The Instigator
bsh1
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
anonymouse
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

The User "Anonymouse" is a Troll

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
bsh1
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/22/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,924 times Debate No: 38008
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (36)
Votes (4)

 

bsh1

Pro

I have seen myriad harassing, insulting, and mean-spirited comments posted by the user "Anonymouse," which I would like to see halted. I am a firm believer in the notion that debate should be a relatively civil discourse, and I would never want to be in a debate where hateful or nasty language was being spewed at me by my opponent. In other words, I would like to call attention to this trolling, and hopefully nip it in the bud.

Definitions:

Troll - a person who deliberately uses harassing or insulting language or who uses inflammatory language with no other purpose but to sew derision and to upset people. It is "e-defamation" or internet defacement.

I can't say I look forward to this debate--I don't. But, I think it's warranted.
anonymouse

Con

Well, it looks like I was right. The regime wastes no time trying to censor me. Read my arguments. Read my comments, and pay close attention to the revolutionary language in it. Empire hates that. Ever wonder why most comments on the internet are pro-imperialist? It's because they censor everyone else that thinks otherwise. This is the very nature of totalitarianism, and fascism. Why do western regimes talk about freedom of speech, when they take every opportunity they can to get rid of dissent? Thank you for teaching me the methods and protocol that empire uses to silence the opposition.
Debate Round No. 1
bsh1

Pro

Thank you for accepting. I will offer two brief overviews, and then get down to the core of my arguments.

Framework Points:

OV1: This debate is not censorship; if I were trying to sensor you, I would not be having this debate, which is itself a forum for you to air your views. While I don't agree with many of the positions you take, I do not dispute your right to defend them. I do object to your often hateful and mean-spirited language. Take whatever stances you'd like to, just don't insult people in the process. This is, frankly, not an unreasonable request.

OV2: This debate is not about the "Empire" or "western regimes." It is about the individual actions of one user. Insults, regardless of your culture, are inappropriate in civil discourse.

My Core Case:

Contention One: Anonymouse employs hateful and insulting speech on DDO. I will now quote Anonymouse to prove my point:

SUB-POINT A: Anonymouse insults specific users.

"I love how you shills like to use all these corrupted sources." [1]

"porn is disgusting, and if youre so against it, why are you using a photo of a slut?" [4]

"I am sure most people would agree with that. Shills excluded." [5]

In fact, virtually all of anonymouse's debates contain insults or derogatory language of one form or another. These are just a few excerpts. Look at all of his debates, and you'll find more.

SUB-POINT B: Anonymouse is disrespectful of all DDO users in general, engages in mean-spirited rants, and levels unfounded accusations against myriad DDO users.

"Well ladies and gentlemen, pay attention to these fascists, assuming that it is even more than 1 person posting here on behalf of empire (as opposed to one shill with multiple "personas")...Yea, let the shills come online posting pro-empire debates, and then quote a whole bunch of sources from corrupt quackademics from Harvard, and Oxbridge to legitimise their bogus claims...You see, unlike you fascists, I don't care if I lost the debate...While you may accuse other regimes of being totalitarian, your actions on this website, and many others shows one thing..." [2]

"leave it to the shills to defend the establishment" [3]

Contention Two: Anonymouse makes spurious arguments against fellow users and against various outside entities, without supporting any of his positions. This is defamation.

Firstly, I'll start out by defining defamation/libel to further clarify my arguments. Libel - making an unproven and malicious statement against someone that intends, attempts, or has the consequence of damaging someone/something's reputation. Defamation is not an insult per se, but it does cast false or unsupported aspersions onto someone's character in an unacceptable way. Here are some examples of defamation/libel committed by him:

In this very debate, he implied that I was a fascist. I am personally offended by this comparison, as it connotes a variety of things: that I am anti-Semitic, homophobic, racist, a proponent of authoritarianism, and supportive of death/concentration camps. I am none of these things. I have many Jewish friends, I'm gay, I'm pro-democracy, and, of course, I find the notion of death camps repulsive.

"If this is your idea of having it better then it should be YOU that needs your head checked, preferably not by Mkultra. There's never enough with the shills, because yous keep coming back. Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that a 'normal' person would come on here defending western imperialism for free, day in and day out. It just doesn't happen. The thing that fuels guys like you is greed, and coming on here defending western imperialism (without pay) all day does not fit that M.O." [6]

Contention Three: Anonymouse engages in inflammatory rants that have almost no other purpose than to defame a user or the ill-defined "establishment" or the West, or to vent his malicious/mean-spirited and unsupported assertions.

