As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Debate Competition: Round 1- fencingsax VS. Rygar (Darfur)

GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered User regular
edited February 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
This is the third debate matchup of the competition. fencingsax vs. Randall_Flagg. To remind everyone of the rules:
*You will be presented a topic selected at random from a large list. You will then debate that topic, using whatever position you wish (preferably your actual real-life position), for as long as you are able.
*When I deem the debate to be running out of steam, I will give you a second, and then a third topic.
*After you're done, the forum will have 24 hours to vote on the winner of the debate. The winner will be the one who is deemed to have won two out of three topics.
*There's no set length as to a response, but keep it reasonable.

As of this moment, voting for the previous match is still open, but I will be going to bed immediately following this, so I'm getting the next one underway now. Unless there's a surge in the last hour or two, AngelHedgie (on behalf of Not Sarastro) will go through to the quarterfinals, eliminating clownfood (on behalf of Quid). That makes the current bracket:

ROUND 1
Oboro vs. Dread Pirate Cassandra
visiblehowl vs. Kilroy (Organic food, land mines)
Wonder_Hippie vs. amateurhour
Feral vs. Loren Michael
Fencingsax vs. Randall_Flagg
saggio vs. Varcayn
jotate vs. moniker
Not Sarastro/AngelHedgie over Quid/clownfood (Minimum wage, a la carte cable, class action lawsuits)

ROUND 2
? vs. ?
? vs. ?
? vs. ?
? vs. AngelHedgie

TOPIC NUMBER 1: Border security. Oh, this shall be a good one.

fencingsax and Randall_Flagg, you may begin.

I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
Gosling on

Posts

  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Border security is better addressed by examining the motivations of people who break them illegally, rather than an outright physical presence. Obviously, some security should be involved, but removing the attractiveness of crossing miles of barren desert on foot would go a long way to securing the borders. People willing to risk their lives getting across aren't going to stop because of some helicopters. Therefore, money spent on security may be better spent on improving the other countries economic growth.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I apologize for my tardiness; it has taken me a while to respond because I was, ironically, at a debate tournament.

    Keeping in mind my pledge to take extreme positions every time, here goes:

    We should get rid of all borders, which are dehumanizing and allow for atrocities like genocide.

    Genocide is systemic of state action while borders exist, as borders act as cages locking people into specific geographical regions. Borders also give governments the power to divide peoples, in order to increase the power of the government. Furthermore, borders act inevitably to sustain genocides, as they are the only thing preventing other nations from taking international action on the part of the genocide.

    Borders are also dehumanizing. People around the globe have different rights just because of lines drawn in the sand by dead white men. It is unfair that someone in China should have different rights because of an accident of birth, or that nations have the power to designate certain areas, viz. Guantanamo Bay, as being for "enemy combatants" who possess far less human rights than they are due. Borders also dehumanize by creating an "us" and a "them." We see people in foreign countries as the Other; their alterity scares us and drives us to turn them into useful and docile bodies. We have clear evidence of this in the United States in the united Republican front, formerly led by Tom Tancredo, that we must at all costs stop Mexicans from entering our country. Our president himself, in his most recent State of the Union speech, has used the incredibly dehumanizing rhetoric of "catch-and-release," a term almost exclusively used by fishermen, to refer to efforts at catching and stopping Mexican immigration. It is therefore clear that borders allow people to be dehumanized and enslaved.

    The alternative: bear citizenship, where people are granted the right to wander freely, like migratory bears, and enjoy the same essential human rights no matter where they are born or where they travel. This breaks down systemic ignorances and hatreds between peoples, and solves for the problems mentioned above.

    Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the plan can ever become implemented, you as the judges of this debate round have a duty to vote me as the winner because my in-round discourse itself solves some of the problems mentioned above by forcing people to consider their fundamental prejudices and misconceptions of people in other nations. Your vote on this debate round becomes a tool for affirming the fundamental principle that all people ought to enjoy the same basic rights.

    Randall_Flagg on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    While many borders are a result of colonization and totally ignore tribal and clan bonds and so on, not all are that way. Furthermore, this is a reason to redraw the borders in agreement with the involved conflicted parties, rather than do away with borders all together. "Us" and "them" will always exist, and economic and nationalistic ideas would create de facto lines in the sand anyway. Borders are not a reason to remove human rights, to not interfere with genocide, or to not act in a humane and compassionate manner.

    Tom Tancredo and his ilk are idiots. George Bush barely has a grasp on the English language as it is. They are reasons why people of their kind should not become political leaders. Using them as examples of why borders are bad is like saying "look at all the Whack religious fundies! donating to the poor is bad because they do it!" (actual donations to the poor not withstanding, this is just an example)

    As for your alternative. Sir, I am a member of the Colbert Nation, and the notion that I could be a bear both insults and frightens me. How dare you? We are men, not bears.

