Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Me on Election

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 2:59:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The so-called Debate.org Elections are running very well now, and I have been following them. I wanted to be one of the candidates, but not after I found out that there will be no good reasons for me to be so. Now, I thought of hopefully never voting in this election, namely because I desperately wanted the candidates to explain why they would be better picks than some others among them. Unfortunately, I did not get enough answers, but I have made my own pick concerning the candidates.

I must say that the Freedom Party is catastrophic and outrageous, and abhorrently deceitful. There were rumors flowing around the forums that the [former] moderator might let the election winners have a few moderator powers, which was one of the reasons I also participated with my party, Authoparty, before stepping aside when I realized that the rumors were not entirely true.

However, my party made it clear that it would be authoritarian, namely because it would not let insults and other tough disputes between members take place whatsoever, hence the name "Authoparty." Nonetheless, Cody_Franklin had his party with the name "Freedom Party" challenge my party, and came with offensive comments against it. Ultimately, he said that my party is authoritarian, and of course in such a negative way that he could as well have said that it was a fascist party.

Of course, one would think that Cody_Franklin would have a party which stands for what its name suggests: namely freedom. If his party got some extra features here, they would let people have freedom. Is this correct? Not at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I easily concluded that the Freedom Party was no less authoritarian than the Authoparty, which is such a deception. It is catastrophic. Why make such an abhorrently misleading name for your party, and even have the courage to tell that it stands for freedom, while it is nothing but vice versa?

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

As you can see in the thread above, I made it clear what Authoparty stood for. You can also see that Cody_Franklin popped up to criticize it, as if his party was totally contrary to Authoparty. Moving on, we had quite a lot discussion in the thread of his party platform. One would expect that he would come with extremely good points about the views of his party, and that those views would undoubtedly concern "freedom" more than anything else.

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

If you read through the thread, you will realize how shamelessly and catastrophically Cody_Franklin represented his party. He said this, "If you take the services provided by debate.org, and fail to respect the terms of using those services under which you're contractually obligated, you're committing fraud in the contractual sense, and have no sanction, moral or legal, for remaining here. You need to brush up on libertarian contract law." How is this any different to what I advocated with an authoritarian party? Moving on, when I caught Cody in his deceits, he ultimately said,

"I was making a joke. You do realize that, right? The whole Autho-->Authoritarian-->oppressive thing. It was turned into a serious discussion from there, and now, here I am."

Apparently, when caught in deceptions, the head of the party jokes. What a shame. As a matter of fact, I got surprised when the head of the Freedom Party asked me to merge my party with his party. What is this? Merge authoritarianism with freedom? Do you mix water and fire? No, dear friends. They are in quite a conflict with each other. But why exactly did Cody want to merge his party with the most authoritarian party on the site?

On page 10 in the thread I linked to, Cody said, "Why do you think I suggested you join the Freedom Party? Same goals, similar methods, etc." How can anyone on this site let a deceitful party represent this site? Is this what the site needs right now? How is this fair to anyone? If the representatives are going to change their views once they get confronted with opposition, then why elect them? That the head of the party of freedom wants to merge sides with the head of the party of authoritarianism is outrageous.

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

As you can see on that page, I made many points against Cody and his party, and he wanted to discuss that on Skype. Unfortunately, such a thing never happened. False promises. Filthy, false promises. Who wants a party which makes such deceptions just by having a name which it does not serve whatsoever? There is nothing "free" about the party, there is nothing new about the party, and there is nothing less strict that the party represents than the authoritarian party itself.

On the other side, innomen, who is an Independent, has not made any lies whatsoever. I normally do not support libertarians in such elections, but innomen has clearly made the best presentation. He has nominated himself as an Independent candidate, and he has not come with one misleading information about his case. In fact, I want to ask what does this site consist of? Groups that joined or independent people who joined? Independent people, dear friends. We are all independent.

