EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum
Views:
4668

Followers of the Sith Philosophy should start a political party in the United States

(PRO)
0 points
(CON)
WINNER!
6 points
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
I thank the opposition for accepting this debate, on such a controversial and important topic.

I would like to establish that the institution of political parties furthers democratic values. A nation can never truly call themselves democratic if they are wholly partisian or bipartisian. A true democracy can only function when all the power is spread throughout different ideological groups, or a voting base large enough to swing a majority party if need be. With this in mind, I intend on proving three things throughout this debate, which will inevitably and convincingly prove my case.

1. Sith Followers should form a party because they can
2. Sith Followers forming a party would make us more democratic.
3. Sith Followers forming a party would lead to more political reform

I leave the floor to the opposition, and may we have an invigorating and productive debate.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 01:32:18
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
1. Response to "Sith Followers should form a party because they can"
The Sith are diametrically opposed to public appearances[1]. Darth Bane explains the problem in the Rule of Two which he points out that power shouldn't be blunt. Instead the Sith should utilize assassins, bounty hunters, and other covert agents to act openly for the Sith. The Sith must remain hidden and secretive in order to remain unopposed as Darth Bane decreed in the Rule of Two.

[1]The Book of Sith by Daniel Wallace

2. Response to "Sith Followers forming a party would make us more democratic."
The Emperor controlled the entire galaxy from Coruscant to the Outer Rim with an iron fist in the shadow[2]. Why would the Sith lower themselves to a democracy in merely one country?

[2] Star Wars Episode IV

3. Response to "Sith Followers forming a party would lead to more political reform"
To Respond.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 01:53:03
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Do to the spacing in quick debates, I plan to make my rebuttals starting round 5. I will open my case, by explaining why Sith followers should and can form a party

I must first ask my opponent to further back up his information. The Sith do indeed work non-clandenstine. They are running a whole empire, but it is important to differentiate Star Wars "lore" from reality. In reality, the Sith don't actually exist outside a small cult following, known as sith philosophers. So why should this small group of people form a party? Because they can of course. By forming a party, the Sith receive more voice in politics, can participate in general debates, and gain legal protection not otherwise granted to "non civil groups".

Therefore, the Sith have every reason to form a party, as it will lead to better structure and backing on the political scene, advancing their ideology.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 02:03:59
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
My opponent has continued to assure us that the Sith should form a political party because we must differentiate Star Wars "lore" from reality. However, my opponent has further demonstrated his failure to understand Sith philosophy as how it would transfer from fictional into reality. The first sentence is of the Sith Code is "Peace is a lie." The Sith philosophy is directly opposed to coexisting with one's enemies. The Sith philosophy transferred into reality would not result in the creation of a political party. The Sith instead would infiltrate both the Democratic and Republican Parties with the intention of diluting their influence and controlling them from within. The Sith would seek to control their enemies secretly without their knowledge, therefore remaining unopposed by anyone.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 02:20:34
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
My opponent seems to actually believe that the Sith will recieve a congressional majority and actually implement their ideology. This is unlikely, but great, the sith have every right to try. If the Sith want to implement a dictatorship void of peace, then I encourage them to take to the the polls, but several things must be accepted.

Premise:The Sith will never gain a political majority
Premise: There is no realistic way for the Sith to implement reform through violence, given the US military
Premise: There are a small amount of Sith
Conclusion: The Sith should form a party and represent the Sith already in existence

As for infiltrating the Democrat and Republican party, we should also accept another conclusion

P: The Dem. and Rep. voter bases can't be dilluted
P: Corruption is llegal
P: The Sith can't survive by violent means
C: The Sith should form a political party
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 02:44:11
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
My opponent is misleading the readers and myself. I never stated anything about the Sith receiving any congressional vote at all.The Sith have no interest in sharing ideology as I mentioned earlier. Sharing the Sith religion is like sharing power.That is against the Sith way according to the Rule of Two. Most followers of the Sith know there is a reason why power isn't shared. In the Sith, at their height, there is one apprentice and one Sith lord[1].An example of this would be The Emperor and Darth Vader. Sharing of power only creates conflict within the Sith, such as the Sith Empire with petty squabbling Sith lords on the Dark Council.

