The Instigator
InfraRedEd
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
feverish
Pro (for)
Winning
38 Points

Those pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists

Do you like this debate?NoYes-10
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/8/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,875 times Debate No: 8165
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (27)
Votes (7)

 

InfraRedEd

Con

I think the real question is when are these groups going to realize that their common issue is freedom and quit pretending one another don't exist because it might stigmatize them? Also why don't they already and what does that prove besides they (or we) are all just hypocrites?

Resolved, that this is a good topic for debate.

I will be arguing the Con. This is a terrible topic for debate although it actually is a good topic for discussion since in order to disprove it you would have to exhibit a better one and that's pretty tough. It cuts right to the core of our intolerance problems.

My opponent will argue that it is a good topic because the purpose of debating is not to win debates but to discuss the issues.

I will counter that perhaps that is true of debating tournaments but here the purpose is to win and I will demonstrate this pretty convincingly.

My opponent will then argue that debating reform is more important than these fringe groups and specifically:

We need a set of rules, or a set of sets of rules, that can be specified and agreed to before beginning the debate, and

scoring criteria that reflect those rules,

and experienced moderators. There's the http://wiki.idebate.org... only LD format and the http://wiki.idebate.org... other only LD format but these are for debating tounaments.

We need to give some thought as to how to adapt debating tournament rules to online debating.

The debaters have to have confidence that all will be able to vote, and will vote fairly.

Cell phones must not be used to verify identity.

There should be more flexibility in specifying the debate.

There should be voting after each round.

More statistics should be available.

It should be possible to display debates by category.

More participation by all should be encouraged. Who wants to debate a bunch of male middle schoolers who don't have their parental consent as required by the Terms of Service anyway?

We need to make online debating, oh excuse my I mean distribution of open courseware utilizing distance technology, suitable for education. Every class should be a debating class. That is exactly what is wrong with our educational system. We might even be motivated to vote or something even stupider like take action if we could participate in the political process in a more meaningful way.

There should be an Internet for decent people. Get those vote bombers off our Web.

A country for decent people or a planet for that matter.

That's as far as the crystal ball goes but I have 5321 charaters remaining.
feverish

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for instigating this non-debate, thanks to any readers for reading and thanks to myself for accepting.

Ed's unique, flamboyant, unconventional and bizarre style of debating has been lighting up DDO recently and I couldn't resist this debate. As my opponent apparently doesn't feel the need to make logical or coherent arguments most of the time, I won't bother too much about it myself in this debate, but as encouraged in the comment's section, I shall pretty much ignore the resolution and just rant randomly.

I urge voter's (as suggested by my opponent in the comments section) to ignore the designations of Pro and Con in this meaningless none debate and just to vote based on the criteria.

I've never actually met a pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchist but I think all these traits are good and valuable ones.

Pot is great.
Atheism is logical and understandable (even if it is a teeny bit arrogant.)
Communism is logical and fair, it's a shame it has never been practiced effectively, but unfortunately greed and lust for power seem to always get in the way.
Homosexuality is harmless and positively occupies a lot of effeminate men and masculine women, keeping them out of the way of a lot of more conventionally gender-adjusted folk.
Peace is good, better a peacenick than a warmonger.
Anarchy like communism has a lot of appeal and is a valid political ideal, although like communism may be impractical because of human nature.

These groups?
I think the resolution heading: "Those pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists" clearly defines just one group.
Perhaps my opponent actually intended to discuss the above characteristics as belonging to 6 distinct and mutually exclusive groups.

We are all hypocrites, except me; I'm a hypo-hypocrite.

Unresolved: That this isn't not a bad issue for discussion.

My opponent will argue whatever he wants.

The purpose of debate is discussion. My opponent teasingly tantalises me with his promises of demonstrating that the purpose is to win.