My warrants for this included every debate in which anonymouse has participated.

None of these quotes have been censored by the "Man," "Big Brother," "Establishment" or anyone else...full texts for abbreviated passages are available online.

Sources:

1 - http://www.debate.org...
2 - http://www.debate.org...
3 - http://www.debate.org...
4 - http://www.debate.org...
5 - http://www.debate.org...
6 - http://www.debate.org...
anonymouse

Con

The point of you accusing me of being a "troll" is to try to get me kicked off this forum. So yes, you (on behalf of your masters) are making an attempt to censor me. Get me kicked off, and the only one left is you and your "personas". Second, you say that I am upsetting people, but who is getting upset other than you (and your other user names)? I think you are upsetting plenty of people, particularly the victims of U.S./NATO military aggression when you make radical claims such as the U.S. regime is liberating people, or Afganistan is better off under U.S. dictatorship. Let me remind you that there are 2 million Iraqi refugees. If Iraq was better off under U.S. dictatorship, then why are people fleeing? Obviously, something is very wrong with your propaganda, and 2 million people would be quite upset with your claims. I call a spade a spade, and if someone is shilling, or fascist, then I won't ignore it. Want to see some real trolls, now let's take a look at what you and your other names have called me. As hard as shills try to be deceptive, some things are obvious. If you look close enough, you will find patterns between the language used by shills on this site, and other sites.

"Posted by ararmer1919 59 minutes ago
God damn kid. Also unlike you who has no fing clue what's going on there and no reliable information about it iv been there and have first hand experience on the matter so... Yeah. And as for the rest of your crap... Dude. How stupid are you?????"

"Posted by jeh123 1 day ago
please tell me that your head is alright. Afghanistan is better off now than anytime since 1979, libya wasn't unprovoked.ur right on iraq, but ur still 1 for 3"

"Posted by ararmer1919 1 day ago
Ok how stupid are you??? No really. Cause I quite clearly said that we FING DO USE depleted uranium and that WE DO NOT try and keep it a secret. If I COULD get paid by the government to come to sites like these and tell retards like you that you are in fact a retard I would be more then happy to sign right the hell up. Someone needs to let you know that your whole life is a lie and you need to Fu(k the hell off."

"Posted by ararmer1919 2 days ago
And your an idiot again. Your whole argument is completely ludicrous and I really hope your just trolling cause god help you if your really that stupid. False flag terror??? What? And no $h!t we attacked them. So what? We had every reason to. And no they are not."

"Posted by ararmer1919 2 days ago
Like I said. Defense mechanism. I'm actually really impressed with how much of an idiot you are."

"Posted by ararmer1919 2 days ago
What the hell are you talking about????"

"Posted by ararmer1919 1 week ago
CaptainHeartstroke. A half retarded monkey could get this. Pros arguments are nothing more then ignorant ramblings of a bigot."

"Posted by ararmer1919 6 days ago
I really love Pris defense mechanism his created. It's completely impossibly to ever show him any proof, facts or evidence and impossible to help him see truth in his clouded mind because no matter what you show him, be it subject matter expert testimony or documented proof or a freakin picture it doesn't matter cause he will, in his mind, imediately discredit and disregard anything that challenges his way of thinking as "part of the establishment" or "the establishments lies". It's really quite impressive. And there's really no way to beat it since he"ll just keep doing those mental gymnastics tell his brain fries."

"Posted by ararmer1919 1 week ago
That second round argument was so fing cute. Seriously what do you smoke or what r-traded websites do you spend your every moment on that Fd your brain up so bad?

Posted by ararmer1919 1 week ago
@anonymouse look everyone. It thinks its people. But really this argument is ridicules, lol."

Are these guys trolls too? Judging by your standards. I wonder why no one ever created a debate disputing their troll status? Could it be that they only attack those who challenge empire? Lol. And I really got to laugh at the fact that some shills don't even try to hide the fact that they're shills. Even the CIA has front companies, what do you have? Notice aramer's photo, dressed in military uniform and all. The only thing he is missing is a swastika. He's coming on here attacking dissidents for free under no one's command? riiiiiight.
Debate Round No. 2
bsh1

Pro

I will address Anonymouse's comments/defend my own case and then summarize my position.

