[Kamil]

As you all must know, I have been involved in a series of arguements with several different Marxists on the topic of the dichotomy of Marxism and Anarchism. What I think would be interesting is that if we'd prompt a debate competition between the various different political trends on this forum. Specifically, I had in mind that either Fox or one of the admin's would delegate an individual to the position of representative for a certain political group where they'd be responsible to choose a few partners for their team. I was thinking that these debates can be held on more professional terms that the conventional arguements we regularly see. With a lot more effort and time, the quality of the debates would hopefully reach the top.

Roughly, I believe that the following groups will participate:

Anarchists
Marxists
Socialists
Conservatives
Liberals
Platonist

Roughly, the scheduling could be as follows:

Anarchist-vs-Socialist
Conservative-vs-Platonist
Marxist-vs-Liberal
Anarchist #2-vs-Marxist #2
Liberal #2-vs-Conservative #2
Platonist #2-vs-Socialist #2
Liberal #3-vs-Marxist #3
Socialist #3-vs-Anarchist #3
Platonist #3-vs-Conservative #3
Anarchist #4-vs-Platonist #4
Conservative #4-vs-Marxist #4
Liberal #4-vs-Socialist #4

My initial outlining for the competition would entail the following processes:

[1] Prior to the debate, each individual within the group will be responsible for writing out an essay entailing their polemic and arguements toward their opponents political group; and
[2] Within a week's time, individuals will reveal their essays and will be given a certain amount of time to write out a refutation to their opponents essay and will be permitted to progress the debate by incorporating new ideas and arguements, questions, etc...

As a group, team members can assist one another in formulating ideas to contribute to their partners' debates. To ensure quality and viable debate, members of the group should write out a guideline to the philosophy in which they adhere to.

[Boris]

I really like this idea.

Definitly make sure only people debating are allowed to post. Be sure to set a time limit in which they can refute or rebut, like 24 or 48 hours, if they don't post in that amount of time they automatically lose. Then you could have a jury judge vote at the end. Like have posts in the opinion polls section so the people can say who won the debate, and then have Fox determine it. Or have the Admins vote. Or the mods, excluding those who were in the competition.

Oh yeah, you should only allow 10 posts, 5 from each competitor, that way, they must combine their ideas instead of having 20 one line or small paragraph posts.

But also, not just philosophical debates, because philosophies are most certainly not written in stone like most issues. A good issue puts you pretty much on one side or the other.

Mods, because of their variation in political choice should be able to choose topics. Because if you think about it, the mods represent all the members on this board.

The only problem I see, is lack of conservatives. We need them. Some one try and get some from like the george bush forums or something...I know there are plenty of conservative forums out there. Inviting people who look to be challenges and having them participate might even bring some more cons.. Plus, it could be board against board.

Edit: It could take place in the Adult forum. That way you don't have random people coming in and posting shite. Plus, there could be a no posting rule for people not in the debate, and if they do post, have their post removed(Smack on the wrist) and just do a 12 or 24 hour ban on them.

But then again, one can scratch the idea for the adult user forum only because Fox can make it so no one but the people who are in the debate that can post. Plus it would make it so everyone could view.

But then you get into where some random person can PM the debator and inform him of a point. But then again, if you were to disable PM, they could go through e-mail or instant message. But I am sure if you have a 2 or more person team, you wouldn't really have to worry about that. It would come down to the honour code. But that doesn't really matter any who because this is indeed the internet and they can search for what ever they want. Thus back to your idea of extremly strong debate. Good job, I just wasted a lot of time to find a point that was already made...sorry about that one.

[Siberian Fox]

I do not have time to organise this.

If you want to organise it yourself in the adult forum then be my guest.

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

By only holding it in the Adult Forum you'd be losing a quite a lot of good debaters.

[Kamil]

I do not have time to organise this.

If you want to organise it yourself in the adult forum then be my guest.

If people will be up for the idea, I wouldn't mind.

By only holding it in the Adult Forum you'd be losing a quite a lot of good debaters.

Perhaps the delegates responsible for choosing their team can appoint somebody to Adult Forum membership?

[Falleen Prince Xizor]

makes sense, if you could rope Todd in...

sure, why not?

[Todd D.]

I'm game, or even if Fox wants to open a new forum specifically for this purpose. I don't mind modding/admitting certain people to the Adults Forum or anything else.

[Demosthenes]

The only problem I see, is lack of conservatives.

Excuse me??? I believe I can put together a very formidable team, without seeking outside help Thank You very much.

(What am I chopped liver?)

For what it's worth Kam, I kinda like this idea as well. I would need a bit of time to assemble the team, but as noted Todd D. is in, and I can recruit the other two in a reasonable amount of time.

But I agree that this would better if it were issue driven and not simply essays on the better ideology...

Lack of conservatives my ass...

[Boris]

[edit] Ok, the ratio of conservatives to left wingers on this forum shows a lack of right wingers who would be worthy of competition.[/edit]

Well I would at least want to read the debate. I mean I am 17, the reason why I havn't asked for access to that forum. But if I don't make it on a debate team, then can I just be allowed to view the debate?