We all have our qualities and opinions, and none of us are bound to each other. Who is the one, among all other candidates, who represents the core of this site in the best manner? Is it the Freedom Party with its deceitful statements? Is it the Party Party with a deceitful name, too, which does not live up to any of its promises? Or is it the Independent innomen, who represents himself strongly and marks that even though some of us are unique among the majority here, we can still stay strong and fight through all pressure? I say it is innomen. I am controversial, and I know for a fact that if anyone deserves my vote, it is innomen. By spreading a true message of his without any deceits, and by representing independence through strength, I cannot dare vote on any of the other parties.

All in all, both the Freedom Party and the Party Party have first and foremost extremely misleading names, and their messages are indeed catastrophic. They are shamefully misleading. Only the Independent innomen has managed not to fall under any traps, no matter with which pressure he was met. My voice of opinion supports him.
ChristianM
Posts: 1,764
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:00:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 2:59:05 PM, Mirza wrote:
The so-called Debate.org Elections are running very well now, and I have been following them. I wanted to be one of the candidates, but not after I found out that there will be no good reasons for me to be so. Now, I thought of hopefully never voting in this election, namely because I desperately wanted the candidates to explain why they would be better picks than some others among them. Unfortunately, I did not get enough answers, but I have made my own pick concerning the candidates.

I must say that the Freedom Party is catastrophic and outrageous, and abhorrently deceitful. There were rumors flowing around the forums that the [former] moderator might let the election winners have a few moderator powers, which was one of the reasons I also participated with my party, Authoparty, before stepping aside when I realized that the rumors were not entirely true.

However, my party made it clear that it would be authoritarian, namely because it would not let insults and other tough disputes between members take place whatsoever, hence the name "Authoparty." Nonetheless, Cody_Franklin had his party with the name "Freedom Party" challenge my party, and came with offensive comments against it. Ultimately, he said that my party is authoritarian, and of course in such a negative way that he could as well have said that it was a fascist party.

Of course, one would think that Cody_Franklin would have a party which stands for what its name suggests: namely freedom. If his party got some extra features here, they would let people have freedom. Is this correct? Not at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I easily concluded that the Freedom Party was no less authoritarian than the Authoparty, which is such a deception. It is catastrophic. Why make such an abhorrently misleading name for your party, and even have the courage to tell that it stands for freedom, while it is nothing but vice versa?

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

As you can see in the thread above, I made it clear what Authoparty stood for. You can also see that Cody_Franklin popped up to criticize it, as if his party was totally contrary to Authoparty. Moving on, we had quite a lot discussion in the thread of his party platform. One would expect that he would come with extremely good points about the views of his party, and that those views would undoubtedly concern "freedom" more than anything else.

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

If you read through the thread, you will realize how shamelessly and catastrophically Cody_Franklin represented his party. He said this, "If you take the services provided by debate.org, and fail to respect the terms of using those services under which you're contractually obligated, you're committing fraud in the contractual sense, and have no sanction, moral or legal, for remaining here. You need to brush up on libertarian contract law." How is this any different to what I advocated with an authoritarian party? Moving on, when I caught Cody in his deceits, he ultimately said,

"I was making a joke. You do realize that, right? The whole Autho-->Authoritarian-->oppressive thing. It was turned into a serious discussion from there, and now, here I am."

Apparently, when caught in deceptions, the head of the party jokes. What a shame. As a matter of fact, I got surprised when the head of the Freedom Party asked me to merge my party with his party. What is this? Merge authoritarianism with freedom? Do you mix water and fire? No, dear friends. They are in quite a conflict with each other. But why exactly did Cody want to merge his party with the most authoritarian party on the site?

On page 10 in the thread I linked to, Cody said, "Why do you think I suggested you join the Freedom Party? Same goals, similar methods, etc." How can anyone on this site let a deceitful party represent this site? Is this what the site needs right now? How is this fair to anyone? If the representatives are going to change their views once they get confronted with opposition, then why elect them? That the head of the party of freedom wants to merge sides with the head of the party of authoritarianism is outrageous.