OV1: I am not attempting to get you evicted from DDO--I simply want to get you to stop being a troll. I have no issue with you being on DDO so long as you don't use it as a forum to spew insults and unsupported accusations. I would be quite content to have you on DDO, and just agree to stop insulting people and to stop mischaracterizing people and their beliefs in a way that attempts to slander/cast aspersions upon them. As for you offending people, look at many of the comments on your debates, as well as in the text of the debates themselves. You'll find people angered (and thus upset) by your insults and trolling. If I need to provide specific examples, I will. Furthermore, calling someone a slut is hardly inoffensive. Ultimately though, why would I give you a forum to speak if I wanted to silence you? I just want to call attention to potential violations committed by you of the TOS and generic principles of good conduct. Win, lose, or draw, I would just like you to refrain from this type of offensive language.

OV2: Anonymouse basically drops this point--extend that this debate is not about the "West" or any other such group. It's only about his specific actions. Falling under this umbrella, I would argue that my stance on U.S. military intervention is entirely irrelevant to this debate. Even so, I would like to note that I do not--and did not--support the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, or (in light of recent diplomatic developments) potential conflict in Syria.

It also seems that Anonymouse persists in calling me a fascist--which is a case-in-point reason of why he is a troll. Fascists are Jew- and Gay-hating authoritarians who condone torture, starvation, etc. I am none of these things; quite the contrary, I have many Jewish friends, I am gay, and I am totally repulsed by torture, including waterboarding, and such camps as Guantanamo that deprive people of their due process.

Contentions 1, 2, and 3 -- Anonymouse fails to address any of the claims I make in support of the fact that he is a troll, including the fact that he flings insults about, makes libelous statements, and engages in pointless and often vitriolic/malicious rants. In fact, he almost appears to concede/agree with them when he talks about how others are trolls too. Extend all of my arguments.

Anonymouse then goes on to list a variety of comments posted in response to his comments. I have three things to say about these:

(1) These people are committing trolling acts as well, and I don't condone it. I challenged you to this debate because I found your comments especially offensive (particularly the "slut" and "fascist" comments); however, I support your claim that these comments are inappropriate and spam. YET, simply because one is trolled upon does NOT give one license to troll back. The extrapolation is that even if people troll on you, and it seems as if they do, that does not excuse your trolling, nor does it mean that you yourself are not a troll.

(2) I looked up a handful of these incidents, and it seems as if most of them were made in response to offensive comments made by you. This, of course, in no way validates their trolling, but it does show that they were not entirely unprovoked. I just wished they had gone about pointing out issues with your comments in a more polite and civil fashion.

(3) Ultimately, the fact that other people troll does not disprove or in some way invalidate that fact that you are also a troll. If you insult people, you must count yourself as one of their number, and thus you make my point for me. This type of behavior is inexcusable by anyone, and I'm glad you recognized the inappropriateness of other user's trolling. Maybe this will encourage you to temper some of your own remarks (which is all I want at the end of the day; I never want to be caught in a debate where I am at the receiving end of such comments.)

Finally, I'm under no one's command besides mine own, unless someone comes into my dorm at night and injects me with mind-control serum.

Basically, all I ask is that you--and all other DDO users who do--halt the use of insults and derogatory comments to create an atmosphere more conducive to civil and intellectual discourse rather than crude mudslinging and ranting. This challenge is a means for me to get that message across.
anonymouse

Con

Tell your masters to stop sending shills on the internet, and I will stop calling yous shills, but that would never happen because the whole point of the internet is to conduct psychological operations. I guess that is why the U.S regime hates the Chinese firewall so much, because they can actually use the internet for their own purposes, as opposed to allowing the U.S. regime to conduct psyops.

Take a look at this description, and see if you fit into it.

Shills are Internet commentators hired by the government of the USA, NATO or the private military contractors to post comments favorable towards imperialist policies in an attempt to shape and sway public opinion on various Internet message boards. The commentators are said to be paid up to $250 an hour with tax dollars for either steering a discussion away from anti-imperialist or sensitive content on the world wide web, bulletin board systems, and chatrooms, or that advances the imperialist agenda.

Before the release of the internet, the U.S. military industrial complex started hiring Internet commentators, in one of the earliest known uses of professional Internet commentators.

