Being nice doesn't work

Increasingly desperate to find a right-winger with the courage to debate, I took a chance
when my good friend Mucinous wrote with the news he might've found somebody.

I did everything I could to get this guy to debate.
I was as nice as I can possibly be, and here is how that went:


Billy Bob, (if we debate, can I shorten that to BB? :)
my name is Bart, I guess you know mucinous@cox.

Yes, I think a debate would be fun. I'm very normal, almost boring in debates.
None of that wild bragging or cursing. This is NOT a trick.

If we debate, I will treat you with respect.
Even if YOU go nuts, I'll say, "Maybe we should stop" instead of flaming you back.

Format-wise, we have a chatroom at bartcop.com and the mods there know how to
silence everyone but you and me.  Or, we could do it in a private chat room there and
not tell anybody, and I could post a transcript (you'd get a copy, too, to keep me honest)

Matter of fact, I'd really like a GOP guy to debate regularly in print OR on the radio show.
I'll give you all the freedom you ask for, and if we keep it civil we might debate 20 subjects.
If you had a microphone, we could debate over the phone while we each record MP3s
and then I can synch up the two files at my place.

Again, you wouldn't be censored or shouted down or cursed at - none of that. I really need a
regular guy who knows the GOP side of things. When a new story breaks, we could chime in like
Begala and Novak. It's a lot of fun to jump in with an opinion before hearing every talking idiot on TV chime in.
Obviously you can use this e-mail as proof that I lied if I turn on you or set you up for something - I won't.

Maybe we could start with a few e-mails, if that works we could try a chat session, if that works
we could try the radio thing.

As far as subject, no problem. We could do one at a time, maybe starting with the war.I get shit from the
doves about being pro-military. I'm against this nutty war in Iraq, but I say good things about the troops.
So, you got any gamble in you?

I've been here 9 years, so I'm not going to throw away my reputation to set you up for some cheap trick.
I need someone to bounce off of - we just need to treat each other  with respect. I might say
"That's a crazy idea," but I'll try not to say "You're crazy."

Let's give it a shot.
I say Bush bungled his way into Iraq to steal oil.
He's stealing millions of dollars a day, as is the Hallibuton gang. The situation is worse,
all Bush did was kick the beehive and now we have 1500 soldiers dead.

Got a reply?

To start, let's keep things general and big-picture. We can always get more details as things evolve.
Feel free to comment on my page. Keep your head and I'll print every word you send me (not too long :)

I hope you say yes, I'm looking forward to it.
 bart

PS. If you're not interested, do you know anybody?


His first reply:

First, I need to know who you are: background, experience, etc.

 John, my name is Bart and I've been doing the page for nine years.
 Since we're having a battle of ideas, I'm not sure why personal biographies are important.
 

I suggest neutral turf.   We can both let our respective natural audiences
know what we're doing, and when, and how to sign on as theaudience.

 Maybe it's best we do this in private, then publish the results?
 

To move the process along, I suggest the following:  a one-hour program,
followed by a 30-minute Q&A, then pull down the barrier to participation
and open a poll on that site for who won on each issue.

 The poll is an OK idea, but is it necessary to keep a stop watch on each other?
 I think if one of us hogs the spotlight, they'll be seen as a bully so that should prevent that.
 

Three subjects for 20 minutes each:  First one, the Iraq war.  We type live, as if we were speaking.
You take seven minutes to start.  I take seven to reply. You take three minutes for surrebutter.

(Sidebar: I don't know what surrebutter is - I hope it's not a gay thing :)
 

I take the final three minutes.  Time is precise, we get cut off in midsentencewhen time is done.

 I'm all for keeping this short, to prevent long, rambling speeches, but cut off in mid-sentence?
 

Second subject: Social Security.  Same time definitions, except on thisone, I go first.

 Are we sure we disagree on SS?
 I don't know a lot about it, other than I don't trust Bush.
 

Third subject:  Is the Supreme Court violating the Constitution in thejuvenile murder decision,
and others like it?  You go first.  Times as in first subject.

 I have no strong opinions on this.
 

In the Q&A you pick, I pick, you pick from Qs already submitted. When I pick the question,
you answer fiurst -- 60 secs.  I get 30-secsto reply.  Opposite when you pick the question.

 What if we had a conversation, like adults?
 

We'll do this once.  Both have to agree to do it again.

Your thoughts?
John

 I'd sure like to try this, but you seem to want a much more rigid setting. My idea was more like
 two guys sitting at a bar, drinking a beer, talking politics. I have no big problem with your format,
 but I think all the rules would be distracting.

 At least we'll be asking each other questions.  Don't you hate those debates when the two aren't
 allowed to even speak to the other?  BTW, when you suggested "nuetral ground," where would that be?
 bart
 

His second reply:
 

I try not to waste my time contesting with weak opponents.
Everyone has a background.
I expect to know yours, as mine is known to you.

(Sidebar: Not sure what this means. I know his e-mail address and the name he used
 when getting that e-mail address, but I have no "background" on this guy.)
 

I want this to be done live, with time limits as are common in debates,
and are inexorable on radio (which I've done for about eight years, now).

Let me know.
John
 

John, what personal info of mine do you need to defend your president?
When you read a column in the newspaper, do you usually write to get the author's personal information?

I've had a lot of people back out of a debate, but you'd be the first to back out because I didn't share my personal life.
 
 

...and that's all I heard from him, proving being nice doesn't work, either.
 

Conclusion: The right-wingers can not engage in a battle of ideas.
They will search and search and search until they find a reason to avoid a debate.

They must know their Monkey is a disaster, so they don't dare get into a debate unless it's on FOX
with a handpicked loser to debate and a sympathetic host to save them when the handpicked loser keeps
smacking them in the face with the obvious truth that makes them look bad.

Nobody on the entire internet will agree to a simple debate
with the ADD Catholic liberal, drinking tequila with an IQ of 64?




Sweat to Koresh, for whatever my word is worth, after the above was written I Googled congressmanbillybob
and discovered that "John" is John Armor, comtemplating a run for congress from Carolina's (North) 11th district.

His website is  http://www.armorforcongress.com

But if John can't handle a tequila-swilling Okie, what chance does he have in Washington DC?
Maybe he'll do OK with FOX News, talk radio, Clear Channel and the resting carrying him?
 

What will it take to get a Republican to debate?

 Comments?



 

 Back to  bartcop.com
 
 
 

Privacy Policy
. .