There Should be a Greater Effort by the DDO Community to Vote on Finished Debates

Hey guys sorry for the wait, no time to waste, let’s get started… XIX::: Introduction and the Arguments Concerning War In his rhetoric based argument my opponent severely contradicts himself, he advocates a world where we surround ourselves with only people who we love and who love us, yet he then advocates that we mount a purge-like war against some vague ‘enemy’. How can we live in a world of peace where we only concern ourselves with ones we love, while simultaneously involving ourselves in a war? The fundamental truth of war is that you are concerning yourself with another person’s activity or vice versa, and therein lies the fundamental contradiction in your argument. From the source you provide about how war is the ultimate form of settling contradictions I found this quote: “History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust.” For this reason it can’t be helped but claim that fighting a war in the name of killing alone is beyond unjust and according to your own source, should not happen. XX::: An Apparent Misunderstanding Next, I would like to talk either about the strawman argument or perhaps the misunderstanding of my resolution. In the resolution I never argue that we need to recruit more people to the site in order put the same amount of responsibility on them that is already in place, this would be ineffective in fact it is only you who inquires towards the notion of recruiting people at all. I’m truly sorry if it was misunderstood or poorly worded, but I clearly stated in the resolution, “by the DDO community” this refers to the present tense population within the DDO community. So just to make it clear once more, I do not want to add more people to the site for the ineffective reasons mentioned above. In other words the judges should discharge the following statement within Con’s argument: “Pro contradicts their own resolution in round 1 when they state that rather than greater effort, per person, they merely want greater number of people bearing the responsibility of putting in the same amount of effort as is currently being put in.” XXI::: Cap Good Compe good Now here is where it gets interesting folks, My opponent has some weird ideology that the world should be engulfed in happy rainbows and dancing lemurs while simultaneously implying that we should prepare to ignite war on the enemy and kill as many humans as possible. The first ideology I mentioned is actually the problem within America today where nobody can be a loser, even 7th place gets and award and absolutely everyone has to be equal as opposed to equitable. His view is the reason that America’s educational system ranks so very low: “On average 16 other industrialized countries scored above the United States in science, and 23 scored above us in math. The reading scores for the United States had to be tossed due to a ‘printing error’.” -http://www.greatschools.org... The fact is that life itself is competition and the point of a capitalistic society is to inspire competition rather than shoot for a world lacking it. I’m not sure how a “pointless score” exists as my opponent exclaimed earlier but I do know that we often try to rob others of the win and let people get satiated with how they are now, competition is used to inspire development and progress, to strengthen skills and become better people in the end. Do really think that the acclaimed debaters of this cite such as Mikal are only here to indulge in “egomania” in order to “overdose on happiness”? Futhermore, competition doesn’t benefit those who happen to win, one could argue that it actually helps the loser more than the winner because while the winner gets satisfaction and the knowledge that his skills have improved, the loser is the one recognizing that their skill need to be improved and thus losing can inspire passion to become better people, thus eventually making them long term winners. And what happens when they start winning? Others begin desiring that same feat, thus through competition we actually create more winners while strengthening our society as a whole. So clearly you can now see why Con’s points are invalidated. XXII::: Letter to the Judges on Logical conclusions which Must be Considered Finally I would like to note that If the judges take Con’s side, they cannot vote for him because then you are adopting his policy of never picking a winner and never having anything more than a tied vote, while the one’s who side with me can gladly give me all 7 points! :P Thanks for reading thus far, I am curious as to what the possible responses to my arguments are. Back to you Con…. Citations https://www.marxists.org... http://www.greatschools.org... http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.entrepreneur.com... http://www.cato.org...