The U.S. regime enacted a systematic censorship of bulletin board systems. Non-compliant forums were, and are forced to close. There is however, an alternative to this. The NSA will conduct attacks on the non-compliant website until it is deemed unloadable. As a new system was prepared to be launched, school officials hired students as part-time web commentators, paid from the university's work-study funds, to search the forum for undesirable information and actively counter it with empire-friendly viewpoints. In the following months, western oligarchs began hiring their own teams. Web commentator teams recruited by schools, and military organizations were common across the U.S.. Undergraduates monitored for signs of dissent and post on university forums. These commentators not only operate within political discussions, but also in general discussions. Afterwards, some schools and local governments also started to build similar teams.

Western oligarchs secretly demand a "reinforcement of ideological and public opinion front construction and positive publicity". Both government, and private contractors request reactionaries with imperialist political quality" to form "teams of Internet commentators".
Negative reporting of local authorities has increased on the internet since then. The U.S. regime and its allies established a mechanism to analyse public opinion after criticism of the authority handling of incidents appeared on the internet. The shills responded with 120 staff calling for the truth to be revealed in line with the public opinion, which gradually shifted and eventually supported the authoritarian position, denouncing the original poster. In the aftermath of occupy wall street, internet forums were filled with posts critical of the local authorities; the major task of the propaganda group was to organize commentators to paste posts on websites to guide online public opinions.

The U.S. and NATO militaries hold regular training sessions, whose participants are required to pass an exam after which they are issued a job certification. Some estimates claim thousands of such commentators while other estimates put their numbers as high as 280,000"300,000.

Internet commentators are mainly selected from military, and or universities with an emphasis on psychological operations.

Thousands of commentators are sorted by their writing abilities. According to high-profile independent bloggers, the pro-imperialist web commentators must number "at least in the tens of thousands".
A formal Internet commentator said that there were about 20 full-time commentators for the local news websites. A county-level discipline inspection commission's Internet commentator estimated more than 100 spare-time Internet commentator in his county, whose population was about 1 million. The public opinion molders have already penetrated different layers of society", he found public opinion watchmen that deal with negative information on the forums in tourist city's airport and county-level middle school.
Countries like the USA, Canada, Israel and Britain are investing "considerable resources into pro-imperialist blogs" in an effort to cement power.
Every large western website is instructed by the Information Office to create a trained team of Internet commentators.
In a leaked propaganda directive to internet commentators, their objective was stated as:
In order to circumscribe the influence of revolution, in order to progress further in the work of guiding public opinion, and in accordance with the requirements established by higher authorities to "be strategic, be skilled," we hope that internet commentators conscientiously study the mindset of netizens, grasp international developments, and better perform the work of being an internet commentator. For this purpose, this notice is promulgated as set forth below:
(1) To the extent possible make China the target of criticism. Play down the existence of U.S./NATO imperialism.
(2) Do not directly confront [the idea of] revolution; rather, frame the argument in terms of "what kind of system can truly implement revolution."
(3) To the extent possible, choose various examples in communist countries of violence and unreasonable circumstances to explain how socialism is not well-suited to human rights.
(4) Use China, Iran, and Russia, and other countries" interference in international affairs to explain how socialism is actually an invasion of other countries and [how the China, Iran, and Russia] is forcibly pushing [on other countries] communist/terrorist values.
(5) Use the victim mentality to stir up pro-imperialist and patriotic emotions. For example, "they're stealing our jobs", or "they're coming to invade us." One common psyop used by the U.S and its allies is the "they're threatening our way of life" psyop. The Soviet Union was used in this particular psyop as the boogeyman. Today, China, and Iran is used for the same role. The boogeymen change, but the tactics do not.
(6) Increase the exposure that positive developments the west receive; further accommodate the work of maintaining [social] stability.
(7) Insult perceived dissidents. Call them stupid, use vulgar language, attempt to discredit them, demand the use of citations, ridicule the perceived dissident, accuse the perceived dissident of being a troll.

Let the people decide for themselves whether or not I fit this description, or whether it better describes my opponents, and the proponents of the establishment who operate on this website.

I have lots more. Just don't have the time to argue with you full time. I don't get paid for this like you do.
Debate Round No. 3
bsh1

Pro

I will discuss anonymouse's comments, and then move on to summarize my position for when we move forward.

I have no masters, I am not paid to be on DDO, and I'm not some type of propagandist or government operative. I really don't know how I can prove this to you--I don't believe you'll take my word on it.

