The CWO "vote bombed" no one.

Hello and good day to you all! Good luck to you scissor. I will expect this debate to be fact-based, and I would like for the voters to vote with this expectation in mind. "The CWO" will be defined as a group of people. Fact-Based will be defined as staying away from statements such as "The CWO vote bombed ____" the debater must use his facts to make that statement for him, he can however use the statement in his summery after the facts were presented.

My opponent has made accusations against a group who call themselves the CWO. Their has been much resistance on this site about this group. My opponent stated this before the debate in a message that is entitled CWO, much of the site is getting this message now. He said, "If you wanted i suppose you could term this as an informal debate? However you would be very hard-pressed indeed.", It is obvious that he feels that the majority of this site will vote for him simply because he is now against the CWO (as the majority of this site is). But, I must remind you that this site is about how the debater debated, not who you agree with.
I will let my opponent cast the first stone, since he was the one who started debating me on this subject in the first place. Good luck again Scissor.

I would like to thank my opponent for his debate and would like to keep the following:

Factual, mannerly, and in all points logical.

[Definitions]

C.W.O. - a group known as the "conservative world order" started by the_conservative when he posted the following message sent to members of conservative ideologies on this site. The title of this message was called "This is WAR!!!"

Vote Bombing - a generalized definition meaning to vote based on a group decision, or simply based on who you agree with before reading the debate.

Example: Bob had a debate against Jake. Bob noticed he was losing in large numbers. Bob sent a message to group B with similar ideologies as himself complaining about the debate. Group B voted en masse to the point where Bob was now beating Jake. Thus Group B engaged in "vote-bombing"

[Resolution]

I affirm that the group CWO (see definitions) engaged in vote-bombing (see above)

[Factual-Evidence]

Below is a message sent by my opponent regarding one of his debate. This is a CWO message. This was the basis for the CWO

"Alright everyone, as you all may know, I got into a heated debate on John McCain picking Sarah Palin was a bad choice, and we all know I got a crushing victory. So today when I logged in I saw that my ranking had dropped about 10 percent. I was "what the"? it said I had won only 2 debates and that I lost 7!!! Yesterday I had won 5 debates and lost 4. So now I realize that ANSmith and JTSmith and their liberal friends all voted every single point for my opponent in all my debates!!! Please vote for me on all my debates to help get them back to the way they were.

Thank you John

This is War"

A corresponding message sent by the second leader of this group, CiRro

"No problem. I will do my best to get all your debates up. I can guarantee 21 points"

Following this message was a few messages by the level-headed conservatives who dissented against this message.

A corresponding message sent by CiRro:

"Link error happened for me too. Anyway, this site is strongly left. Obviously that has to "change" (In the words of B. Hussein Obama). Furthermore, we need to choose a conservative leader, or a conservative council. If we start a conservative group as soon as the group option becomes available, and we have a strong leader, we can easily undermine liberal influence and ideas being spread on this site."

A corresponding message by my opponent:
"I would agree with a council of possibly 3? We could easily start a free webs page and lock it to non-members and have a forum in it, I would design if needed."

A corresponding message by another member:
"Together we stand separated we fall. I suggest we do this ONLY when the odds are very stacked against us. Liberals feed on lies and tricks, a little taste of there own medicine may be the cure they need."

A corresponding message by my opponent:
"I agree with josh"

A corresponding message by another member:
"We need to talk more and seek out these unfair votes and fight fire with fire."

A message from another member:
The lead in my debate Trinity against ANSmith is good enough, thank you for looking at the site but the lead is enough. Thank you very much and let me know if any of you would like me to look at any of your debates.

[Observations]

1. the_conservative was slightly losing the following debate.
http://www.debate.org...

2. Following the messages posted above the_conservative is winning 105 to 39 points.

3. The voting demographics show that way more members with "conservative" viewpoints voted in this debate.

4. The voting demographics show that way more members with "republican" viewpoints voted in this debate.

5. In fact there were 14% more conservatives that voted in this debate than there were than all other political stances combined

[Supporting Arguments]

1. As is shown above the_conservative (the first leader of the CWO to be appointed) requests that members vote for him. He requests not that they look at the debate and vote for whom they choose. He explicitly requests that they vote for him.