[1]The Book of Sith

The Sith would merely control from the shadows without notice like how Communists infiltrate and co-opt groups.The same way that Senator Palpatine secretly took over the Senate and the Republic which turned into the Empire.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 03:00:25
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
The opposition is again confusing "Reality" with "Fiction". While I agree that the Sith would, in the fictional world, work through subterfuge and misdirection, that is not possible for the real life Sith Philosophers, who do not have the three M's. Means, Money, or Members. In fact, the actual Sith have no organized structure.

The opposition has contested the "fiction", not the "reality", which is concerning. There has also been a lack of rebuttal's concerning the argument that Sith would be more effective as a political parties. Simply contentions that the Sith don't work in the manner I'm proposing. I have stated many times that the Sith don't have the power to gain influence in the manner my opponent suggests, like they do in the fictional world.

I'm not asking the Sith to change their beliefs, but the strategy they use in carrying them out.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 22:34:01
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
My opponent has disguised humor for an argument.The Sith would not need Means, Money, or Money.The Sith would take the money from Democrats and Republicans once they have infiltrated their parties. This simply could be done by pocketing and skimming fundraising money.The Sith do not need an organized structure because they seek to dominate and control from the shadows.

My opponent is unfamiliar with subversion.Subversion has been used by the CIA, KGB, FSB, and countless other foreign intelligence agencies to reduce threats.One need not directly oppose when one can co-opt and render impotent.This is how the Sith operated in "fiction" and how they would in "reality." To infiltrate and co-opt secretly without notice.

I will let Mr. Bezmenov, a former KGB agent explain how subversion works in a thorough manner that I can not replicate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OUajti4zWk
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 23:42:41
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
In the interest of my house, I would like to continue my path of arguments like originally intended. I issue a request for the opposition to explain how the Sith will infiltrate the major parties.

The benefit of having parties is clear. They provide voice and structure to minority or majority opinions. Through the democratic process, it is possible for said majority opinions, or minority interests, to be protected or even expanded upon. By the creation of more parties, you have more interactions in the legislature, meaning a more meaningful and democratic nation. If a party has 100 members, it still has a voice. Maybe those 100 members can swing a county vote?

It doesn't matter if their party is successful. It's the fact that the distributive membership lessens the power of major parties, and keeps like minded democracies from becoming one party authoritarian states.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-01 23:50:35
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
If the Sith follow the Rule of Two, one Sith Lord and Sith apprentice would infiltrate a political party.The Sith would subvert the Republican Party by becoming members, establish relationships, and eventually run for the Senate.The Sith would need to hold national office in order to control the Republican Party from within. The Sith's goal would be to change the Republican Party platform from within to suit their wishes and change laws.

The Sith lord then would recruit several acolytes who would infiltrate the Democratic Party.The acolytes would try to sabotage rivals within that party by destroying their political campaigns with gaffs and abusive advertising.The Sith's ultimate goal would be to turn the government into a totalitarian state with no parties. Republicans would be the biggest threat to this with their Libertarian streak.Therefore, they must be subverted first.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-02 01:32:06
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
It sounds like a comprehensive plan. If not a terribly unrealistic one.

To effectively refute this point, we need to come to three conclusions. One, that many have tried, and failed to corrupt the major parties. Two, that while politicians can be corrupted, voting bases cannot. Last but not least, that the Sith in existence have no cards to play in their favor. You need means, money, and members. The Sith have none of that. What edge do they have that people far richer and more powerful didn't have before them?

