[Archived: Special Debates] The Political Battle Thread - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Assorted documents and images.
User avatar
By Vivisekt
#367739
edit: this was an accidental double post, but since i've already made the error, i'll use this to post my reply to the political battle thread (which cannot be otherwise replied to at this time).




Kam wrote:We need to make sure that our judges all descend from disparate political affiliations.


A sound idea.



Kam wrote:What political group are you affiliated or most closely associated with, Vivisekt? We need to keep track of our judges' politics in order for the debate to be more fair.


Mmm... I have found that my 'political affiliation' can be a confusing subject for some.

I usually feel that I am forced by the relativity of information (and humility, resultant from that relativity) to commit to nothing specific on the sociopolitical level. I can't claim to tow any established party line - as Demo said earlier - and this leaves me fairly apolitical and nihilist in practice. For the sake of argument, I always try to be as pragmatistic and objective as possible, issue by issue, adhering only to that logic.

That being said, on PoFo I tend to sympathise with/argue in favor of several ideological catagories, on a philosophical level. Please note that several of these ideological catagories are diametrically opposed to one another:

Libertarianism
Totalitarian Socialism
Internationalist Fascism
Progressive Totalitarianism (example: Civitas)
Technocracy


Generally speaking, if a point holds any logic as applied to the modern plight of man, I can readily argue in favor of it. Regardless of from whence it came, or what it is traditionally associated with.



Jesse wrote:I'd like to ask Sapper and Starman to participate on the Platonist team, as well as Vivisekt, as while it may not reflect his ideology exactly, his knowledge of it is precise, superior and knowledgeable and he is able to explain and defend it with eloquence. Failing that, I'll have to look to another. Unless I only need myself and two others... in which case, I'll PM those two gents and hope to get their cooperation.


Thanks for the kind words, Jesse. If I am indeed not needed to act as a judge/mod, I will be available to argue for any team that requests my participation with the exception of Marxists and Anarchists (due to lack of comprehensive information on Marxism, and the illogical subject matter of Anarchism).
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#367750
You can only be on one team but we have 5 judges at the moment and we should keep an odd number but if you would like to be a judge you are welcome to. I didn't ask as I thought you would be on the platonists team. As I said if you want to do that you can, but you can only be on one team in the debates.
User avatar
By Vivisekt
#367754
Socialist-BLUE-Gonzo wrote:You can only be on one team but we have 5 judges at the moment and we should keep an odd number but if you would like to be a judge you are welcome to. As I said if you want to do that you can, but you can only be on one team in the debates.


Indeed, otherwise one could find onesself debating on both sides of the same argument. Since I don't know what positions are filled and what is still open, I just wanted to state the range of options that I am open to. Perhaps we should begin posting a list of who is on what team, so that people know what is open and what is not?

As for judging - if you guys think I should judge, then I'll do that. Otherwise I'll join whichever team wants me and asks first, if any (it looks like Jesse has put in the first request), aside from the two exceptions which i noted above.
User avatar
By Comrade Ogilvy
#367778
Yeah since we have plenty of judges and you are an excellent debator you should deffinately go with jesses team.
By Kamil
#367821
A few statements:

[1] First off, I think we should lengthen the period of debate for more than two days. Perhaps a week? If we expect this to be an intellectual and enjoyable debate, we can't have people wasting two entire days orienting themselves around the debate. Things need to be taken in steps. As Demo already pointed out, many people here have more important things to do than rather debate at PoFo. If people are stressing themselves out and constantly working, this won't be enjoyable. Without enough time to evenly space out your timetable and fit in the debate, things will be sloppier and effortless if people are obliged to write intellectual arguements, etc.. The link to the Anarcho-Leninist debate that I rendered. each of the participants have more than 6 months to reply to one another's debates. By lengthening the debate periods, not only will people entail intellectual arguements, they'll enjoy the debate; and
[2] We should have at least two debates at a time if we're to lengthen the period between each debate so that things don't finish next June.

1.The debate will start off with one team being told (by a judge) to post their oppening statement essay supporting their argument/ideology and this will be done by the team captain.

2. Opposing team will then give their oppening statement essay and that will be done by team captain


Are teams obliged to hand in their essays on different dates or are they able to hand them in on the same due date?

3. After this is done the first team asked to post their essay/oppening statement will be asked questions by the opposing team. A limit to about 10-15 questions may be asked by the team. The opposing team(Team B) will answer each question and the format will be like this. and after all questions by first team are asked and answered judge will tell the teams when it is the opposing teams turn to ask the other team questions and have them answered.


Questions? I think it would be much more preferable if we developed a response to the opposing team entailing all our arguements against them and the finishing off with a couple of questions. If this is to be a debate between two different ideologies, strong arguements should be presented and a debate should progress in a manner where teams debate the other's tactics for co-ordinating their society, maintaining it, etc.. Who will know if the opponents understand the opposing ideology? If we feature an entire inquiry period and no essay presenting arguements against the other ideology, the inquiry can be composed of derogatory questions which should've been featured in the opening statement essay or can easily be covered within the response rather than having an entire inquiry period. 15 questions is not suitable, it's too much. Besides, the debate should not be comprised of inquiry but actual debate. If an oppositional essay is permitted, more in-depth debate can progress on the dissension of the ideologies and their argumentation of theory, method, etc...
User avatar
By Der Freiheitsucher
#367872
The only team in which I would be interested to debate would be Jesse's and Vivisekt's team.
User avatar
By Vivisekt
#367892
Der Freiheitsucher wrote:The only team in which I would be interested to debate would be Jesse's and Vivisekt's team.


Jesse has opened a thread in the P&D forum for membership on the debate team:
http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/view ... hp?t=24960
User avatar
By TROI
#368173
And there was me thinking Der Frei was an anarchist :knife:
User avatar
By Siberian Fox
#368412
Vivisekt wrote:...was moved into the debate forum, in which no further replies can be made. Why was it moved?


It was moved to that forum because that is where it belongs (not the basement).

That is where this thread will be moved.

If you wish to post there then PM Mr Gonzo.

Leslie woman gets to the point. Lol. https:[…]

I'm surprised to see the genocide supporters (lik[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong???[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

This is the issue. It is not changing. https://y[…]