Debate with Phelps

[Ognir]

Are these rules KOSHER?

Gentlemen,

I propose Lincoln-Douglas style debate format for Friday, the rules of which are embedded below. Each side will get 16 minutes to speak. We can adjust the time for the purposes of the show length if need be. Since it is Eric's show and he issued the challenge, I suggest that he start the debate with the simple affirmative proposal that THE JESUIT CONTROLLED VATICAN IS BEHIND THE NEW WORLD ORDER. Also the rules of courtesy, profanity, and personal attack as outline by Eric should be adhered to, subject to immediately cessation of the debate if violated by either party. Please let me know what you think. I will have an online poll set up on my website for listeners to log onto and cast a vote to decide who won the debate afterwards. Eric, please forward this to Noel. I await your feedback.

John Byk



LD debate follows the basic time schedule 6-3-7-3-4-6-3, commonly remembered as a jingle or phone number. Each debater gets 13 minutes of speaking time, and rounds take approximately 45 minutes. Each debater receives 3-5 minutes of preparation time (prep time) to use between speeches however they like. While the amount of allowed prep time is at the tournament's discretion, the NFL advocated three minutes until midway through the 2006-2007 season, when 4 minutes became official and was adopted by most, but not all, local tournaments. Some tournaments, most notably the TOC, choose to give debaters 5 minutes. Some tournaments also allow the use of flex prep, which melds the cross-examination time and prep time together to create a 6-8 minute block that can be used for questions and/or prep.
Time (minutes) Abbreviation Speech Description
6 AC Affirmative Constructive The Affirmative reads a pre-written case
3 CX Cross Examination The Negative asks the Affirmative questions
7 NC (1NR) Negative Constructive (and first negative Rebuttal) The Negative (almost always) reads a pre-written case and (almost always) moves on to address the Affirmative's case.
3 CX Cross Examination The Affirmative asks the Negative questions
4 1AR First Affirmative Rebuttal The Affirmative addresses both their opponent's arguments and their own
6 NR (2NR) The Negative Rebuttal The Negative covers everything said in the round and gives the judge reasons to vote for them
3 2AR The Second Affirmative Rebuttal The Affirmative may either summarize the round or cover everything, but they always give reasons to vote for them

[joeblow]

That seems perfectly fine, but ... I'm not going to give away strategy here.

NO ONE FUCKING GIVE ANY FUCKING ADVICE HERE!!!

PM, EMAIL, SKYPE ALL SUGGESTIONS! THE ENEMY IS WATCHING US NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kolnidre]

I just revisited the debate on RBN between Michael Collins Piper and Eric Jon Phelps. It's a little late in the day right now, but I hope Noel has listened to it and checked some of the positions of the principles. I can't upload it from work but perhaps I can later tonight if there's interest.

At the very least the two sides were articulate and civil. Stadtmiller didn't even really need to moderate, but he did a nice job to the extent that he did.

[joeblow]

That wasn't Stadtmiller, rather it was Keg Shitmanski of the Fartic Bacon.

[kolnidre]

Correction noted. He may be a dumbass or shill, but he was a fair host and it was a good and civil debate that allowed both sides to present their cases and respond to each other's assertions. Contrast that with the blowhard AJ's juvenile outbursts in his "interview" with Zeitgeist "master architect" Peter Joseph. AJ should have cleaned Joseph's clock based on the facts, but he lost the debate and only reinforced the widespread suspicion that he can't see much beyond his bloated navel and massive ego.

[joeblow]

I will have to respectfully disagree with you, near the end GS obviously tried to support Erica Kahn Yelps when it became quite apparent that Michael Collins Pipers had won it hands down. We are both AJ fans, but honest men, therefore we can objectively state all of AJ's faults without forgetting that AJ is currently the best avenue we have to fight this Jewish World Order.

I too agree that AJ should have been more diplomatic and tried to have a discussion rather than a debate with this Secret-Commie/Suspect Mason, but the non-sense that was spewing out of the Zeitgeister would have too much for me myself to handle.

[kolnidre]

I will have to respectfully disagree with you, near the end GS obviously tried to support Erica Kahn Yelps when it became quite apparent that Michael Collins Pipers had won it hands down. We are both AJ fans, but honest men, therefore we can objectively state all of AJ's faults without forgetting that AJ is currently the best avenue we have to fight this Jewish World Order.

I too agree that AJ should have been more diplomatic and tried to have a discussion rather than a debate with this Secret-Commie/Suspect Mason, but the non-sense that was spewing out of the Zeitgeister would have too much for me myself to handle.

My attention waned a bit at the end of the debate since I'd already pulled in to the office, so I'll have to take your interpretation of the latter part. Still, it was nice and civil, and even if Phelps was spinning a quilt of bird feces at least listeners got to smell it for what it was.

AJ, on the other hand, turned to emotion and defensiveness instead of taking the higher ground and putting the smug, naive, impressionable, disingenuous, and pretentious little shill man out of his misery once and for all. I'm not even well versed in Theosophy, gnosticism, and all that esoteria, but I could have done a better job than AJ simply using what I know to take Joseph's dumb and dangerous junk apart.

[Ralph Furely]

without forgetting that AJ is currently the best avenue we have to fight this Jewish World Order.

huh?

too agree that AJ should have been more diplomatic and tried to have a discussion rather than a debate with this Secret-Commie/Suspect Mason, but the non-sense that was spewing out of the Zeitgeister would have too much for me myself to handle

i have to say, i really didnt see what joseph was saying as nonsense. i actually found him to make a lot of sense. aj on the other hand sure was doing a large amount of spewing the bullshit.
alex made a complete ass out of himself and showed his true colours. which are that he is a fucking egotistic child who would pick up his toys and go the fuck home when shit wasnt going his way.
he cut him off constantly, he was mocking him like a little kid, using silly voices... i would be straight up embarrassed if i were an aj supporter. he made an ass out of himself. and he made it
quite apparent that he was not interested in hearing any ideas that werent on par with his view of things.

i was not happy with the movie myself, i have issues with it. but this man sounded very polite, intelligent and was there to have a discussion, not have monkey alex yelling at him frothing at the mouth like
we heard him do with Mike Delaney. the man is a piece of shit, a liar, a shill, an asset to the 'JWO'. you said, as i quoted above, that he is the best avenue we have to fight this jewish world order?
that is pure insanity that you could say that!! what in the fuck is he doing, for us? what is he doing for this movement. i could go on and on here but whats the point.
im just blown away by that comment. thats insane to say that.

we would all be better off if he would just go die somewhere. he is pretty much making a mockery out of this 'movement' with these kind of antics. hes a fucking goof. he is not needed.

[red pill]

I couldn't agree more Ralph Furely!