A debate on a certain controversy

You and I are clearly not meaning the same thing when we use the phrase voting bloc, or voting block. As you complete your high school education, you will have a class on government in which the definition of a voting bloc will be covered. To help resolve this confusion, I am introducing my definition of the term voting bloc as it is listed on Wikipedia.com "A voting bloc is a group of voters that are so motivated by a specific concern or group of concerns that it helps determine how they vote in elections. The divisions between voting blocs are known as cleavage. A voting bloc can be longstanding and institutionalized, such as support for business or labor, or it can be created from scratch as the result of the saliency of a new public issue, such as a war or the potential resumption of a military draft." http://en.wikipedia.org... If you are using a notably different definition, please introduce in the next round. If your movement is truly a conservative brotherhood as CiRro claims, and your brotherhood participates in mutual review of debates where there is voting, I believe that would mean that your brotherhood also constitutes as a group of voters that are motivated by a specific concern, or a group of concerns. The fact that you are desiring an organization with fluid communication, and providing a clear mandate with what debates they are to review and vote on is another indication that you're creating a voting bloc. Your organization may not be instructing individuals on how to vote, but they are organizing individuals with like attitudes, and encouraging them to participate in voting on debates in which their attitudes need to be supported or defended. This is clearly an action that a voting bloc would take. Your suggestion that your response to perceived attacks made on your debates by people who disagree with you has something to do with democracy is another fallacy. A Republic, which our government is, thrives on public discussion, and public records, and public organizations. The very word Republic comes from the Latin, Res Publica - meaning the Public Thing. What I have done serves the Republic, or the Democracy has you've deemed it. Organizing secretly and in private is usually a step away from the Republic. There is nothing public about your organization, and if I hadn't created the debate which spawned this "debate on a certain controversy," there would be absolutely zero public discussion regarding this matter. So, tell us please how your merry band of debaters, voting in unison on each others debates is beneficial to Debate.org as a whole. Tell us please, how your "Conservative World Order" plans to serve the Republic by influencing the number of wins, ties and losses of your peers and foes. How does that act bear any relevance on the truth or virtue of what was discussed? How does that act serve the objectivity you once claimed was your reason to debate? While you reference several of their passages which indicates that they only want you to vote in favor of the debate if you agree with the debate, recall that you're only attempting to organize people that agree with you. I am likely on this list because I spoke to defend Mike Huckabee a number of months ago. What of CiRro's true comment, "This is more then just down voting liberal retards." indicating that "down voting liberal retards" is in some fashion a goal of your organization, or at least a goal he feels it should have. So, while your organization may point to aspects of nobility to justify it's existence, realize that it is what it is, a voting bloc of like minded individuals organized to review each others debates. It doesn't matter if they aren't told how to vote, they more than likely already agree with the author of one of the arguments. The flowery rhetoric of how initially described your group may not be flattering, but it is a very defensible position. Since you've chosen to find the term zealot offensive, I won't bother making the case further. Zealot serves a greater meaning than the pejorative you have taken it to be. Again, seek a dictionary definition. Take two steps away from your own position, and your own organization, or at the very least think about how you would regard a group of individuals who disagree with you attempting to draw as many individuals who disagree with you to vote on your debates. There is still hope for you yet.