You also reference high-profile bloggers, yet, if they are so high-profile, and the U.S. really had such commentators, why are these sites not deactivated? Why are you comments on this website not censored before they can be posted? You also seem to be under the misapprehension that I agree with the government 100% of time--I don't. I like Keynes, I want to make the West more multicultural, and I think that the NSA is too powerful. Finally you claim that commentators are instructed to insult dissidents--I am not a commentator, but I have conducted this debate civilly, without vulgar language, without ridiculing you. In fact, you see to more closely embody what you describe than I do. You call other users stupid, you use vulgar language (calling users "sluts"), you fling spurious accusations about in order to discredit other users, and you ridicule perceived dissent.

Ultimately, this debate is not about debate--that point was concede by you. So, I will let your own record speak for itself, and that is what we should focus on. The following are your own words (sources can be found in round 2):

"I love how you shills like to use all these corrupted sources." [1]

"porn is disgusting, and if youre so against it, why are you using a photo of a slut?" [4]

"I am sure most people would agree with that. Shills excluded." [5]

In fact, virtually all of anonymouse's debates contain insults or derogatory language of one form or another. These are just a few excerpts. Look at all of his debates, and you'll find more.

"Well ladies and gentlemen, pay attention to these fascists, assuming that it is even more than 1 person posting here on behalf of empire (as opposed to one shill with multiple "personas")...Yea, let the shills come online posting pro-empire debates, and then quote a whole bunch of sources from corrupt quackademics from Harvard, and Oxbridge to legitimise their bogus claims...You see, unlike you fascists, I don't care if I lost the debate...While you may accuse other regimes of being totalitarian, your actions on this website, and many others shows one thing..." [2]

"leave it to the shills to defend the establishment" [3]

"If this is your idea of having it better then it should be YOU that needs your head checked, preferably not by Mkultra. There's never enough with the shills, because yous keep coming back. Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that a 'normal' person would come on here defending western imperialism for free, day in and day out. It just doesn't happen. The thing that fuels guys like you is greed, and coming on here defending western imperialism (without pay) all day does not fit that M.O." [6]

In sum, you have failed to actually debate the issue, and are attempting to use accusations to obfuscate your own trolling remarks. I am not out to censor you, just to get you to agree to refrain from making clearly insulting remarks. Thank you.
anonymouse

Con

Well, I don't expect shills to admit to their occupation. I'm pretty sure that is against work regulations. The point of your job is deception, and you wouldn't be deceiving anyone if you admittted to being a shill. The high profile bloggers I am talking about are foundation funded. Why would they deactivate them if they are pushing the imperialist agenda? Why do you think the majority of the websites on the internet are pro-establishment? And if sites are deactivated, then you wont see them anymore, so how would you know something was deactivated if it wasn't there? Who said shills, or government employees agree with the government 100% of the time? Just because you're a shill, or even in the military does not mean you agree with the government 100% of the time. Plenty of controlled dissent/opposition out there. Just look at the occupy wall street movement. Ron Paul is another one. Alex Jones focuses the majority of his time criticising the government. Doesn't mean he isn't a shill. Look at Jesse Thorsen, and then look at what happened to him after he made his anti-establishment outburst. Great, saying the NSA is too powerful means nothing. This does not prove that you are not a shill. Assange makes frequent statements of that nature, this does not mean he is not an agent. The important thing to note here is that commentators have multiple accounts. I doubt this is your only account. Different accounts are used for different purposes. The point here is that there are commentators on here, and most other sites with commentators insulting dissidents, and using vulgar language. I am not asking your opinion on who is the commentator. I said let the people decide who is the commentator. Since your background is in question here, then your opinion should not count. You're quoting me calling your other personas out on being shills, so how does that make me a troll? I am exposing shills, and letting the world know about your deceptive operations. That makes me a hero. The masses need to know that most of the comments on the internet are made by paid shills, and these are not ordinary netizens. When the internet was first invented, I really questioned why people on the internet sounded so different from normal people on the streets. The internet voice seemed so much more fascist, racist, and corporate than normal voices. Then finally, it made sense. Of course the similar pattern of your (shills) writing makes it easier to spot a shill. The weakness of the fascist is their lack of flexibility. These guys (you included) are being paid to make pro-establishment statements, and used to keep the masses in line. As I've said many times before, the U.S. military industrial complex spent billions making the internet. So, why would they do this if it did not have an offensive application. The media was a good weapon that was made by the ruling class elite to brainwash the masses. Then the internet came along and it was an even better tool. You are out to censor me, and what makes you a shill is your deceptive nature, and there is very little difference between you and other shills on other websites. It's almost as if you graduated from the same cybercom class. You guys always read from the same script and target the same kinds of dissidents. If you are so bothered by trolling, why are you silent on ararmer1919, jeh123? Are those your other "personas", or your colleagues? Come clean. You, and any other shill personas have no credibility when you target dissidents, it just shows your true colours.
Debate Round No. 4
bsh1

Pro

I will briefly address the unfounded accusations made by Con, and the summarize my points with regard to the topic at hand.

