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" I believe in the various discussions we have had over this I have provided this definition. "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." Note this part of the definition: "it helps determine how they vote in elections." If we take election to mean the "election" of the better debater, then you see that we are not a voting block. If we were, we would vote with very similarly. For example, I have an acquaintance who claims that he is a member of a vast "Eastern European Republican Voting Bloc" That means he tends to vote Republican. However, we do not vote consistently for one viewpoint. Therefore we are not a voting bloc. "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." You oversimplify. We focus more on coaching, which was not indicated in that message. Simply voting does not equal a voting bloc, it is simply voting. (Repetitive). "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." This matter didn't need public discussion. If it had been doing something bad, then it would be necessary to inform the public, and I am sure there would have been some that would do so. Increased voter turnout improves democracy, as does more informed voters. We inform and encourage voting. That is beneficial to democracy. "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?" You forget that that is ONE purpose. There are other facets to this group. "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 one with ly attempting to organize people that agreyou. I am likely on this list because I spoke to defend Mike Huckabee a number of months ago." If you agree that the conservative debater did better. That's different. "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." A liberal "retard" would be a bad debater that is liberal. Voting against bad debaters is not bad, it's objective. "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." First, voting blocs have to vote TOGETHER. We don't. Second, I know what zealot means. You were using it as an insult. The context of your usage gave it its pejorative connotations." "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." It depends whether I felt those individuals were capable of being objective. There is no evidence that any of the CWO members are not being objective, however, there is evidence that many (maybe not most, but even a minority is a lot compared to the conservatives on this site) liberals have vote bombed.