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

As you can see on that page, I made many points against Cody and his party, and he wanted to discuss that on Skype. Unfortunately, such a thing never happened. False promises. Filthy, false promises. Who wants a party which makes such deceptions just by having a name which it does not serve whatsoever? There is nothing "free" about the party, there is nothing new about the party, and there is nothing less strict that the party represents than the authoritarian party itself.

On the other side, innomen, who is an Independent, has not made any lies whatsoever. I normally do not support libertarians in such elections, but innomen has clearly made the best presentation. He has nominated himself as an Independent candidate, and he has not come with one misleading information about his case. In fact, I want to ask what does this site consist of? Groups that joined or independent people who joined? Independent people, dear friends. We are all independent.

We all have our qualities and opinions, and none of us are bound to each other. Who is the one, among all other candidates, who represents the core of this site in the best manner? Is it the Freedom Party with its deceitful statements? Is it the Party Party with a deceitful name, too, which does not live up to any of its promises? Or is it the Independent innomen, who represents himself strongly and marks that even though some of us are unique among the majority here, we can still stay strong and fight through all pressure? I say it is innomen. I am controversial, and I know for a fact that if anyone deserves my vote, it is innomen. By spreading a true message of his without any deceits, and by representing independence through strength, I cannot dare vote on any of the other parties.

All in all, both the Freedom Party and the Party Party have first and foremost extremely misleading names, and their messages are indeed catastrophic. They are shamefully misleading. Only the Independent innomen has managed not to fall under any traps, no matter with which pressure he was met. My voice of opinion supports him.

The Independent Party DID NOT sponsor this critique, however, it is graciously appreciated, and hope others can realize this.

Sincerely,
Usafkid1121
-VP Candidate of the Independent Party
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:19:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Haha, perhaps Cody never really converted from Fascism and it's all been one big ruse.

How is the Party Party name misleading? All we've been doing is having fun.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:25:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 3:19:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How is the Party Party name misleading? All we've been doing is having fun.
Unfortunately, I do not see how you've lived up to the promise. You seemed to be quite strict concerning the elections, seemingly hungry for a win. I cannot support that. I wanted to stay neutral, but when I think back to my conversation with Cody, I cannot think of not helping defeating his party. It is very misleading, and I'd rather want an independent to win.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:31:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 2:59:05 PM, Mirza wrote:
I must say that the Freedom Party is catastrophic and outrageous, and abhorrently deceitful. There were rumors flowing around the forums that the [former] moderator might let the election winners have a few moderator powers, which was one of the reasons I also participated with my party, Authoparty, before stepping aside when I realized that the rumors were not entirely true.

However, my party made it clear that it would be authoritarian, namely because it would not let insults and other tough disputes between members take place whatsoever, hence the name "Authoparty." Nonetheless, Cody_Franklin had his party with the name "Freedom Party" challenge my party, and came with offensive comments against it. Ultimately, he said that my party is authoritarian, and of course in such a negative way that he could as well have said that it was a fascist party.

Of course, one would think that Cody_Franklin would have a party which stands for what its name suggests: namely freedom. If his party got some extra features here, they would let people have freedom. Is this correct? Not at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. I easily concluded that the Freedom Party was no less authoritarian than the Authoparty, which is such a deception. It is catastrophic. Why make such an abhorrently misleading name for your party, and even have the courage to tell that it stands for freedom, while it is nothing but vice versa?

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

Let me make a couple of things perfectly clear:

1. You tried to redefine freedom to force me into defending the idea that my party should promote people doing whatever the hell they wanted without any fear of consequences. That's "freedom", you said. I said you didn't understand what you were talking about, because the notion of freedom that I was using was nothing like that. I was talking about a de facto freedom of action and a de jure freedom of choice (meaning that, in reality, you can do whatever you want, but that the ToS prescribes certain boundaries that may result in some consequences if transgressed against. We're libertarians, not libertines. Jesus.