I am not an agent of any government. I have never received a paid check, let alone been paid to monitor the internet and spew propaganda. And I only have one account on this website. Unfortunately, I don't believe any evidence I could put forth would convince you of any of this. I also found it interesting that earlier, you claimed shills s[read government propaganda but now you're claiming that dissidents are also shills.

As for my stance on other trolls on DDO, as you yourself pointed out, I agreed that their statements were reprehensible and unacceptable mean-spirited. However, as I iterated before, simply because one is trolled upon, does not mean you can troll yourself.

You have turned this debate into a rant on shills, the west, and imperialism--none of that was at issue here. It is not my background that is in question here, it is yours. And you have repeatedly failed to defend it against the overwhelming evidence of trolling on your part. By dropping my Round Two overview, you basically conceded that all of this was extra-topical. The question at hand is whether or not you are a troll. I submit that, based on your own unedited words, you are. Not once in this debate have you ever contested this; rather, you attempted to uses other's words to obfuscate your own insult-laden tirades. That alone is enough to affirm the resolution.

Finally, not once in this debate have I attempted to censor your. All of your posts have been left unadulterated. Furthermore, this debate itself is a forum for you to air your views--such a forum is antithetical to the notion of censorship.

I am not trying to get you banned, nor has that ever been my goal. I have stated numerous times that I would be satisfied if you merely offered me your assurances that you would (1) not use vulgar or deliberately insulting language against other DDO users, and (2) you did not accuse others of beings shills or fascists without some concerte evidence to support your claim. I have no problem with you calling attention to people you believe to be violating DDO TOS, but please, don't just fling around spurious claims all the time.

In conclusion, the user anonymouse is a troll. I stated at the start of this debate that he had made many harassing, insulting, and mean-spirited comments, and this claim has been borne out in this very debate. So now, I would ask all users to vote Pro, and will leave you with anonymouse's own insult-laden posts as my evidence for why he is, indeed, a troll. Thank you all for enduring this debate,

"I love how you shills like to use all these corrupted sources." [1]

"porn is disgusting, and if youre so against it, why are you using a photo of a slut?" [4]

"I am sure most people would agree with that. Shills excluded." [5]

In fact, virtually all of anonymouse's debates contain insults or derogatory language of one form or another. These are just a few excerpts. Look at all of his debates, and you'll find more.

"Well ladies and gentlemen, pay attention to these fascists, assuming that it is even more than 1 person posting here on behalf of empire (as opposed to one shill with multiple "personas")...Yea, let the shills come online posting pro-empire debates, and then quote a whole bunch of sources from corrupt quackademics from Harvard, and Oxbridge to legitimise their bogus claims...You see, unlike you fascists, I don't care if I lost the debate...While you may accuse other regimes of being totalitarian, your actions on this website, and many others shows one thing..." [2]

"leave it to the shills to defend the establishment" [3]

"If this is your idea of having it better then it should be YOU that needs your head checked, preferably not by Mkultra. There's never enough with the shills, because yous keep coming back. Sorry, but I find it very hard to believe that a 'normal' person would come on here defending western imperialism for free, day in and day out. It just doesn't happen. The thing that fuels guys like you is greed, and coming on here defending western imperialism (without pay) all day does not fit that M.O." [6]

