A debate on a certain controversy

Variations in voting does not cause a voting bloc to cease to exist. It's like how John McCain calls himself a "maverick" of his party, though he has voted with his party on legislation 95% of the time. The Republican Party in congress remains a voting bloc, and continues to hold party caucuses to see how their bloc will be voting even if John McCain, and a few other Senators don't back the agenda 100% of the time. Very few individuals agree with their voting bloc 100% of the time. Not participating in the voting block 100% of the time is only a concern if the voting bloc is centered around one issue. A "conservative brother hood" wouldn't have to agree 100% of the time to be an influential voting bloc, especially when most debates are decided by a handful of voters. As you agree on most issues, you will likely be voting in favor with most For an organization that focuses on coaching, I find it puzzling that in the rather large series of messages I received regarding your organization spoke more about voting as an organization. While your organization would benefit from having more skillfully trained Debaters, presuming you could generate such at your online school of hackery where potential opponents are consistently put down, and treated without respect in your private conversations. A virtuous debater respects his opponent both in public, and in private. One that simply makes public appeals pretending to respect their opponent is certainly not a very virtuous debater. As the name calling was not addressed, but greeted with agreement and laughter by other members of your organization, I doubt that your training and coaching is going to teach individuals how to be virtuous members of debate.org. Public discussion of this issue was clearly important, consider the significant number of comments this and other threads have generated. I understand you don't think it was necessary, but if you thought it was beneficial, why would you want to hide your efforts? Why not do it publicly and openly, the way a person without any hidden motives or agendas as you claim to be might be willing to do it? I used the word zealot to describe you, and you've decided to take the context to make it a pejorative. If I had used another series of words, "passionate idealistic fanatic" to describe your attitudes and behavior, you probably would have found that description to be pejorative as well. I was simply seeking accuracy, and the most accurate term for your behavior, and that of your group was zealot. Plus, I thought it made my entire initial statement roll off of the tongue very well, and it obvious drew your attention as well judging by the first paragraph of your opening statement. Hopefully your training will include a development of rhetoric. I don't think that you're capable of being objective all of the time. You're not perfect, no one is. So I cannot presume that a voting bloc developed to train conservative debaters in private, with no public form of regulation, with membership not publicly recognized is also not going to be 100% objective, full of membership that is objective all of the time. In closing, to address your opening argument... I was not being childish in posting my original debate topic. I was not being counter productive to Debate.org. I was not even being counter productive to your organization. I was simply making the public aware of your actions, and stimulating discussion. If I were childish, I would have organized a competing voting bloc to vote against debates by members of your organization. How can I have been counter productive to Debate.org if three debates have been generated out of this one single issue?