The counter argument is faulty. Is it implausible for the Sith to create their own party, while also trying to corrupt the legislation of the other parties? If such a thing was possible? The fallacy is clear. My opponents case is that we must choose one of two options.The Sith aren't constrained to one path for political power.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-02 01:41:07
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
My opponent keeps reverting back to theoretical and imaginative circumstances when I have offered many practical examples of what has happened in "reality" thus far. The parties have been corrupted; this is why Occupy Wall Street happened and people chanted "Banks got bailed out, the people got sold out."My opponent also must of ignored Mr. Bezmenov's claims in the video I posted in this debate.Voting bases have been corrupted. The media and elites do it by encouraging behaviors that are not beneficial to the citizenry.Why does the average American in high school required to take an art class yet not a financial planning class? Art must pay well.

This one example of many Americans who stake the claim that the population is being corrupted and drowned out to the satisfaction of elites.Only the weak see the need to seek help not the strong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8WhT9BwpRs
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-03 13:14:04
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Let's go under the pretense that the parties and voter bases are corrupted, sparing us both the trouble of arguing it. Who is it that is "corrupting" the parties? People with the three M's, means, money, and membership. In the scenario's provided, MMM prevails. When it came to Panama, it came to means. When oil interests became attractive, it came to money. When it came to Occupy Wall Street and the Republican Tea Party, it came to membership.

No matter how my opponent spins it, it will always come back to means, money, and membership, something the Sith have none of. If the time ever comes for these "Sith" to show their dominance, what powers do they have to use? What advantage do they have that the tycoon's don't? Maybe the parties are corrupt, but it certainly isn't because the Sith "infiltrated" their ranks.

The Sith have no noticeable advantage to achieve their means.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-05 02:30:35
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
I will not repeat what I said earlier because I already responded to MMM. The Sith would merely take money from Republicans and Democrats. The Sith can infiltrate and corrupt with relative easy given the evidence I previously offered.

My opponent has also refused to offer any evidence to how the Sith would acquire MMM through starting a political party. Most third parties fail in the United States. There is not any evidence that a Sith party would be an exception.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-06 11:57:56
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
Judges, I'll have you know, the opposition is continuing to do what he claims he wont stand for. Repeating himself.

I have made my arguments, and the opposition has done anything to refute them, therefore, I will not delay time restating what's already been affirmed. If my opponent believes his evidence is strong enough to skip adequate refutation, then I bid the judges to test him on his faith. I will continue on the initial line of reasoning I promised the readers, and the judges.

The Sith creating a party could lead to serious political reform. This is not the reform that occurs with one party, but multiple. Not only do we stretch our democratic muscles by introducing new viewpoints to the political scene, but we create competition. Parties are like a business, and when faced with competition, they adapt and better their "product. In this case being improved legislation.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-07 21:39:27
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
I have already refuted my opponent's claims back in the first round when I pointed out how creating a "Sith party" was incompatible with Sith philosophy.Therefore it can not be Sith.Don't be mislead by his constant attempts to deflect and ignore my points.Most importantly, let us remember he wants the Sith to form a party.In America, most third parties fail.How would the Sith succeed where are others failed?There are no theoretical or practical reasons for the Sith to even entertain any of his points. I have addressed each one of his primary points and refuted them.

1.The Sith are opposed to public appearances.TThe Sith would not form a party.
2.The Sith are opposed to democracy.Why would the Sith participate in the political process to make it "more democratic?"
3.The Sith would infiltrate other political parties, reform the system, and turn the democracy into a dictatorship.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-09 03:09:20
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
1. The Sith can't progress any other way. I'm not proposing the Sith to change their beliefs, just the ways they carry them out. Adapt, progress, survive.
2. The CCP, Derg, and KIP all started as political parties. Democracy is one of the easiest ways to dictatorship. If the sith want a despot, they would have the best odds in congress.
3. Can they both form a party, and attempt to infiltrate the others? Again, what means do they have that tycoon's don't. The sith are as likely to corrupt the major parties as I am.

The point isn't for the Sith to succeed. The Sith wont succeed, because their beliefs are taboo and inane. Like many other third parties before them, they can inspire minor change. Small change on a local and state level. Even if they never succeed in one reform, they would be successful in drawing voters from the major parties, inspiring better legislation.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 02:39:40
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
I would challenge the voters to observe what my opponent said in Round 1 and look at what he said in Round 9.