Please, vote Pro.
anonymouse

Con

The question here should be what are bsh1's motives for accusing me of being a troll? Why is he singling me out? Does it have anything to do with my anti-establishment statements? If this is the case, what does an ordinary person, who isn't a shill, have to gain from sitting around the internet all day, waiting to target a dissident? Second question is, why is he only accusing me of being a troll, while ignoring the other pro-establishment trolls? What are his political motives? Let's look at the facts, bsh1 is online every single day. He specifically opposes those who are anti-establishment. If I were a thinker, I would be very suspicious of his employment. I mean let's be honest, if you were a capitalist, pro-imperialist, would you spend your entire day defending the status quo for free? I don't really care who anyone votes for, but I will say this. There are plenty of shills here voting for those who support the status quo, and voting against those who dissent. Winning does not really matter here. The important thing here is bringing up some important issues that everyone ought to know about, such as the use of shills by the U.S. government, and its allies to deceive the public and prevent dissent. If you have a curious mind, you might want to ask yourself if bsh1 is a shill. You might want to ask whether or not bsh1 has more than one account on this site. If bsh1 is so bothered by "trolls", then why is he trying to avoid the subject of talking about shills? He calls them rants, and is clearly uncomfortable about the discussion of shills. It seems like someone bothered by "trolls" would be equally bothered by shills. However, it does not appear to disturb bsh1 that shills operate on this site, and the rest of the internet. Something seems a little inconsitent about bsh1's modus operandi. If bsh1 is going to accuse others of being a "troll", then his background should also be scrutinised. If you are going to accuse others of being a troll, your background better be clean, otherwise, you are just a hypocrite. I'm not here to defend myself against your accusations. I am much more interested in calling to attention your credibility, as well as the credibility of your colleagues. Just like when the U.S. regime accuses others of being "terrorists", I am not so concerned about defending the "terrorists". However, I would like to take a closer look at the accuser, and its links to terrorists. In fact, that is why I have become so revolutionary, because when the U.S. regime talks about "human rights, democracy, and terrorism", it made me take a closer look at the U.S. regime's track record on all these subjects, and when I did, the U.S. regime did not look very good. I advise readers of this site to do the same thing. When someone is calling attention to trolling, take a look at the accuser. Put him under a magnifying glass, especially if this user is online day in and day out. What "normal" person has the time to do this? If in fact this wasn't his job. The truth of the matter is, the U.S. regime, and its allies does not like dissidents, and bsh1 keeps avoiding the subject of shills, and the measures that empire takes to silence the opposition. Why is that? Normal, curious people would want to know more about the subject. However, I can understand that if you were actually a shill, you would avoid the subject. I don't know about you, but I would be a lot more disturbed over shills being on the payroll of the U.S. govt at the tax payers expense, rather than a troll throwing insults on a forum. Even if I was insulting anyone, which I am not, I would be doing it on my own dime. However, this is not the case for all the shills operating throughout the internet (this site included). I find it hilarious that the U.S. government has shutdown all non-essential services, but shills are supposed to be essential. Think about it. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board; Department of Education; Department of Labor; Department of Transportation; National Council on Disability; Office of Government Ethics; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development closes, but shills keep on getting paid, up to $250/hr. Apparently deceiving the public trumps your safety, education, labour, transporation, disability, ethics, and housing needs. How does that sit with that average American citizen? I wonder. Something is seriously wrong with this country if its masters think that hiring online thugs to intimidate dissidents, and spread disinformation is more important than running a functional government. If bsh1 wasn't trying to silence me, why would he create a topic accusing me of being a shill? Do a search on this site, and see if anyone else has made a similar accusation? One of the ways that shills try to silence dissidents is by accusing them of being a "troll", and getting him kicked off the site. The accusation has less to do with "insults", and more to do with the political position of the accused. If I was "insulting" opponents of the U.S. regime, no one would ever accuse me of being a shill, but it is the fact that I have chosen to criticise the U.S. regime that has led bsh1 to oppose me.

You see, unlike you, I believe in freedom, and real democracy. I never tell people how to vote.
Debate Round No. 5
36 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MrJK 3 years ago
MrJK
How did nobody here realise that Anonymouse is the shill?

So obvious.

Wake up sheeple.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
I am glad that this is over.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Adam2 - would you mind clarifying your RFD?
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
I tend to prefer scoring debates, but I am willing to tie this one with you.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
I wouldn't mind doing that debate with you, either side. I'm ambivalent about trolling in general.

Also, you can kind of see that I am very wary of the scoring system here, mainly because I do not see its intention lined up to its execution. Generally, this means I lean towards non-scoring debates whenever I instigate them, so if you're comfortable with that, by all means. =)
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
@wrichcirw - thank you for your clarifications re: your vote. I am glad I haven't caused undue offense, but would just like to reiterate that this debate was not initiated to sew derision, but to address a legitimate problem. Though, your comments remind me that others view this debate in a different way than I do, so I will restate now that I will not engage in any debate akin to this one again.

On a separate note, I think a debate about the permissibility of trolling would be fascinating, because there are many different thoughts on that. Would you be interested in a debate on that topic?
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@bsh1:

"Last thought: please do not acquit anonymouse simply because you believe my actions to be wrong. Trolling is wrong"

lol, well this is certainly interesting. Is trolling wrong? Not according to this website. That is a different debate, unfortunately.

