-wing radical liberal as well)

Very proudly so and openly so.

:D