Round 1: "2. Sith Followers forming a party would make us more democratic."
Round 9: "Democracy is one of the easiest ways to dictatorship."

Is my opponent for democracy or against it?

"3. Can they both form a party, and attempt to infiltrate the others? Again, what means do they have that tycoon's don't. The sith are as likely to corrupt the major parties as I am."

Wrong, my opponent isn't even legally illegible to vote.How could he corrupt anything but a local high school club ?My opponent is not even old enough to vote.We must also come to the conclusion he can not hold office either.This is a fallacy.

"The Sith can't progress any other way."
Refuted, see Rounds 4-7.

"I'm not proposing the Sith to change their beliefs"
Refuted, see Rounds 1-8.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 03:11:20
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
My opponent still doesn't seem to understand, the Sith wont succeed in turning the government into a dictatorship. It isn't even possible, nor is there any chance it would happen if it was. Sith can indeed try to push reform on a local level, which is far more likely than the opposition's unsupported plan about infiltrating the major parties. The opposition is beating around the bush. The Sith will get more done as a party than a pack of unorganized basement dwellers.

As for my opponent's speculation on my age, I will ignore it, as it has nothing to do with the debate, and the point was that Sith really can only corrupt the major parties as well as I can, so I thank the opponent for conceding and affirming that point. Corrupting a party can be done in thousands of ways, but they all require means, money, and members. My opponent thinks they can do it without MMM. Prove it.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 13:56:36
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
The Debate Resolution: "Followers of the Sith Philosophy should start a political party in the United States"
My opponent thinks the resolution is: "Corrupting a party can be done in thousands of ways, but they all require means, money, and members. My opponent thinks they can do it without MMM. Prove it. "

My opponent has not only failed to support his burden of proof but he has gone on to negate it entirely.He did not support a single point relevant to why the Sith should create a party.He has gone on to ignore my points.I have refuted all of his.My opponent has jumped from contradiction to contradiction. Then he affirms a resolution that does not even exist. If you take time to re-read this debate, notice how he avoids the resolution all together at Round 7.It is safe to say my opponent lost this debate several rounds ago.There is no consistency on his part. Vote Con please.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-11 14:22:48
| Speak Round
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus (CON)
The Sith are opposed to such entities as political parties. The Sith are also opposed to public appearances as well as I explained earlier in this debate.

Even if the Sith were to establish a party, what is the probability they would succeed? Most third parties in the United States fail. The Democratic and Republican parties have been dominant since the 1850s. The Sith wouldn't be any different from the other third parties that have failed.

The resolution has been negated. Vote Con please.


Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-13 13:14:24
| Speak Round
BlackflagBlackflag (PRO)
I have fulfilled the burden required. The opposition has done nothing to refute my house's arguments, beside's dodging the point, and discrediting everything that couldn't be avoided. He dropped the argument that political parties make a nation more democratic. The opposition dropped the argument that the Sith can accomplish things on a small scale.

The opposition gave a counter plan. The floor should analyze whether or not he backed it up.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-10-15 02:21:47
| Speak Round


View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
Agreed.
Posted 2014-10-16 00:24:30
adminadmin
Suggestion: stop commenting, the lot of you. This isn't going to resolve like this so let it be.
Posted 2014-10-16 00:23:45
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
I can't bear frauds and neither can most people. In real life, they go to jail.
Posted 2014-10-16 00:22:59
BlackflagBlackflag
I can't bear dramatic internet people who can't act civil. If people were as rude in real life...
Posted 2014-10-16 00:21:26
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
"I don't appreciate arguments that insult my character rather than my logic"

You don't, GOOD. You have no character or merit so of course you want us to ignore those.