2. The fact that our parties were so seemingly similar is why I asked if you wanted to join us.

As you can see in the thread above, I made it clear what Authoparty stood for. You can also see that Cody_Franklin popped up to criticize it, as if his party was totally contrary to Authoparty. Moving on, we had quite a lot discussion in the thread of his party platform. One would expect that he would come with extremely good points about the views of his party, and that those views would undoubtedly concern "freedom" more than anything else.

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

If you read through the thread, you will realize how shamelessly and catastrophically Cody_Franklin represented his party. He said this, "If you take the services provided by debate.org, and fail to respect the terms of using those services under which you're contractually obligated, you're committing fraud in the contractual sense, and have no sanction, moral or legal, for remaining here. You need to brush up on libertarian contract law." How is this any different to what I advocated with an authoritarian party? Moving on, when I caught Cody in his deceits, he ultimately said,

"I was making a joke. You do realize that, right? The whole Autho-->Authoritarian-->oppressive thing. It was turned into a serious discussion from there, and now, here I am."

Apparently, when caught in deceptions, the head of the party jokes. What a shame. As a matter of fact, I got surprised when the head of the Freedom Party asked me to merge my party with his party. What is this? Merge authoritarianism with freedom? Do you mix water and fire? No, dear friends. They are in quite a conflict with each other. But why exactly did Cody want to merge his party with the most authoritarian party on the site?

1. I wasn't caught in a deception. One of the fun parts of mock politics is the mudslinging. That's what I was doing.

2. You're assuming, because of the titles of our parties, that our goals were completely opposite. Problem was, your party turned out not to be very authoritarian, and mine was a different kind of freedom than "do what you want without consequence", which is what you thought it was.

On page 10 in the thread I linked to, Cody said, "Why do you think I suggested you join the Freedom Party? Same goals, similar methods, etc." How can anyone on this site let a deceitful party represent this site? Is this what the site needs right now? How is this fair to anyone? If the representatives are going to change their views once they get confronted with opposition, then why elect them? That the head of the party of freedom wants to merge sides with the head of the party of authoritarianism is outrageous.

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

You're good at failing to give people full context.

Also, as far as changing views when confronted with opposition:

1. My views have been totally consistent. You just misinterpreted them, making them out to be something which they were not.

2. Even saying that I were to change my views based on learning what the competition was like (if you consider asking you to join the Freedom Party a view change), I see what you're accusing me of as something akin to this:

http://www.dareland.com...

As you can see on that page, I made many points against Cody and his party, and he wanted to discuss that on Skype. Unfortunately, such a thing never happened.

1. I've been on Skype plenty of times. You aren't usually on.

2. In my defense, most of your arguments ended up being redundant. The argument went something like:

You: Your party doesn't REALLY stand for freedom.

Me: You don't understand what I mean by freedom. I also emphasize freedom of association and contract. People can still do whatever they want, but there are repercussions.

You: But that isn't REAL freedom. This is what freedom is because this is how I define it.

Me: *facepalm*

False promises. Filthy, false promises. Who wants a party which makes such deceptions just by having a name which it does not serve whatsoever? There is nothing "free" about the party, there is nothing new about the party, and there is nothing less strict that the party represents than the authoritarian party itself.

Would you like me to do an ad hoc renaming of my party to the Freedom of Association Party, or what?
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:31:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Of course we wanted to win: It's a frikkin' popularity contest.
As Freedo said in his statement, we came up with a bunch of ideas and projects during the election and I personally won't stop my project (which is the comprehensive mafia ladder) simply because we wouldn't have won and have now withdrew our candidate.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:33:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 3:25:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2010 3:19:19 PM, FREEDO wrote:
How is the Party Party name misleading? All we've been doing is having fun.
Unfortunately, I do not see how you've lived up to the promise. You seemed to be quite strict concerning the elections, seemingly hungry for a win. I cannot support that. I wanted to stay neutral, but when I think back to my conversation with Cody, I cannot think of not helping defeating his party. It is very misleading, and I'd rather want an independent to win.

