Official Debate Tournament: Badger is a Retard/Troll

1) Debate HistoryI don't think i confessed to that. That i said i don't put in much effort doesn't imply i put in no effort at all or negative effort, just not much effort. And when i get distracted and forfeit, well, that's hardly being incoherant and moronic; I've not said something to not be understanable or understood as moronic! And for the fifa debate I blamed my incoherancy and moronics (though i wasn't too bad for someone out of his nut i thought :)) on mind altering drugs. I've a sober side too :)I've taken speed. I smoke weed. And i only conceded incoherance in the fifa debate. That i conceded incoherance once doesn't really do much for you bud. You still had the regularly bit to prove. What with not having proved it, one has no reason to believe i'm absolutely a retard, or even a retard as per your definition/burden. Why not just someone who enjoys an odd intoxicant? :) Nor without numerous examples have they any reason to believe i'm trolling and thus a troll. "All in all, we can't know for sure if Badger's goal is to waste people's time, but he does it anyway. This is why the resolution is over whether badger is incoherent/moronic/trolling (see round 1). Take your pick."Well it's not actually a matter of choice between those three. It was actually that you had to prove that i regularly engage in both incoherant and moronic behaviour to make up a retard/troll. Incoherant and moronic being your definition for both a troll and a retard in this debate it seems going by the burden you set yourself. The intentionally having been needed to be proved extra to prove i'm a troll (i'll take it i suppose? ;)) which you've just conceded that you can't. 2) Badger's Profile"Badger is clearly lying because the probability of being an uber rich black muslim teacher in Kansas is really low. His continued defense of this claim is clearly trolling, as he elsewhere in the debate claims to be Irish."Well first of all, why are we to believe the chances of there being an uber rich black muslim teacher in Kansas are really low? And secondly, if they're only still really low, rather than negligible or nonexistent, then there is still a chance that i am a black muslim teacher in Kansas and thus there was a lot more to be argued. I'm not just clearly lying. Thirdly, i've been consistent in saying i'm Irish throughout the entirety of the debate :PI will however admit that claim to be false. I was trolling :P ..though that'd still only be one mark against with regards to the trolling side of the resolution, and wouldn't do much to prove that i do so regularly. So as per your definition, i still wouldn't necessarily be a troll. Coherancy and moronics aside.But given as you also presented no brightline or standards for this debate and instead asked the audience to use their own judgement, i'll go so far as to ask that they not hold that act of trollery against me at all, given that it could be taken as me making light of what i quite possibly find a rather insulting situation, and thus wouldn't necessarily point to me truly being a troll :)"The Llama is also trolling."How is the llama trolling!?3) Quotes"Badger claims to have been talking about Ancap as a barter system. No one uses this definition. This is even after I told him that Ancap would have private currency, and the he should go read the wikipedia article on Anarcho capitalism."I was. And i don't think all too moronically so either. I would personally use capitalism as a word to describe a system of survival by which individuals survive by means of making use of their abilities to exploit others, as opposed to how i'd use socialism to describe a collective effort at survival. In other words, capitalism, to me, means a dog eat dog system of survival, while, socialism, to me, means a dog help dog system of survival. I would not prior to the discussions our pm has generated have used capitalism as a name for complex economics, or at least for a name for complex economics alone. So when you got stuck in a loop of just saying things like "non-agression" and "non-aggression principle" over and over again, i got confused thinking non-aggression to me held no inherent place in capitalism, so what place did it hold for you. I initially jumped to kumbaya stuff and went to lump ye all in with Rob, but i suppose i've seen better of ye now. Some bit anyway. It's just that ye think there'd be no aggressive institution like what ye'd consider majority government? Coherant? I think so. Did i moronically jump to the wrong conclusion? I don't really think so myself :) And either way, I'd still have to be both moronic and incoherant as per the burden my opponent set himself (the definition of retard/troll?). I suppose the audience might think i've been both incoherant and moronic?I probably should've read the wikipedia article in its entirety before saying anything at all on the matter though. I've got like a reading problem? A short attention span or something like that? Not a retardation as per my opponent's definition though!"Furthermore, to think that Rob, a self described communist who uses capitalism as a swear word, is an anarcho capitalist is incredibly stupid."Rob was an anarchist last i remember? One who preached kumbya stuff like i was thinking AnCaps were."Badger goes on to say that he doesn't think currency requires a government. This is inconsistent with his earlier position I quoted in Round 2: "for there to be currency there'd have to be kingdoms/governments pretty much.." Again, Badger is (intentionally) incoherent." First of all, when i said that i didn't think currency required government, i only meant to say that i'm not absolutely sure that an economic system (or at least a fair one) wouldn't be feasible working in anarchy. You forgot to note what i said immeadiately afterwards, that being, "I just wonder at its compatability with anarchism", which would've made that a whole lot clearer and makes what i'm saying a whole lot less inconsistent with that earlier statement.It is, however, still somewhat inconsistent, but inconsistent on purpose, by reason of me having changed my stance in what i'd consider a coherant and reasonable manner. And still only somewhat consistent in that i still think it a rather large probability that government would just reform from the anarchy by means of there being problems in anarchic economic regulation, regulation to prevent corruption that is, and in that i also couldn't see currency arising short of with some form of government as a precursor."Badger says he flip-flopped on Rob because the definition of anarcho capitalism changed. No it didn't. Anarcho capitalism means non-aggression. I told him that several times myself, and he has been told endlessly by others. Badger simply had the WRONG definition of anarcho capitalism because he's trolling and/or moronic."I've explained my "flip-flop" as best i can already. See what i mean with the non-aggression stuff?"Lastly, Badger tries to twist his faux pas on minarchism/anarchism. He now says blah blah blah"What faux pas? I was just wondering were you a minarchist as it'd be the only real hope i'd see for the ideology at having any chance of practical success, at least for us common folk. I asked you numerous times were you a minarchist to which you just replied "non-agression!". If you wanted to debate anarcho capitalism you should've just not been a prat and helped me form a resolution.Conclusion:I'm glad i won't have anymore rounds by Sieben to reply to and am not considering myself a troll or a retard. But that's just me. I promise i'll not take any votes personally given fair rfd's :) Anyway, i'm out of characters, so i'll leave Sieben's conclusions as Sieben's conclusions.Cheers for the debate bud :)