Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers

I would argue that the folks that call others "trolls" are nothing more then weak kneed name callers with no courage to speak their mind freely.

Bring it please, if you stooped to the level of calling someone a "troll".

It seems the Con should be arguing for the Pro in this debate, so I'll negate the statement: "Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers".

I. When a person is called a troll, generally it is not on the base of race or ethnicity, therefore it is not "internet racism." There is internet racism labeling, and there is troll labeling. Generally they do not overlap, and if anyone is doing the racism in trolling scenario, it is usually the troll.

II. "Trolling" is usually very clear, made by the following signs:

1.CAPS LOCK ALWAYS ON

2. Insulting other people using profane language without any evidence or sound arguments.

3. Blatant stupidity that even after corrected they continue to use. Ex: "My dog has 16 legs" "Obama signed the constitution to enforce communism" "You are wrong you are wrong you are wrong"

I await the affirmative (but Con) rebuttal.

Truthfully, my use of the term racism was misstated, I should have used the term bullying. However as I reflect on saying that, I realize that Trolls, the big green monster sort, are actually a race, albeit a mythical one, but brought to life on the internet, and labeled by the bullies.

My position of Con is appropriate, because I am completely against the use of generic labels being used for the purpose of making your adversary appear less human then the name caller.

Calling someone "troll" means that you have no ability to argue straight up and will resort to 2nd grade tactics, however I have found the term used many times against myself and others by those that are held up as pillars of intellect. It really is quite funny to me.

I am used to the generic resolution type, whereas the resolution is a positive statement such as the one above and the affirmative will have to defend the statement. Such as "Trolls, rampant internet racism by the labelers" Con would be the affirmative (or Pro) because you agree with the statement, not because you agree that the statement should be done, but as a fact that calling people trolls is rampant internet racism. Whether or not you believe people should be called trolls is not part of the resolution, though you can bring that into the debate. The debate I am used to is arguing over whether or not the resolution is a fact, not whether it should or should not be done. Seeing as this debate is not going this way, I'm not too concerned about that anymore, so I'll argue on your grounds.

When someone is called a troll, reasoning has generally already been tried. Arguing with a fool proves nothing, so it is best to either 1) ignore them or 2) call them a troll to warn others about their nature.

That said:

THIS IS A TROLL DEBATE YOU ARE WRONG MWHAAHWAHAWHAHAAHA!

Just kidding....continue with the debate please :) Sorry for any interruption.

Sorry to have confused you with my logic, as I am not a politically correct, trained debater. I have absolutely zero training in the politically correct art of debating, which in no way was brought to my attention, as a prerequisite to participate in debates on this site.

My take on starting a debate is to make a statement, and then take the position of Pro, being for the statement, or Con, being against the statement. That of course is a common sense approach, something seldom seen in politically correct circles.

What is the definition of fool, since you asked.
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I believe you mean to suggest that trolls are people lacking good judgement, according to the definition, and not pastries. If I am incorrect please retort specifically. Are you a qualified judge? If not, you may be the fool. Your use of CAP LOCK as a means of humor, tells me that you believe you are qualified to judge who is a fool and who isn't, yes? maybe?

you have taken this debate, or the bait of a "troll" haven't you, against your best judgement, and seek redemption through humor? If you are enjoying this, please refer to Websters, for you are a fool.

GET OFF MY BRIDGE GOAT!

lol!

I didn't mean to insult you or demean your credibility through my confusion about the resolution, and reading back on my post I should have kept that section shorter. Please accept my apologies.

"What is the definition of fool, since you asked"
I never asked what the definition of fool was.

"I believe you mean to suggest that trolls are people lacking good judgement"
Re-read my second contention:

" II. "Trolling" is usually very clear, made by the following signs:
1.CAPS LOCK ALWAYS ON
2. Insulting other people using profane language without any evidence or sound arguments.
3. Blatant stupidity that even after corrected they continue to use. Ex: "My dog has 16 legs" "Obama signed the constitution to enforce communism" "You are wrong you are wrong you are wrong" "

Your statement agrees with third point. Trolls do lack good judgment, however, as I stated in point three, they neglect correction. In addition, take into account points 1 and 2. These imply the malicious intent of those labeled trolls. If one is labeled as a troll, then it will be caused by them exhibiting all of these signs.

" Are you a qualified judge? If not, you may be the fool. "
I don't think fully understand what you are trying to get across here, as I do not believe there are any experts on trolling. Trolling can be determined by the three sound points I listed in my contention.

" Your use of CAP LOCK as a means of humor, tells me that you believe you are qualified to judge who is a fool and who isn't, yes? maybe? "
My use of humor at the end of the debate is meant to stay as a use of humor, nothing more. Why does Caps Lock indicate to you that I believe I am qualified to judge who is a fool and who isn't?

" you have taken this debate, or the bait of a "troll" haven't you, against your best judgement, and seek redemption through humor? If you are enjoying this, please refer to Websters, for you are a fool "
Whether I am a fool or not isn't a part of this debate. This is attacking the arguer instead of the argument (or the bad joke).

" GET OFF MY BRIDGE GOAT!

lol!"

*NO*

Well done! I will have you know that there are those amongst us that decry others as "trolls", while those they label have met none of the criteria you use to define a troll. Maybe you should get the word out to them that trolls cannot be defined. You are not of the Webster clan are you? Maybe if so, you could create a new definition! I debate for fun, and to prove a point. While calling someone a "troll", is not certainly racist, is there not an evil, human eating race, called trolls? I believe that is the inspiration for the name calling.

I would probably revise my debate title to "Good Trolls Unite!", given the opportunity, however I speak with my heart on these issues, and not with a long calculated strategy as the debaters with the best records do.

Thanks!

Vote pro, if you condemn trolls only based on that definition. Please vote pro if you are in favor of name calling. I expect no votes.