The Instigator
JBlake
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
earthfriend
Con (against)
Losing
6 Points

It's time for the government to crackdown hard on Brian Eggleston

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/31/2008 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,161 times Debate No: 5847
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (8)
Votes (3)

 

JBlake

Pro

Is Brian Eggleston a harmless Brit with a dirty, drunken sense of humour? Or is he a danger to the entire planet we know of as earth? He can be found all over the website known as debate.org spewing seemingly hilarious nonsense about obscure topics. But is that really the case? Sometimes reality is not what it seems, and a deep investigation of this seemingly harmless drunkard will reveal a (string of adjectives that can only be found together in an Eggleston debate) man. One need look no further than debate.org for a blueprint of his savage plot for world destruction.

First he means to remove police and government opposition by flooding them with a number of unimportant issues on which he claims they need to act, or as he puts it "crackdown hard".

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

The next phase of his plot is to enslave the lower classes and "vagabonds, tramps and other vagrants."
http://www.debate.org...

While the government is otherwise pre-occupied he will then distribute torture devices to all married men in order to keep their wives subservient.
http://www.debate.org...

He will then remove his remaining opposition by establishing a "Karma Police" to arrest "ignorant, loud-mouthed gobshites", "Right Wing Tabloid-Publishing Plutocrats", "Celebrity Daughters of Former Tory Chancellors of the Exchequer", "Volvo-Driving, Daily Mail-Reading Ultra-Orthodox Snobs", "Elton John", "Cashpoint cripples", "greedy fat scroungers", and of course the "Second Home-Owning Mega-Toffs".
http://www.debate.org...

With the British Isles taken care of, he will send over a band of gypsies to Massachusetts to take over the United States.
http://www.debate.org...

And then re-incorporate them into the British Empire.
http://www.debate.org...

With the United States under control, the final stage of his plan is to nuke the moon, sending it careening toward the earth, ending life as we know it.
http://www.debate.org...

Brian Eggleston must be stopped!
earthfriend

Con

It seems that my opponent has cited a series of debates undertaken by the man in question, Brian Eggleston, in order to prove that it is time for the government to crack down hard on him. I find that this conclusion does not follow. Is there any legal or moral reason for the government to crack down on someone simply for engaging in online debates?

My opponent has read too much into this man and followed his activities with abnormal perseverance. I assume that my opponent has never met or seen Brian Eggleston. How can we really find out anything about a person from the debating topics he/she chooses to work with? (Of course, the fact that my opponent has assumed, without any evidence, that Brian Eggleston drinks alcohol is beside the point.)

Moreover, there is no way to know that Brian seriously holds the views that he expressed in his debates. Many people practise debating simply to improve their debating skills, arguing in favour of positions that they are either apathetic about or opposed to, and it seems quite possible that that Brian has taken this approach.

And additionally, we cannot seriously assume that all the examples cited by my opponent fit together in any way. It is very easy to put together a collection of isolated data, create spurious links between them and come up with a specious theory. It is very likely that the same conclusion regarding the need for government action may just as sensibly be applied to anyone else on debate.org by tracking their debating history.

Lastly, if Brian did indeed have a dangerous plan, would he be so foolish as to leave clues indicating his intentions in so public a place as debate.org?

In light of these arguments, there is insufficient evidence justifying government action against Brian Eggleston.
Debate Round No. 1
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by mikaelthemycologist 8 years ago
mikaelthemycologist
hahahhahahahah!
Posted by Dnick94 8 years ago
Dnick94
Dnick94 voting as a member of debate.org

Conduct: Pro. Better sense of humor
Spelling and Grammar: Tie Both sides were understandable with no errors.
Argument: Con. Con refuted Pro's arguments and Pro didn't have the chance to refute back.
Sources: Pro. Con had no sources.
Posted by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
Joe: Voting as a Cleaner

Conduct - PRO - For a sense of humor.
English - TIE - Both were fine.
Argument - CON - This is self-evident.
Sources - PRO - Only one to provide any sources whatsoever.
Posted by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
I gave most convincing argument to Con and most reliable source to Pro. Everything else I voted a tie. Good idea JBlake. Fun.
Posted by brian_eggleston 8 years ago
brian_eggleston
Be careful, Blake, I know where you live, I know where you f*****g live!

Anyway, it's too late. Nobody can stop me now.

Ha-ha-ha-ha.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Ha.
Posted by Rezzealaux 8 years ago
Rezzealaux
Touche.
Posted by my.matryoshka 8 years ago
my.matryoshka
LOL. Nice.
Posted by solo 8 years ago
solo
This one is pretty awesome. I can't wait to read it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
JBlakeearthfriendTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by PoeJoe 8 years ago
PoeJoe
JBlakeearthfriendTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:33 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
JBlakeearthfriendTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23