"Finally, I hope I haven't irreparably offended you, or any other users."

No, not at all. My comments are specific to this debate, and only this debate. Cheers.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
@bsh1

I understand your intentions but without any sort of authority behind you this debate comes off as malevolent. For all intents and purposes this is a trial or a judgment of CON's character, one that may negatively impact his/her ability to function on this website. This is not just some off-the-cuff remark about trolling or what not...this is utilizing most of the institutionalized structure of this website to attack a user.

To my knowledge there have been trials here, many of which resulted in action taken against the loser, the loser being determined by community vote. I would ask that you weigh your debate (any of which has a very similar structure to a courtroom) against such trials.

---

"Additionally, I do not think this round was trolling itself because there is a difference from calling attention to someone and enabling them to address your accusations to discover whether or not they are unfounded, is different from simply flinging about spurious and hateful statements."

I strongly disagree. Per your definition (which was how I determined arguments, had I scored them):

"Troll - a person who deliberately uses harassing or insulting language or who uses inflammatory language with no other purpose but to sew derision and to upset people."

You are harassing CON, no question. You are harassing CON for no other purpose than to (justly or unjustly) sew derision against a certain aspect of CON's behavior. The format of a debate does not leave room for questioning or discussion on your part, you MUST be adamant in your claim...the format of a debate demands it.

My main objection is with the venue. The structure of a debate does not lend well to pure discussion, and that this debate is scored means that whatever significance you place on the scoring system (I place very little) is brought to bear on this trial. Thus I scored appropriately.
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
My totalitarian overlords paid me to vote on this debate. Soon we will have silenced the seditious user known as anonymouse. Mua-ha-ha-hah.

Conduct:
Con behaves abrasively throughout, making wild and groundless accusations against Pro and anyone else who disagrees with her. She seems to honestly not understand that there are people who hold differing opinions from her who are happy to disagree with her gratis; in her eyes, anyone who does not toe the radical anarchist line has been paid by the government to silence her. This goes beyond paranoid into mild insanity.

Spelling/Grammar:
Con's wall of text in the last two rounds badly needed to be broken into paragraphs. It was almost unreadable, between the blatant paranoia and the lack of formatting.

Arguments:
Con conceded that she is a troll partway through R4, and fails to make any argument whatsoever in the entire debate against the resolution, preferring instead to spout wild fantasies about government agents. Believe me, lady, if I were offered $250/hr to defend the government online, I'd be online a LOT more often. As it is, you just need a story that makes you out to be the hero, instead of the doubtless mediocre existence you actually live. Get help. No-one is out to get you; all you are doing is making yourself miserable.

Sources tied.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
Ultimately, I tried to comport myself in a civil fashion throughout the debate--I hope I did this. I hope also, that if you disagree with my actions, you can understand my underlying motives. Finally, I hope I haven't irreparably offended you, or any other users. I just strongly condemn trolling in any sense, and wanted to call attention to it in the hopes that users who read this debate, as well as Anonymouse himself, will agree to refrain from using personal attacks and insulting language to convey points--that's not good debate. Ararmer already agreed to take this action, and I hope others will. But I also recognize your concerns about the correctness of this debate, and, to avoid any potential issues or concerns related to this debate, I promise to not participate in any debate of this nature again. I hope this reassurance is sufficient to allay some of your concerns. Thanks for you comment, and for bringing further attention to the possible ethical ramifications of the debate. While I don't feel I acted unethically, I do not want to risk it, and so I'll hold off.

Last thought: please do not acquit anonymouse simply because you believe my actions to be wrong. Trolling is wrong--you have issued me an admonition, please do not reprieve anonymouse because you're focusing on me. Thanks.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
bsh1anonymouseTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: rather then actually defend herself, con idiotically clung to whatever conspiracy theory she is ranting about and decided to preach about that rather then justify her existence on here. She dropped all the arguments pro pitched and pro was the only one to use sources.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
bsh1anonymouseTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comment. In case it get buried, there are currently three pages of comments.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
bsh1anonymouseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments. The impetus for the initiation of this debate was in extremely poor taste by PRO, and indeed PRO IMHO is more guilty of the charge than CON.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
bsh1anonymouseTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con used "shill" as a personal insult Arguments: Con's arguments were mostly irrelevant to the topic at hand.