Then CiRro (second leader of the CWO), says that he can "guarantee 21 points"

2. This idea of vote bombing is upheld by all three supposed leaders of this group. Additionally members agree.
Below if factual testimony.

Members state
"own medicine [supposed vote bombing] may be the cure they [members with liberal ideology] need"
My opponent (third and final leader of CWO) states in response to this message: "I agree with josh"
"seek out these unfair votes and fight fire with fire [vote bombing]"

3. For the group to have considered to have "vote-bombed" only one member of this group (especially those in charge of it) had to have voted in the notion suggested above. As is shown this was the intention of several members.

I would like to thank my opponent for his meaningful debate subject and would like to request that this debate be judged solely on who was the better debate and for the factors listed in voting above, not because any particular member agrees/disagrees with the group C.W.O or myself or my opponent.

I do remind the voters that the CWO being a group means everyone in the group when referred to a CWO.

I will take all of my opponent quotes and reply based on order.
1) "by my opponent" "Alright everyone, as you all may know, I got into a heated debate on John McCain picking Sarah Palin was a bad choice, and we all know I got a crushing victory. So today when I logged in I saw that my ranking had dropped about 10 percent. I was "what the"? it said I had won only 2 debates and that I lost 7!!! Yesterday I had won 5 debates and lost 4. So now I realize that ANSmith and JTSmith and their liberal friends all voted every single point for my opponent in all my debates!!! Please vote for me on all my debates to help get them back to the way they were."

1a) It is obvious to anyone who goes onto my profile, if you haven't please go now. I have not debated "John McCain picking Sarah Palin was a bad choice". At the time when I had debated that Sarah Palin having 5 kids is irrelevant, I had 11 debates, in his lie, I would have had 9. I would like to point out that we are fighting for the truth and that lies should be voted against, this is a disgrace.

2) A corresponding message sent by CiRro:

"Link error happened for me too. Anyway, this site is strongly left. Obviously that has to "change" (In the words of B. Hussein Obama). Furthermore, we need to choose a conservative leader, or a conservative council. If we start a conservative group as soon as the group option becomes available, and we have a strong leader, we can easily undermine liberal influence and ideas being spread on this site."

A corresponding message by my opponent:
"I would agree with a council of possibly 3? We could easily start a free webs page and lock it to non-members and have a forum in it, I would design if needed."

A corresponding message by another member:
"Together we stand separated we fall. I suggest we do this ONLY when the odds are very stacked against us. Liberals feed on lies and tricks, a little taste of there own medicine may be the cure they need."

A corresponding message by my opponent:
"I agree with josh"

A corresponding message by another member:
"We need to talk more and seek out these unfair votes and fight fire with fire."

A message from another member:
The lead in my debate Trinity against ANSmith is good enough, thank you for looking at the site but the lead is enough. Thank you very much and let me know if any of you would like me to look at any of your debates.

2a) "this site is strongly left. Obviously that has to "change"", So we decided that we must train newcomers. Notice how my opponent doesn't show the rest of the conversation, or at least the parts that count.
"scissorhands7

Completely agree with you aaron.

Lets show the liberal entity that we have intelligence.

This will not be done by acknowledging the liberal entity's intelligence and following them into their little hissy fight.

This will be done by becoming better debators, and voting for who argued better, not whether you agree with the subject prior to the debate.

I suggest that all conservatives show bipartisianship and throughout the course of the weak, give a liberal arguer a sincere compliments in their debate, whether you agree with their opinion or not.

Thank You,
Edward Scissorhands"

"Labrat228

Like I said previously, This group isn't simply about voting for other members. It is also about bringing more conservatives to the site and helping other members win debates, not by vote, but by advice."