"The fact that you keep referencing a unrelated event shows you aren't capable of discussing the topic at hand in a civil hand. If you can kindly explain what the moderation thing that happened 5 months ago has to do with anything"
"I don't know what you get from being rude,because that's not the kind of person I am,"

Hypocrisy continues to exude. He talks about what others are without care but refuses to discuss himself LOL

"Just so you're aware, defending my character in the debate isn't proper."
Nothing in the debate related to character, only to the capacity to vote and hold office. Read before you respond.

"The comment section is a perfectly acceptable place to air our my annoyances."
Those aren't annoyances; those are arguments related to the debate.
Posted 2014-10-16 00:18:55
BlackflagBlackflag
The fact that you keep referencing a unrelated event shows you aren't capable of discussing the topic at hand in a civil hand. If you can kindly explain what the moderation thing that happened 5 months ago has to do with anything, I'll count it with a shred of merit.

Just so you're aware, defending my character in the debate isn't proper. The comment section is a perfectly acceptable place to air our my annoyances.
Posted 2014-10-16 00:07:33
BlackflagBlackflag
Tophatdoc, apparently you're more interested with keeping up a vain appearance of being the resistant internet badass, rather than cooperating with me. I would really appreciate it if you stop the vanity and listen to what I'm saying. I don't appreciate arguments that insult my character rather than my logic. Is it fair to request you don't make them in the future?
Posted 2014-10-16 00:05:33
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
Childish insults? Again, SO SAYS the person who committed a crime, fraud.
Posted 2014-10-16 00:04:53
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
DEBATE SECTION:
"Wrong, my opponent isn't even legally illegible to vote."

"As for my opponent's speculation on my age, I will ignore it, as it has nothing to do with the debate, and the point was that Sith really can only corrupt the major parties as well as I can"

COMMENTS SECTION:
"I can actually hold office in Pennsylvania. I can also vote in about 20 states."

"I'm not arguing anything related to the debate."
Posted 2014-10-16 00:03:13
BlackflagBlackflag
Not stop with your childish insults and give me a mature response. Is it unreasonable for us to get along?
Posted 2014-10-16 00:00:47
BlackflagBlackflag
I'm not arguing anything related to the debate. I'm asking you to treat me with some decency and respect. I don't know exactly what I did to you, so I'm left to conclude that you lash out at me based on personal issues or spite.
Posted 2014-10-15 23:59:49
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
Rude? Again, SO SAYS the person who claimed to be an EDEB8 moderator. What morality do you have to tell anyone what to do on this site? I forgot you think your the moderator lol.

I should encourage the judges to deduct points from you for trying to argue in the comment section instead of the debate section. This isn't the first time you have done it. I will recommend in the future for you to be punished for your behavior.
Posted 2014-10-15 23:57:03
BlackflagBlackflag
I'm going to strongly encourage judges in the future to issue point deductions for this kind of thing. I don't know what you get from being rude, because that's not the kind of person I am, and I'm hoping that's not the kind of person you are either.
Posted 2014-10-15 23:52:37
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
And what are you going to do about it? This isn't the debate section. Try reading before you comment.
Posted 2014-10-15 23:42:32
BlackflagBlackflag
Tophatdoc, this is the third debate with you where you've resorted to attacking me rather than the debate. Frankly, I'm a little sick of it.
Posted 2014-10-15 23:38:37
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
You can't hold national office......just saying
Posted 2014-10-15 23:36:09
BlackflagBlackflag
Just saying...
Posted 2014-10-15 18:56:36
BlackflagBlackflag
I can actually hold office in Pennsylvania. I can also vote in about 20 states.
Posted 2014-10-15 18:56:05
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
No problem, use as much time as necessary. I will try to do my response tomorrow some time.
Posted 2014-10-05 05:50:01
BlackflagBlackflag
Sorry for the wait, I've been pretty lazy. Ready to attend, and possibly finish this debate tonight.
Now to look for an appropriate rebuttal...
Posted 2014-10-04 23:45:21
adminadmin
Nope, nzlockie and I did a edeb8 vs ddo quick debate before that.
Posted 2014-10-02 00:33:50
BlackflagBlackflag
The extension to 900 characters was a good improvement as well. I think the lowest I could realistically go is 300, and for a troll resolution.
Posted 2014-10-01 22:58:44
BlackflagBlackflag
This is going to be an epic quick debate. This is the second on the site I believe.
http://www.edeb8.com/debate/Hezbollah+is+more+powerful++than+the+Islamic+State+of+Iraq+and+Syria/#tdebate
Posted 2014-10-01 22:57:27
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
Thanks
Posted 2014-10-01 02:33:03
Darth VitiosusDarth Vitiosus
I am blushing
Posted 2014-10-01 02:32:49
nzlockienzlockie
This is a great debate. Keenly following this.
Posted 2014-10-01 02:25:37
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2014-10-16 20:35:04
nzlockieJudge: nzlockie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Darth Vitiosus
Reasoning:
I have to say, on balance I quite enjoyed this debate although it probably went longer than it needed to go. I could see that having such a low character limit really affected both sides' ability to voice arguments and I think this penalised PRO more than it did CON. Had the character limit been higher it could have gone another way.