Beg my pardon but your observation is retarded.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:44:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 3:31:04 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
1. You tried to redefine freedom to force me into defending the idea that my party should promote people doing whatever the hell they wanted without any fear of consequences. That's "freedom", you said. I said you didn't understand what you were talking about, because the notion of freedom that I was using was nothing like that. I was talking about a de facto freedom of action and a de jure freedom of choice (meaning that, in reality, you can do whatever you want, but that the ToS prescribes certain boundaries that may result in some consequences if transgressed against. We're libertarians, not libertines. Jesus.
No, the problem is that you attacked an authoritarian party for being what it stands for, while your party was absolutely no different, and you were caught in deception. You changed the message gradually once we discussed.

2. The fact that our parties were so seemingly similar is why I asked if you wanted to join us.
Yes, but that is not what you did at first. It is deceit.

1. I wasn't caught in a deception. One of the fun parts of mock politics is the mudslinging. That's what I was doing.
No, excuses. If a politician said this, he would be ridiculed. You are no exception.

2. You're assuming, because of the titles of our parties, that our goals were completely opposite. Problem was, your party turned out not to be very authoritarian, and mine was a different kind of freedom than "do what you want without consequence", which is what you thought it was.
No, you even advocated the true freedom that you wanted, then moved on to talk about the ToS and other such nonsense that your party obviously did not even want. You wanted to beat the Authoparty, but could only do it through gradual changes.

You're good at failing to give people full context.
No.

Also, as far as changing views when confronted with opposition:

1. My views have been totally consistent. You just misinterpreted them, making them out to be something which they were not.
No, people can read for themselves. Your message was fitting into mine as much as possible the deeper we went into the different topics-

2. Even saying that I were to change my views based on learning what the competition was like (if you consider asking you to join the Freedom Party a view change), I see what you're accusing me of as something akin to this:

http://www.dareland.com...
Not necessarily.

1. I've been on Skype plenty of times. You aren't usually on.
Again, poor excuse. We were supposed to come on Skype and discuss, and I sent you two PM's:

Friday, November 05, 2010 @ 5:54:03 PM
Greetings. Which points do you want to elaborate on?

Friday, November 05, 2010 @ 6:04:01 PM
In brief, are there specific points that you want to discuss, or just continue with our discussion?


I never got an answer.

2. In my defense, most of your arguments ended up being redundant. The argument went something like:

You: Your party doesn't REALLY stand for freedom.

Me: You don't understand what I mean by freedom. I also emphasize freedom of association and contract. People can still do whatever they want, but there are repercussions.

You: But that isn't REAL freedom. This is what freedom is because this is how I define it.

Me: *facepalm*
You defined it in the first place, and then came with gradual changes. I challenged your views, and they are nothing special. And yes, the party of the name is important. If I am going to call a party "Anarchist Party," then I should not support Shari'a Law with it, should I? No.

Would you like me to do an ad hoc renaming of my party to the Freedom of Association Party, or what?
I do not care now, in all honesty. It is not even very valid. You should have done it earlier. Barack Obama didn't change his name to Barack Homer Obama to gain votes, did he? No.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:50:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Note that I will not reply here anymore. I have to go off, and I will not be back before the election ends, therefore this thread will not be very useful.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 3:52:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 3:44:09 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2010 3:31:04 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
1. You tried to redefine freedom to force me into defending the idea that my party should promote people doing whatever the hell they wanted without any fear of consequences. That's "freedom", you said. I said you didn't understand what you were talking about, because the notion of freedom that I was using was nothing like that. I was talking about a de facto freedom of action and a de jure freedom of choice (meaning that, in reality, you can do whatever you want, but that the ToS prescribes certain boundaries that may result in some consequences if transgressed against. We're libertarians, not libertines. Jesus.
No, the problem is that you attacked an authoritarian party for being what it stands for, while your party was absolutely no different, and you were caught in deception. You changed the message gradually once we discussed.

