NationStates Jolt Archive

You have been randomly selected to take part in a two person debate on a specific issue that you have a strong opinion on. This could be evolution, abortion, flag burning, global warming, discount bus fares for war widows, whatever. This debate is going to settle the argument, whatever it is, once and for all. The viewpoint of the debater who is declared the winner by the independent judge will now be considered the correct one, and no further debate on this issue will ever take place. Everyone will see that this was all along the right way to think, and they couldn't imagine seeing it any other way. For neutrality reasons the other debater is not a loved one or anyone else you know.

So you're in your hotel room, near the town hall where the debate wil take place, on the night before the event. You're nervous but ready. Then suddenly, a cloaked figure dressed all in black opens the balcony door from the outside and strides in! He declares that he is an international assassin who just happens to share the same viewpoint as you on the issue you are debating. He offers to assassinate the other debate participant for you, that very night, for a very small sum (he would do it for free, but that is against the assassins honor code). If your opponent fails to turn up the next day, then you will win the debate by default. The assassin can guarantee that it will be made to look like a accident so no-one will be suspicious.

So, what do you do? Tell the assassin to go away and go ahead with the debate, even though you know there's a chance you might lose? Or take the assassin up on his offer so that you know for sure that you will win?

and give up the chance to prove to the world I'm right?

I'm more of the DIY type :D

You have been randomly selected to take part in a two person debate on a specific issue that you have a strong opinion on. This could be evolution, abortion, flag burning, global warming, discount bus fares for war widows, whatever. This debate is going to settle the argument, whatever it is, once and for all. The viewpoint of the debater who is declared the winner by the independent judge will now be considered the correct one, and no further debate on this issue will ever take place. Everyone will see that this was all along the right way to think, and they couldn't imagine seeing it any other way. For neutrality reasons the other debater is not a loved one or anyone else you know.

So you're in your hotel room, near the town hall where the debate wil take place, on the night before the event. You're nervous but ready. Then suddenly, a cloaked figure dressed all in black opens the balcony door from the outside and strides in! He declares that he is an international assassin who just happens to share the same viewpoint as you on the issue you are debating. He offers to assassinate the other debate participant for you, that very night, for a very small sum (he would do it for free, but that is against the assassins honor code). If your opponent fails to turn up the next day, then you will win the debate by default. The assassin can guarantee that it will be made to look like a accident so no-one will be suspicious.

So, what do you do? Tell the assassin to go away and go ahead with the debate, even if you know there's a chance you might lose? Or take the assassin up on his offer so that you know for sure that you will win?

Poll coming.

I'd hire him to protect me from my opponent's assassin. :)

This is a good one. You see, I am extremely good at debate, no matter what viewpoint I had I would probably win the debate. However, if it was my own viewpoint I would almost certainly win the debate, as all of my opinions are if nothing else, logical. Therefore, I am confident that I would pwn the opponent I would guarantee it with my own life. As such, I would take the assasin's offer and kill the bastard, seeing as I was going to win anyhow. If the guy disagreed with me, he was probably a scumbag as it was.

I'd hire him to break the oppenents legs or something that would stop from turning up from the debate but not kill him.

The other guy= a corpse.

Assasination FTW.

Ridiculous hypothetical situations go!

Anyway, I'd assassinerate him.

Assassinate, obviously.

Given the world in question is so stupid they would accept the result of a single debate as resolving an issue for all time and never question the issue again I would not trust them to make the right choice in the debate.


Assassination.

(Is he working pro-bono?)

Depends on whatever we were supposed to debate.
Gay marriage, abortion, evolution, etc:Assassinate.
Taxes, govt' funding , .999...=1, etc.: Debate.
Basically, if it won't matter that much I'll debate the guy.

So, what's the downside to assassination in this case?

I know I'm right, but because the world needs one fewer person who doesn't hold progressive views, I'd opt to assassinate my opponant.

I'd hire him to protect me from my opponent's assassin. :)

I am in awe of your wisdom........I agree.

I'd hire him to protect me from my opponent's assassin. :)

What about hiring him to throw your opponant's assassin into a smouldering crater?

I would lock myself in a bullet-proof, grenade-proof, rocket-proof, H-bomb-proof shell of something that night with nothing more than all my study materials, a couple 2-liters of Coke, some Cool ranch Doritos, a couple of Wet-Naps, and my paperback copy of "1984" for when I get burned out of studying. I would give the assassin $100 to go drive the other guy in the Popemobile to Quahog, Rhode Island and drop him at Peter Griffin's house. He would assuredly be late when Stewie tries to vaproize him, and when he comes back too late for the debate, I am deemed the winner, and my opponent would be laughed at and ridiculed unless he gave me a large sum of money.

Then I would live off my fame and wealth, raise money for various causes, such as the Free Hamburgers for Roadies charity as well as dropping exploding cigars on al-Qaeda headquarters just to confuse the hell out of them.

But no, I wouldn't assassinate him. I'd toy with him and win the debate anyway.

I'd hire the assassin to make a botched attempt on my life, then accuse my opponent of hiring him. Then, with public opinion firmly against him based on his perceived attempt to cheat the system, I would win the debate handily.

What about hiring him to throw your opponant's assassin into a smouldering crater?

Whatever prevents my death works for me. :)

I am in awe of your wisdom........I agree.

Thanks. :)

One of the benefits of being insane is that you spend no time worrying about your sanity. It provides much more free time for other concerns, thoughts and notions. :)

The Ends Justify The Means. I don't need no hired gun; I'd do it myself at 2AM!

*is very ninja.*

I would debate, because I know that I'm right.

I would rig the debate for a large sum of money and buy my own dessert island where I can spend the rest of my years being bitter about the world

Of course if the debate was about this very plan…

I would debate, because I know that I'm right.

of course you know you're right - but that doesn't mean the judge will agree. The assassination is how you guarantee your right viewpoint will be carried out.

Hmm, despite the fact that no one would really care and my viewpoint would instantly be accepted - there's no glory in assassinating my opponent. There's a greater satisfaction in a straight defeat.

Hmm, several possibilities.

1) I have him assassinate my opponent after the debate. That way I can have endless rebuttals that he will never be able to counter. Ha-ha!

2) I have him assassinate me during the debate, making sure he publicizes somehow that he is working for the other side. That way I become a martyr and more people flock to my cause.

3) I have him fake-try to assassinate the other guy during the debate, but I "save" his life. Therefore improving my PR and also making it more difficult for the opponent to feel angry at me.

I'd kill him. I think I am right but this guy might be one of those monster debaters. Even fascism(or insert other evil here) is defensible if somebody knowledgeable and clever enough is defending it.

I would rather debate, knowing that I would probably lose (I suck at debating, I'm a natural flip-flopper), then get involved with an assasain. They don't have values, they're in for money. No matter what they say. If the assasain was asking you that, s/he was probably just getting close enough to kill you.

Kill him, then kill the assassian so no one ever found out that I hired an assassian.

Then, of course, I'd have to kill the assassians assassian. And from there would come a vicious cycle of hiring and killing my own assassians. Eventally I kill myself out of frustration, and the world is none the wiser.

Ta-da!

Two 9's can do far more then years of spirited debate ever could.

A man with a gun approaches me with a bargain offer for a very risky job? He's obviously planning blackmail.

Fiddlebottom's botched assassination idea isn't so bad though.

Assassinate, then debate a significantly less experienced fill-in.