Here's how I arrived at my decision:

PRO opens with three main cases and then CON counters with a new plan. I'll look at each case separately.

1. Sith should form a Party because they can.
Possibly a poor choice of words here. I got accused of an is/ought fallacy when I used similar phrasing but he explains it better in Round 2 by showing several benefits for forming a party, more voice, participation, legal protection etc.
CON's response here is that the Sith have no need of these things and in fact participating in the democratic process actually runs counter to their motis operandi. So he doesn't contest the CAN part, only the SHOULD.
This is a fairly convincing argument, supported by evidence of the way they have operated in the past.
I awarded this point to CON.

2. Sith forming a party makes us more democratic.
This potentially could have been a strong point. I certainly thought it was a good one to bring up. PRO is convincing as he explains that democracy works best when there are differing views expressed.
Unfortunately CON shoots this down VERY effectively by pointing out that the Sith are not in favour of democracy. This means that them contributing to a better democracy is counter intuitive.
PRO valiantly tries to pull it back by claiming that democracy can be a tool to a dictatorship but CON wins for flair when he points out the contradiction this makes, in round 9 - a very strong round for him.
Ultimately CON convinces me that the Sith don't want or need democracy to achieve their political goals.

3. Sith party leads to more reform.
This argument seemed to get swallowed up along the way. That's ok though because most of the points in here cross over with the ones from the above two points.
PRO's contention is that through a political party and the democratic process, the Sith will most effectively be able to effect change. This is denied by CON, although his reasoning seems to be, "we don't work that way". Had PRO had the space to hammer this point home, he might have gotten a clear point here, but as it is, I'd award him a contested point.

4. Sith can infiltrate the existing parties.
This was CON's contest of the 3rd point. He makes this claim and then supports it with a link to a video which I can't count. Using a video to make your argument is bad at the best of times, but in a debate structured specifically around low character counts - pictures and video are non-admissible.
This leaves this contention rather open as it is not able to be supported by either side effectively.
In the end, I'm awarding it narrowly to PRO, mostly because I felt that CON had adopted a measure of burden to convince me this infiltration was possible, and I don't feel he met it.

On balance then, I'm left with the conclusion that while the Sith COULD form a political party and that doing so COULD effect change, they don't want to and doing so would run counter to their ethos. The net result would not be beneficial to the Sith and in fact may have more benefits for democracy - something they are opposed to.

Final note: Fiction vs Reality. This point was addressed several times by PRO throughout this debate. He was right to bring it up and again, had he been able to use more characters, I think he could have attacked this more effectively. His points definitely scored with me here, however not enough to outweigh CON's claims. To do this he would have had to challenge CON for specific examples and then challenge the reality of those examples. Not enough space for this kind of argument.