"Labrat228

I disagree to the fullest extent that the group would vote for members for the heck of it. That would eliminate the purpose of debate. The group will be about Advise and Advertising and help for newcomer conservatives."

"Labrat228

Should this be the decided purpose of the council? To ensure the values of the group. Values being: 1. To help newcomer Conservatives by giving advise and displaying proper debating. 2. To help veteran Conservatives win debates by giving him advise on topics and or how to debate that topic properly. 3. To organize a proper community of Conservatives that will help each other as well as bring more Conservatives to the site. Any other suggestions? Should we have an advisory for each issue such as: EX: Scissorhands7 obviously is skilled in the area of abortion Scissorhands7 - Abortion Adviser. We could have a government. Council being top. Advisers being bottom."

In this conversation the councils purpose was proposed and accepted. the next message from anyone said this: "Sounds good to me" And that came from none other than Scissorhands

3)
"1. As is shown above the_conservative (the first leader of the CWO to be appointed) requests that members vote for him. He requests not that they look at the debate and vote for whom they choose. He explicitly requests that they vote for him.

Then CiRro (second leader of the CWO), says that he can "guarantee 21 points"

2. This idea of vote bombing is upheld by all three supposed leaders of this group. Additionally members agree.
Below if factual testimony.
Members state
"own medicine [supposed vote bombing] may be the cure they [members with liberal ideology] need"
My opponent (third and final leader of CWO) states in response to this message: "I agree with josh"
"seek out these unfair votes and fight fire with fire [vote bombing]"

3. For the group to have considered to have "vote-bombed" only one member of this group (especially those in charge of it) had to have voted in the notion suggested above. As is shown this was the intention of several members.

3a) My opponent failed to offer proof of any type. He speculated when he said:
1. "fight fire with fire [vote bombing]"
2. "This idea of vote bombing is upheld by all three supposed leaders of this group. Additionally members agree.
Below if factual testimony."
2a) Where did I agree? What additional members? (The_Conservative was kicked out for lack of being on the site or in any messages after the one quoted)

4) "I would like to thank my opponent for his meaningful debate subject and would like to request that this debate be judged solely on who was the better debate and for the factors listed in voting above, not because any particular member agrees/disagrees with the group C.W.O or myself or my opponent."

4a) No problem, but I can only ask that you do the same in return. Lieing to smear my name is a shameful tactic and I wish to never see this again. After this debate concludes I will turn my proof into the webmaster that you have more than one account. (Quotes by you, that I Screenprinted) I wish you luck proving any other points in your final debate.

I would like to thank my opponent for his rebuttal, however I would like to suggest that he keep terms such as calling me a liar, "in his lie" I would also like to suggest to my opponent that he keep out disparaging comments such as calling my rebuttal "a disgrace"

1. To start off by my opponents first rebuttal, I think he will find that immediately after I posted the first quote I corrected who it was by in the comments section. I'm sure he will find that the times match up exactly after posting this debate I corrected this in the comment. I will re correct my statement again here. Above in the first quote I misstated this when I said by my opponent. As a correction it should say by "the_conservative"

This was not a "lie" merely a typo. Again I would like to apologize for this innocent mistake that I had immediately corrected and realized after posting.

2. My opponent states that these statements were only referring to training. However I would like to remind the readers of this debate that the messages prior to this referred to "lies and tricks" additionally it says in the same message that "a little taste of there own medicine may be the cure they need"

So are lies and tricks to be used in this new training?

Additionally the other message that my opponent referred to mentioned "seek out these unfair votes and fight fire with fire"

This, unless I am mistaken refers to fighting fire (unfair votes) with fire (unfair votes) not training.

Also another member stated you would do so "ONLY when the odds are very stacked against us"
Is my opponent suggesting that all these references refer to training and not "vote-bombing" is as defined above.

3. Additionally my opponent posts a message that is a quote of my own that derides the above members who suggested to vote-bomb and suggests to vote based on who was the better debater. I simply do not see where this fits into his argument or what the purpose of this quote is.