    The whole problem with borders is the economic inequality between nations, not the borders themselves. If we were to remove the inequality, the borders would only be a problem for those looking to easily exploit others. (drug and gun runners, etc). Fixing the lives of the downtrodden should be a higher priority than the ability to travel across the borders more easily.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    While many borders are a result of colonization and totally ignore tribal and clan bonds and so on, not all are that way.

    Where the borders came from is irrelevant; for the purpose of this debate, we are debating the status of borders today.
    Borders are not a reason to remove human rights, to not interfere with genocide, or to not act in a humane and compassionate manner.

    If this were true, somebody would be acting to end the genocide in Darfur. If this were true, genocided peoples would be able to escape a nation which is dead set upon the elimination of their race. If this were true, the hapless detainees in Guantanamo Bay would be given the same rights of habeas corpus as are given to American citizens. If this were true, everybody in the world would have habeas corpus & al. But as it stands, nations are unable to violate sovereignty to stop genocide, and people are locked inside hostile nations. Only with bear citizenship can we hope to begin to solve for these problems.
    Tom Tancredo and his ilk are idiots. George Bush barely has a grasp on the English language as it is. They are reasons why people of their kind should not become political leaders. Using them as examples of why borders are bad is like saying "look at all the Whack religious fundies! donating to the poor is bad because they do it!" (actual donations to the poor not withstanding, this is just an example)

    The point is that of the over fifty per cent of the nation which elected George Bush president of the United States, it is not unlikely that a good deal agree with Bush's immigration policies, policies which are incredibly dehumanizing to Mexicans. The question is not who is performing this dehumanization; the question is whether it exists, and it clearly does, and is furthered by POTUS and a majority of the American people.
    The whole problem with borders is the economic inequality between nations, not the borders themselves. If we were to remove the inequality, the borders would only be a problem for those looking to easily exploit others. (drug and gun runners, etc). Fixing the lives of the downtrodden should be a higher priority than the ability to travel across the borders more easily
    Our policies are not mutually exclusive; after bear citizenship is put in place, I can invest money into poor countries. However, while your plan brings up the standard of life of "downtrodden," my plan helps those who are in far worse straits: victims of dehumanization and genocide.
    Furthermore, this is a reason to redraw the borders in agreement with the involved conflicted parties, rather than do away with borders all together. "Us" and "them" will always exist, and economic and nationalistic ideas would create de facto lines in the sand anyway.
    This is irrelevant; even if de facto lines still existed, we would have solved for most of the problems I describe by getting rid of the official lines. Things we could do in a world of de facto lines but not in our current world of borders:
    1. Countries would not have to worry about violating sovereignty, and would much more easily be able to act to stop genocides
    2. People could flee genocides, and, most importantly:
    3. People all over the world would have the same rights. This means that the profound inequality of law that exists amongst US citizens, and Gitmo detainees. We have thus solved for the most fundamental and systemic problem that plagues the world today.
    I win this debate for two reasons:

    First: although you have explained why your plan works, you have failed adequately to explain why bear citizenship does not, and insofar as my plan addresses far more fundamental problems (i.e. genocide), it is to be prioritized.

    Second: I stated, in my first post, that:
    Furthermore, regardless of whether or not the plan can ever become implemented, you as the judges of this debate round have a duty to vote me as the winner because my in-round discourse itself solves some of the problems mentioned above by forcing people to consider their fundamental prejudices and misconceptions of people in other nations. Your vote on this debate round becomes a tool for affirming the fundamental principle that all people ought to enjoy the same basic rights.

    This means that, even if you prove bear citizenship totally worthless (which you have not), I am still, at least in part, solving for the problems presented, because my discourse is forcing you and the judges to reevaluate your beliefs.

    Randall_Flagg on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    In the opinion of the moderator, debate has stagnated on this topic. We then move to topic 2.

    TOPIC NUMBER 2: ...oh man. Oh, man, this is perfect. Randall, you want to take extreme positions? Sexual reassignment surgery.

    Have at it.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I'm going to let fencingsax have the first response again so I can decide how radical my opinion is going to be

    I mean, I'm sure evidence from the bible wouldn't really be accepted too well here in D&D, which leaves me with the choice of endorsing mandatory realignment surgery for anyone under thirty, say

    well, I'll wait and see

    Randall_Flagg on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I... I'm not sure what the discussion is. Are we talking about whether the surgery itself should be allowed? Because .... Sure. As long as someone pays for it, and the process is safe, I don't really see why not. I don't really see the debate here. Some people think that surgery is icky? Well fuck them, it isn't their body, and frankly is none of their business.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    The discussion is whatever you make of it. I merely provide the stimulus, you two take it from there.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Then my debate shall be posted forthwith

    Edit: this may take awhile, as I am trying to explain my thoughts.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Sexual reassignment surgery should be treated as any other surgery. That is, it should be regulated by medical ethics. That is, based on physical danger to the patient, and whether the reward is worth the risk to the patient. Any 'Morality' should not enter into the equation at any point. The only extra mitigating factor should be a recommendation from a psychologist, but that psychologist should be of the patient's choosing. As long as the psychologist thinks it'll help, and the patient chooses it, they should be allowed to cut off/add a penis any time they want.