I will debate for anyone, any one that needs a team mate or any issue or ideology that is missing a debator.

Also, it should be for teams, like you can have two people on the same team that actually post the rebuttal, then they can have other people they can talk to, pretty much anybody... But only those two can post an opening or Rebuttal. And go back to the 10 post- 5 from each debator, where one side posts and then the next in a set amount of time (48 hours maybe) must post, and it can be only one of the two teammates that are allowed to post. Any violation in rules or failure to post in the amount of time given is an automatic loss. But hey, this isn't my debate, it's your idea and rules anywho.

[Edit2] We need set issues and teams. I will list some issues and then you could PM Kam and tell him which side you want, he will pick the debators and list them cleanly in a post.
Issues-
Economic- More or less government control over market is better or worse.
Capitalism-Libertarianism vs Communism/Socialism Authoritarianism
Abortion
Drugs
Economic Embargos
Healthcare
Education
International issues such as military intervention
Gun control
Capital Punishment
Gay Rights
Enviroment
Internet piracy
My favourite- Free trade
Affirmative Action
Censorship
Government vs. Religion
Welfare
Nuclear Proliferation
Voting Rights

I realize now that list could mean absolutly nothing if Kam or todd decides that it is...
[/edit2]

[TROI]

I'd be up for debating the Marxist side of things sure. But aslong as Jaako and other select members of my inner circle were included

[Demosthenes]

[edit] Ok, the ratio of conservatives to left wingers on this forum shows a lack of right wingers who would be worthy of competition.[/edit]

Nonsense, you just haven't been to the "right" places! I assure you between myself, Todd, Tex, and if I can lure Astoroth out of semi-retirement we'll be fine.

Not to mention my long lost Irish buddy Freedom. (If I have to whip out the secret weapons...) Who, though incommunicado can put the fear of GAWD into any unwashed leftist!

There are plenty more where they come from too...

[Falleen Prince Xizor]

I am loving this idea, whether or not i'd be worthy is another matter entirely.

I'd certainly try my damndest!

If Todd accepts it, i don't see why it can't go ahead,

the only problem i forsee is moderation, if Todd is on a team (Demosthenes'), he can't be impartial.

FPX

[Demosthenes]

I suggest an admin team of Yeddi, Jon, and Big Brother...I would say Fox, but as he said he's too busy. Soakth is out pickling his brain so he doesn't count.

Realistically Big Brother won't do it either. Angelina Jolie doesn't have time for us...

It should be a three judge panel. Maybe Gothmog or Glinert (who IS a professor) or perhaps Der Frei...as the third.

[Falleen Prince Xizor]

i second that.

this sounds like fun!

Is moderation the same as judging?

[Kamil]

I'm glad that the whole idea is appealing to all of you. If I were to be chosen as the representative for the Anarchist group, I'd definately be able to pick up some worthy debaters. I'm not too sure as to who would appoint a delegate for each seperate philosophy.

What I propose is that we establish the due date for the essays to be July the 1st. Opponents will have 72 hours to compose a reply. The same date will programs for each group be handed in as a guideline to the adversary's philosophy.

Now, should the debates be continuous or limited? I would establish a five round battle. How does that sound?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

We would also probably need someone to moderate the debates. And have a way where say 3 people for each side.. and 2 judges ect. There should be a debate on a more specific topic too (in ideologies ect.).

[Kamil]

It all depends in how many different political groups are participating in this debate. If the groups that I first listed were all to participate, we'd at least need four members on each team since each different member should be assigned to what group s/he challenges. I think we should include as much as groups as possible because it'd be great if we got more people participating.

As for the judges, we should get individuals who hold a neutral position in the political spectrum. Eh, we'll think of something.

Edit: Perhaps libertarians should be added to the list? Also, we could make a non-Marxist Communist team for all the juche, pro-khmer rouge, and stalinist-oriented thinkers. Can anyone think of other viable political groups?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Pro Khmer rouge..... the only one here and maybe on earth is NDS....... (Or take out the D in the middle and just make his name NS NationaliSociali....) And we should have the moderators of each forum (ideologies) pick the people they have debate with them. For marxism, Jaakko would pick those he feels can be of great use in a debate ect.

[Kamil]

Pro Khmer rouge..... the only one here and maybe on earth is NDS

Isn't Ixabert an adherent of the Khmer Rouge's 'Year Zero?'

And we should have the moderators of each forum (ideologies) pick the people they have debate with them. For marxism, Jaakko would pick those he feels can be of great use in a debate ect.

Seems good. How about the ideologies not listed such as non-Marxist Communists and Libertarians. We have a liberal board, but it'll need to be split into two composing a liberal and libertarian section.

[Boris]

Let me know when you debate on certain issues.

NO ideology can be debated.

"Look at the Soviet Union"

"That wasn't Communism/Marxist/Socialism"

"What about the US and their imperialist wars of aggression and their lack of respect for living beings and workers"

"We havn't become a true Capitalist state yet"

Issues are what you should start on, I will write an opening statement(essay) for an issue, not an ideology.