4. Next my opponent re-posted all of my arguments and stated that I offered no proof in my debate. I would like to remind my opponent that to refute the resolution that the CWO bombed no one, I must simply show that one person in the CWO engaged in vote bombing. Actual quotes from members stating their intentions, especially "I can guarantee 21 points" is factual evidence.

I do not have to produce a video of a user of the CWO actively engaging in vote bombing, I simply have to show reasonable evidence suggesting that such an action was taken. I have shown sufficient evidence that said action of vote bombing occurred. I have shown such evidence denoting that such an action occurred. Additionally I did not just show this in one instance, I have produced multiple quotations from both leaders of the group and from members.

I applaud my opponents noble effort to refute my quotations however he (by not denying the validity of such quotations) has conceded that the quotations are indeed valid.

Here is a time-line so voters can understand the series of quotations
1. the_conservative requested that members of the CWO vote for his debate "please vote for me on all my debates"
He did not suggest that they vote for whomever they thought was the winner, he requested that they vote for him. The conservative was the first leader of the CWO.

2. The second leader of this debate CiRro, said that he could guarantee 21 points (suggestive of close friends or multiple accounts however this is not the purpose of this debate)
"No problem.... I can guarantee 21 points"

3. In response to the following message posted by joshandr30 (a CWO member)
"Together we stand separated we fall. I suggest we do this ONLY when the odds are very stacked against us. Liberals feed on lies and tricks, a little taste of there own medicine may be the cure they need."

My opponent (the third leader of CWO):
responded with "I agree with josh"
While my opponents evidence of supporting vote bombing is less extreme than the two leaders, it is suggestive of this.

4. I provided 4 observations further suggesting that the actions in the quotations above were followed through.

4. Furthermore in response to my opponents "critique" of my friendly closing statement I would like to state that I never lied, and have corrected my misquote long before he posted his primary rebuttal. I would like to politely ask him that he refrain from comments like "liar" and "shameful" in the future

I would like to further remind him that he try to stay on subject with this debate and not make one quarter of his entire refutation an accusation of lying and an off-topic subject that inaccurately suggests I have multiple accounts.
If my opponent would like to bring up such suggestions I ask that he simply send me a personal message and not bring it up in this debate.

I would like to remind the viewers of this debate that without the following accusations of lying (which was simply a misquote that was immediately corrected in the comments section following my refutation) in this debate my opponents only refutation of my points is this:

"this site is strongly left. Obviously that has to "change"", So we decided that we must train newcomers. Notice how my opponent doesn't show the rest of the conversation, or at least the parts that count.

"In this conversation the councils purpose was proposed and accepted. the next message from anyone said this: "Sounds good to me" And that came from none other than Scissorhands"

Like I said previously, This group isn't simply about voting for other members. It is also about bringing more conservatives to the site and helping other members win debates, not by vote, but by advice."

3a) My opponent failed to offer proof of any type. He speculated when he said:
1. "fight fire with fire [vote bombing]"
2. "This idea of vote bombing is upheld by all three supposed leaders of this group. Additionally members agree.
Below if factual testimony."
2a) Where did I agree? What additional members? (The_Conservative was kicked out for lack of being on the site or in any messages after the one quoted)

1. I have responded to the misquote
2. As shown above I have given reason why the members quotes was not referring to "training new members"
3. I have shown that at least two of the three leaders have engaged in vote bombing, and I have shown how my opponent (the third leader) agreed with the notion of this if not engaged in it himself.
4. I have posted quotes that my opponent accepted as valid by not refuting the validity of them.
5. I have shown sufficient evidence that not only did members and leaders of CWO intended to engage in vote bombing but have shown by calculative observation the extremely high probability that this did occur
6. My opponent has conceded that the group was about vote bombing when he said "this group isn't simply about vote bombing" This quote suggests that while the group may be about more than vote bombing, vote bombing is included in the purpose of this group.