Feedback:
PRO: Arguing that a group of people opposed to democracy should participate in the democratic process is hard. When that group is a clandestine shadows type group, that is almost impossible.
You are basically arguing that the Illuminati should form a party instead of just manipulating from behind the scenes. I'm making this point to say that you had the harder road to hoe in this debate.

That being said, you came up with decent arguments. I think what let you down was the fact that in a limited character debate like this, you didn't have the space to argue those points effectively. You would have been better in my opinion to choose ONE argument and just push that. You handled CON's assumption of BOP perfectly and that gave you a chance to force him to use up his characters as well. Unfortunately because you were making three cases and he was only making one, that wasn't enough.

If you were doing this again I would:
- Reduce the number of arguments.
- Challenge his sources.
- Shift BOP to him as soon as possible.
- Alternate Rebuttal and Constructive rounds. Gives you a better chance to do both effectively.

CON: You had several very strong rounds, Round 9 was a goodie. But several of your others were fairly weak. I think this mostly came down to evidence. You kept making claims of working in the shadows, but only rarely gave examples of this. To prove a point, your example of the sith working in twos was supported with evidence and stood much stronger. Had you been able to give me an example of the Sith effecting change through manipulation instead of just claiming it, the point would have been stronger.
Also your sources were bad. I don't think that I could verify any one of them, and as stated, you can't use a video to make your case in any debate, let alone one with such limited characters!
As it happened, this didn't really affect your case too much since your opponent didn't call you on your sources or contest your claims that much.

I liked your opening rounds and several of your later ones where you very calmly pushed the burden of proof onto PRO. This was effective. Once you adopted some BOP though, you needed to support it. A reference to a specific time the Sith have manipulated world events would have sufficed.

Ultimately it was your unwavering assertion that the Sith were above petty politics and had no interest in furthering the cause of Democracy that won it for you. Good job.
1 user rated this judgement as good
2 users rated this judgement as constructive
2 comments on this judgement
Legion Legion
My issue is that you affirmed the entire case based on the opening argument that Sith don't operate in the way I'm proposing. Coincidentally, several of my contentions were dropped from your anaylisis, which I considered the most important aspects of my case...
- The Sith's current method of acheiving their goals doesn't work, therefore they should change said methods
- Argument that the Sith have no means or money to achieve the opposition's counter plan of corrupting the major parties
- That the sith can start a party and also proceed with their counter plan.

These were arguments I reiterated at least 4 times each. My rating was good, solely because they deserved some influence in how this debate should of been judged. I did notice your claim I didn't hammer the "sith don't operate this way point". Below are several quotes where I tried to stress that point...

" Is it implausible for the Sith to create their own party, while also trying to corrupt the legislation of the other parties?"
"The Sith aren't constrained to one path for political power"
" The Sith can't progress any other way. I'm not proposing the Sith to change their beliefs, just the ways they carry them out. Adapt, progress, survive. "
"Like many other third parties before them, they can inspire minor change. Small change on a local and state level"
"Even if they never succeed in one reform, they would be successful in drawing voters from the major parties, inspiring better legislation."

Additionally, I feel my arguments that the Sith make the nation as a whole more democratic, and my arguments that the Sith can institute small scale reform were completely dropped by the opposition.

I'm raising my standards, and I don't feel comfortable giving this vote a excellent, but it definitely acheived a "good". I did like the feedback immensely.
Posted 2014-10-16 23:30:36
Legion Legion
^ I'll be commenting on lots of judgement's like this. The purpose is feedback :)
Posted 2014-10-16 23:47:49
2014-10-17 02:21:35
PinkieJudge: Pinkie    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Darth Vitiosus
2014-10-18 16:52:08
9spacekingJudge: 9spaceking
Win awarded to: Darth Vitiosus

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 10 rounds
  • 900 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • No images
  • No HTML formatting
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 2 days
  • Time to vote: 1 week
  • Time to prepare: None
Sith- The Sith are the archenemies of the quasi-religious Jedi and, like them, their main weapon is the lightsaber. By the events of both trilogies, there exist only two at a time: a master and an apprentice.