We (me and Ed plus anyone else who wants to be included in this 'we') clearly don't need a set or set of sets of rules or any of that other mess. We continue to live, breath, function and sometimes even have meaningful debates without them.
My opponent goes on to list many more things we allegedly NEED.
Ed may wish for these things. He doesn't NEED them.
The rest of us don't NEED any more of his wacky ideas. Although we may welcome them.

LD means long d*ck.

Ed wants his own country or planet, I approve this notion.

I have even more than 5321 characters remaining (and I can spell characters.)

Thanks.
Debate Round No. 1
InfraRedEd

Con

My opponent is making it very difficult for me by agreeing with me all the time.

Let's look at my opponent's debating opponent in two debates. I have also have had some experience with (him/them):

I pointed out:

Issues of children participating without parental permission in violation of the terms of service, and uploading a picture of Mark Harmon as Special Agent Gibbs instead of their own also remain unaddressed.

And apparently also the creation of multiple accounts in violation of the terms of service, noting the similarity

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

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

and I see now that

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

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

are also from Spring, Texas.

I called for an investigation.

That night a disaster struck Spring TX and the monkeysrock and monkeysrock2 disappeared, along with about a dozen others from Spring TX. Anyway an even number.

Your opponent claimed to be twins, and denied knowing anything about this other set of teenage "twins" in the same town. At least these were 18.

This is not very creative since multiple sets of twins in the same family is not that uncommon.

The distribution of ages peaks at 18. The distribution of behavior peaks at about 7.

Spring TX is in Harris County.

Ground zero for executions.

What's one (or two or four) more?

It's more humane than telling (his/their) parents.
feverish

Pro

sigh

My opponent has decided to turn a perfectly good, futile and pointless non-debate into a platform to air his grievances with another user(s) and cast dispersions on his (their) identity.
How ever loathsome an individual's opinions may seem to us, assuming false identities is a separate issue.
Leave the kid alone. If he annoys you, you don't have to keep debating him.

My opponent has stated that I keep agreeing with him.
As I don't understand what he's on about most of the time, I don't know what I have allegedly agreed to but hope it's nothing too bad or painful.

I strongly disagree that I agree with him.
Since we do not agree that we agree we obviously disagree.
As my opponent thinks we agree but I think we disagree, this means that he agrees with me but I do not agree with him.
As my opponent agrees with my disagreements with his arguments and as he is Pro and I am Con, does that not mean I should win?

I have presented arguments in support of pot-smoking atheist communist homosexual peacenik anarchists, which are the topic of the resolution, my opponent has made no arguments against them.

In the first round my opponent made a series of arguments about needs, I countered these but he has not responded.

He also suggested that my position should be that the purpose of debate is discussion, while he claims that the real purpose is to win but does not explain why. He says he can prove this but chooses not to.

Extend every argument in my first round as my opponent has not countered any of them (except very loosely in the comments action).

Vote for logic.
Vote for debating.
Vote for pot.
Vote for peace.

Vote Pro.

Thankyou
Debate Round No. 2
InfraRedEd

Con

Both my opponent and I agree this debate is a waste of time.
feverish

Pro

Sadly my opponent seems to be effectively forfeiting this debate.

I disagree that we agree once again.
Come on Ed, there's two more rounds left.
I can't believe you've given up already, it was just getting good!

Extend my arguments.
Pro.
Debate Round No. 3
feverish

Pro

aww...

Come on Ed, sorry if I was rude in any way, let's debate.

Come on, rip me to shreds with your final argument!

Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
feverish

Pro

What a shame.

I sincerely apologise to my esteemed opponent if I have offended him or hurt his feelings in any way.
This was certainly not my intention.
I accepted this debate in the spirit of fun, something I have noticed my opponent seems quite keen on doing himself.

As he didn't rebuke my arguments or post anything relevant to his initial points in subsequent rounds, I urge a Pro vote.

Thanks to readers and again to my learned and righteous opponent.