Clarifying isn't changing. You didn't understand what I meant by "freedom". I told you what I meant.

2. The fact that our parties were so seemingly similar is why I asked if you wanted to join us.
Yes, but that is not what you did at first. It is deceit.

Your party name was misleading, too. After all, authoritarianism is traditionally a system where all divergent views are oppressed. By your logic, I should call you a filthy deceiver for not advocating sharia law and the forced conversion of everyone to Islam.

1. I wasn't caught in a deception. One of the fun parts of mock politics is the mudslinging. That's what I was doing.
No, excuses. If a politician said this, he would be ridiculed. You are no exception.

I don't feel ridiculed. I feel like this is ridiculous, but that's different.

2. You're assuming, because of the titles of our parties, that our goals were completely opposite. Problem was, your party turned out not to be very authoritarian, and mine was a different kind of freedom than "do what you want without consequence", which is what you thought it was.
No, you even advocated the true freedom that you wanted, then moved on to talk about the ToS and other such nonsense that your party obviously did not even want. You wanted to beat the Authoparty, but could only do it through gradual changes.

I said that the de facto freedom of action exists--not the de jure freedom of choice. The ToS set forth certain conditions of action, but there aren't physical restraints on people preventing them from violating the terms.

You're good at failing to give people full context.
No.

... Okay?

Also, as far as changing views when confronted with opposition:

1. My views have been totally consistent. You just misinterpreted them, making them out to be something which they were not.
No, people can read for themselves. Your message was fitting into mine as much as possible the deeper we went into the different topics-

Enforcing the ToS is easily compatible with freedom. You're signing a contract, which is an exercise of your freedom of association/contract.

2. Even saying that I were to change my views based on learning what the competition was like (if you consider asking you to join the Freedom Party a view change), I see what you're accusing me of as something akin to this:

http://www.dareland.com...
Not necessarily.

In this case, necessarily.

1. I've been on Skype plenty of times. You aren't usually on.
Again, poor excuse. We were supposed to come on Skype and discuss, and I sent you two PM's:
Friday, November 05, 2010 @ 5:54:03 PM
Greetings. Which points do you want to elaborate on?

Friday, November 05, 2010 @ 6:04:01 PM
In brief, are there specific points that you want to discuss, or just continue with our discussion?


I never got an answer.

Alright. My fault, then. Am I a spineless waffler because I'm apologizing, Mirza? Does it make me an evil, filthy deceiver because I'm admitting that I didn't come through on what I said I would come through on?

2. In my defense, most of your arguments ended up being redundant. The argument went something like:

You: Your party doesn't REALLY stand for freedom.

Me: You don't understand what I mean by freedom. I also emphasize freedom of association and contract. People can still do whatever they want, but there are repercussions.

You: But that isn't REAL freedom. This is what freedom is because this is how I define it.

Me: *facepalm*
You defined it in the first place, and then came with gradual changes. I challenged your views, and they are nothing special.

They're perfectly in line with freedom-oriented, libertarian views. There was no gradual change on my part. If you think I changed, point out where my views started, and how they changed--in specific terms.

And yes, the party of the name is important. If I am going to call a party "Anarchist Party," then I should not support Shari'a Law with it, should I? No.

The fact that you had a problem interpreting "Freedom" doesn't make the title of my party any less accurate.

Would you like me to do an ad hoc renaming of my party to the Freedom of Association Party, or what?
I do not care now, in all honesty. It is not even very valid. You should have done it earlier. Barack Obama didn't change his name to Barack Homer Obama to gain votes, did he? No.

Okay.