I would like to again remind my opponent that to prove that the CWO engaged in vote bombing I only have to provide sufficient evidence suggesting so. I do not have to "prove beyond a shadow of a doubt" seeing as how this is not a murder trial. I do not have to produce a video of the vote bombing. I only have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I have produced quotes which my opponent did not refute suggesting that this was several members and leaders intentions. I have also shown sufficient observations of this occurring in a debate through the demographics of the votes being cast.

Therefore I affirm that the CWO did engage in vote bombing and negate that no member of the CWO engaged in vote bombing.

I respectfully thank my opponent for his refutations of my points and would like to politely ask him to heed the above suggestions regarding the format of this debat

I will keep this simple and to the point. The topic of this debate is "The CWO "vote bombed" no one.", my opponent had to prove that the CWO bombed someone. As defined in R1, referring to CWO means the whole group. Regardless if I vote bombed someone, CirRo did, or anyone else affiliated with the CWO did, my opponent cannot prove that the CWO vote bombed anyone. I have stated again and again that I oppose vote bombing, my opponent even joined the group because I promised the group wouldn't go that course, he left because 2 members of the group did. I do not dispute that some members are for vote bombing, and yet my opponent has wasted his rounds to prove what is not under question. Unless my opponent can prove that the CWO vote bombed someone (without speculating), I should win this debate. I wish for the voters to vote on the bases provided in my R1 and supported in my opponents R1. Do not vote based on your belief but instead vote on who truly won this debate. I would like for my opponent to finish his final round upholding the moral values I just provided, and Scissor, good luck.

I would like to thank my opponent for his final rebuttal.

Although I had hoped my opponent might continue with his refutations he has instead made his last round a round about the rules of the debate.

First I would like to sum up my opponents main refutation:

1. He personally opposes vote bombing
2. He stated the reason I left the group and thus conceded members of the CWO supported vote bombing
3. He directly concedes that members of his group (including leaders) support vote bombing
4. States that I have the burden of proof
5. Incorrectly states that I have been "speculating" but has yet to define what this term means in his context
6. Would like voters to vote based on his resolution that he never provided in his R1

Below are my points against my opponents refutations:

1. My opponents personal opinion has no place in this debate, however on a side note I would like to state that I could not agree more fully with him. My negative feelings for vote bombing are the reason I engaged in this debate
2. I have no point except to agree with his conceded point
3. Again I agree with the logic of his conceded point
4. A) My opponent incorrectly states that I have the burden of proof. Firstly, by providing absolutely no resolution and making no definitions (other than CWO) nor contesting my own definitions or resolution I have absolutely nothing to prove.
B) Additionally other than setting parameters about the debate being fact based, my opponent has affirmed that he wished me to create the resolution by stating "I will let my opponent cast the first stone"
C) Furthermore, my opponent never anywhere in the argument contested my providing the resolution.
D) I would like to call to the attention of all voters that the person refuting the person who made the resolution has indeed the burden of proof. My opponent not only never contested that members of CWO vote bombed, but he conceded it.
E) Therefore for this point alone I affirm that all debaters viewing this debate vote CON
5. No where in this debate was there blind speculation

[definition]
speculation - a message expressing an opinion

As was shown I posted factual quotes. My opponent conceded the validity of these quotes by not contesting them.
I also have shown (as posted twice in observations) that there was reasonable evidence that such actions not only were supported but were followed through. My opponent has not contested these quotes nor observations. Additionally I would like to remind my opponent and voters that I do not have to show video evidence of such events occurring. I simply have to show reasonable evidence suggesting that a member of the CWO engaged in vote bombing. I have done so. My opponent has conceded this point. Additionally for this point of evidence all voters by default should vote CON.

6 (see point 4)

7. I would like to remind voters to be sufficiently unbiased when casting their votes. As both agreed upon by myself and my opponent we both would like the readers of this debate to vote upon who was the best debater and who proved their point the best.

I would like to thank my opponent for his invigorating round of refutations and would like to send him my regards along with my respect for him as a debater.