That is all.
Debate Round No. 5
27 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
Boooooooring Ed.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
So now this 'debate' has become a vehicle for a personal attack of mongeese and mongoose? The monkey rocks thing is pretty weird but as two long term users of the site know them in 'real' life, I believe that they are twins. Unless they're actually duplicate accounts for wj and crack! (Which I doubt.)

Doesn't look like a popular debate to me: Do you like this debate: -6
I don't know why I'm bothering to answer as Ed seems to just ignore whatever I say in comments or debate rounds.

Leave Brian Egglestone alone too, I may not agree with all of his opinions but Brian was my first debate opponent, his debates are almost always humorous, we share socialist ideals and he is the most active Englishman on this site. Several reasons why he is one of my 'friends.'

The only opinion I discriminate on when sending or accepting friend requests is if someone is pro-waterboarding. We can't all agree on everything, or what would we debate?

Will post my counter-nonsense for round 2 soon.

Nice links on waterboarding though Ed, wish I'd had those when I was debating RR.
Peace.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
http://www.debate.org...

See what humanitarian friends my opponent has.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
This may seem like a popular debate but those hits are all just my opponent.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
Must be a meaning of the word "friend" that I am not familiar with (where did I plagiarize that from?). You can be my Twiter friend but I'll be darned if you are going to be my Facebook friend.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
I know the 100-year old's first name.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
As Ed hasn't posted a counter-argument yet, but has made a lot of comments here. I'll comment on his comments.

"Amerians[sic] use about 95 percent of the world's drugs" This seems a very unlikely statistic to me. Please provide a source. Obviously Americans use a lot of drugs (I don't know about Amerians) but more weed than South America, Holland and the rest of the world combined?
More smack than Asia?
I think not.

"Seventy percent of that comes through Tucson...
Is this an advantage to me or to my opponent?"

It's probably an advantage to you in getting high but not debating.

"There are also masculine males and feminine females who are homosexual and does my opponent have a problem with that?"

Hell no. I don't have a problem with anyone (not even nutters or surrealist debaters!) as long as they're nice.

"In arguing that homosexuality has value does that mean we should all become homosexuals?" All of us? No, probably not a good idea for long-term species survival, although science can do some amazing things nowadays.

"Alan Turing was a great British computer mathematician who committed suicide because he was homosexual."

I think that while his depression may have been linked to societal prejudice against his idea of a good time, I don't think you can prove he killed himself 'because' he was gay.

"Let's just let these guys or whatever they are go their own way as you suggest and just debate ideologies."

Um.. sure, whatever you mean ...
Sorry, I mean: whatever you say.

"Why don't the Brits make a computer? They can't figure out how to make it leak oil."

'Industry experts estimate that 70% of PCs bought in the UK are manufactured here.'
'... the early 1980s, when UK companies such as Apricot, Acorn and Sinclair topped the personal computer charts.'
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk...

Do yours leak oil? My car does but that's German.
Posted by FemaleGamer 8 years ago
FemaleGamer
The medication is called mair-ih--wah-nuh.
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
http://thinkprogress.org...

http://wiki.idebate.org...

These people are even worse than DDO.

Resolved, that waterboarding is legal because it doesn't hurt very much.

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com...

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com...

http://www.opednews.com... The Mumia Exception continues.

Is anybody reading this?
Posted by InfraRedEd 8 years ago
InfraRedEd
"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me."
- Dave Barry
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by wildcard173 4 years ago
wildcard173
InfraRedEdfeverishTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: What the heck was Con even doing? And since when are pot smokers communist? Extremely weak argument to begin with, not well thought out. It was an utter waste of time reading this debate. It surprises me that the instigator would be so ill-prepared and unable to form any type of argument whatsoever.
Vote Placed by squirlypumpkin 8 years ago
squirlypumpkin
InfraRedEdfeverishTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
InfraRedEdfeverishTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
InfraRedEdfeverishTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
InfraRedEdfeverishTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
InfraRedEdfeverishTied
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 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 Charlie_Danger 8 years ago
Charlie_Danger
InfraRedEdfeverishTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07