    I apologize for the short reply here, but I sometimes have trouble anticipating crazy arguments before they are made. It'll be easier for me to write a reaction to someone's argument than make my own.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Randall, I know you have some crazy wacky opinion here. You may wish to post it lest a replacement take over.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    sorry, I've been busy

    I promise to post up a response as soon as I get home from school today (about 5:00-6:00 EST)

    Randall_Flagg on
  • Options
    Randall_FlaggRandall_Flagg Registered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I'm dropping out

    I've been too busy to participate; sorry :(

    Randall_Flagg on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Okay, sorry to lose you.

    TO THE FLOODGATES! First guy to respond to fencingsax gets in.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited February 2008
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    Sexual reassignment surgery should be treated as any other surgery. That is, it should be regulated by medical ethics. That is, based on physical danger to the patient, and whether the reward is worth the risk to the patient. Any 'Morality' should not enter into the equation at any point. The only extra mitigating factor should be a recommendation from a psychologist, but that psychologist should be of the patient's choosing. As long as the psychologist thinks it'll help, and the patient chooses it, they should be allowed to cut off/add a penis any time they want.

    I apologize for the short reply here, but I sometimes have trouble anticipating crazy arguments before they are made. It'll be easier for me to write a reaction to someone's argument than make my own.
    The negative was taken for the sake of debate.

    Sexual reassignment surgery should be prohibited by governments. While there are certainly people who feel like they should be of the opposite sex it should be also understood that these people suffer from a psychological disorder. This aspect of reality cannot be disputed, they are one gender, but feel like they should be of the other gender. If this was not a disorder, then there would be no physical or mental discrepancy. On that line of thought, do we allow patients suffering from other disorders to undergo potentialy dangerous surgery to satisfy the demands of their mental condition? Do we let people who think they have Magellens scrape off their skin? Do we allow people who think they are snakes to have their limbs removed? No, of course not. The fact is that cosmetically changing a person so that their mental disorder is represented physically is not only absurd but also medically unethical. A person with gender reassignment surgery won't have the biological functions of their new sex, they won't be able to experience an orgasm of their new gender. They will only mutilate their body, and should their disorder ever be corrected by a future breakthrough, they will once again be trapped in the wrong sex.

    Unknown User on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Slipped my mind, but this one's over, so we move on.

    TOPIC NUMBER 3: Darfur.

    You may begin.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited February 2008
    The genocide in Darfur demands active and progressive action by the United States and governments across the globe. We are not looking to topple a government here, just enforce a seperation of nubian-populated regions. Such action has proven to be the solution in Yugoslavia, when we forced Serbian forces from Kosovo, and would have worked brilliantly had we taken action in Rwanda. We cannot let inaction once again stop us from saving millions of lives. I argue for a coalition of nations to intervene and enforce a massive seperation of the black populations being slaughtered and the arab militias doing the slaughtering. The African Union peacekeeper force is simply insufficient to even prevent the genocide from occuring, much less allow vital medical and food supplies in. An aggressive seperation by a coalition, followed by heavy one-time investment in government and transportation infrastructure in Darfur will prevent this from ever happening again. Seperate, Create, Educate. The genocide will end in Darfur, supplies will be received, and when we withdraw, Darfur's new government will be better able to effect their supposed autonomy.

    Unknown User on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I am formulating a response. Should be up sometime tonight.

    Edit: Trying to formulate a response I don't really agree with is difficult. Be patient.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    I'm going to need that response, fencingsax; just toss up whatever it is you've got.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Okay, I've waited long enough. Alternates?

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    Last call for alternates, or else I'm just going to call it now. Seriously, this wait is ridiculous.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited February 2008
    I'll totally debate myself.

    Unknown User on
  • Options
    GoslingGosling Looking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, Probably Watertown, WIRegistered User regular
    edited February 2008
    And once again, the world has ignored Darfur to the point of death. I'm calling this and just chucking it to the vote now.

    Forum, decide who won: fencingsax, or the pair of Randall_Flagg and Rygar. 24 hours.

    Gosling on
    I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
  • Options
    ScalfinScalfin __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2008
    How about the debate be shifted to the appropriateness of the Olympics becoming politicized around Darfur, or any other issue?

    Scalfin on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    The rest of you, I fucking hate you for the fact that I now have a blue dot on this god awful thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.