This from the guy with the joke-vote.
Fuck off Tragic, everyone who’s voted for me on this debate has also voted against me in past debates. It’s called integrity.
The eye-roll smiley’s right here:
Here’s how we’re going to do this. People with biases don’t count. That means OH, tentative, and Pav are all out. They’re all going to vote for Tab anyway, so none of their votes count.
My vote doesn’t count either, because I am biased against Tab. I don’t like him. And even if he presented a compelling argument, I still would vote for the other guy.
That means the debate is scored 1 to 0, because uglypeoplefucking has a non biased vote.
Now THIS is how you run a debate people, OBJECTIVELY not subjectively. You people are too predictable.
Nah, UPF likes me too. You’re also implying Stoic has no friends.
How about this, tragic, go troll somewhere else, unless you’d like to debate something with me maybe…?
Tragic,
To put it mildly, you are full of shit. either you can’t read or you choose not to read. My vote for Tab was a left-handed compliment and he knows it. Stoic voted for Tab as well given that he simply didn’t press his case. There may be all sorts of reasons why he didn’t come to the party, but to suggest that I or anyone else voted for Tab as some sort of favoritism is bullshit. But you’re right about one thing: I’d vote against you on any subject because you act like a trolling dickhead way too much of the time.
I have voted against Tab previously.
I know, that’s why we need to think about FAIRNESS, JUSTICE, and OBJECTIVITY, which you are clearly much too emotional to value such a thing, tent. I, however, do value Justice, which is why I’m pointing out these inconsistencies. I admit my bias and subjective nature, against Tab and your little possee, which is why I am objective, and you are not. By exposing this bias, we can better understand the nature of this debate, its outcome, and who deserves to “win” it.
I believe uglypeoplefucking counts as the only “objective” vote so far, and that puts the score at 1-0 for Tab. Pavolvianmodel, faust, tentative, anitas, any moderator on ILP in general, should not count as votes to Tab, due to bias. And as far as pav goes, voting one time against Tab, compared to the other 9 times you voted for him in other debates, does not constitute an “objective” position. Your fairness is compromised, as, you are also a moderator on this website.
You people should seriously consider securing IMPARTIAL, OBJECTIVE voters ===BEFORE=== you start the debate. Or, start and complete the debate, and then go to other philosophy websites and politely request for some philosophers from OTHER WEBSITES to come here, and vote in the thread. That way we know that they don’t have a stake in either PERSON, SUBJECTIVELY or BIAS, but will give honest and objective opinions.
Don’t hate me because I’m objective. 
It’s not easy becoming objective and as SELFLESS as I am, you know!!! 
Well it’s a good example of why I don’t like democracy if nothing else 
But I wouldnt say the bias is that clear cut, I didn’t press my case like tentative said (which is one reason I was asking for more posts).
I infact did mention benevolent dictatorships, perhaps I should of mentioned more, one thing I was conflicted on was whether or not Kings and Emperors should be considered dictators, eventually I did start subscribing to that notion though.
Also i agree with that anlogy above but am confused on how he decided to go with it, so are you saying you’d rather die a slow death than a quick death?
Jesus Tragic, you spelt “BIG AN ASSHOLE” completely wrong. 
stoic,
It would depend on conditions on the ground. In the main, I would prefer democracy in that there is modulation of the wild swings of whoever happens to be in power at the moment. Tab got that part right. However, a place like Somalia that is totally bankrupt socially, politically and every other way imaginable, democracy is on the far horizon and what would be beneficial to it’s people is a strong man to come in, get the killing over with, and establish some kind of societal rules that people can finally call “normal”. It would be cool if that dictator began setting up the legal institutions leading to democratic reform, but it doesn’t seem likely. Culturally, democracy is alien stuff in Africa where family and tribal loyalties to the ‘head man’ are accepted and promoted. But dictatorship is the quick easy solution in any area where there is total chaos. Democracy needs education and reasoned debate to flourish. So it depends on your geographic location along with all the cultural and geopolitical conditions as to choosing dictatorship or democratic forms of governance. I just wish you had punched up your argument a bit better. Tab did a good job, but you might have made sweat appear on his brow had you pushed a little harder. 
He’s awesome at Debates, what do you want? I remember when Tab and myself had our first one-on-one Debate (another one will be coming soon), I would have voted against myself.
Tab needs to test his metal…no more easy wins and gimmes. He’s not challenging himself by his friends’ constantly hanging around and supporting him. He’s become lazy and decadent in his arguing.
That’s why I’m calling for some objective impartial voters, and judges. Otherwise what’s the point of voting? What’s the point of DEMOCRACY?!?!?!
Stoic is right…why are we even VOTING on who wins a DEMOCRACY VS DICTATOR debate?
A dictator should decide instead!!! Fuck voting!
Somehow, you’ve tried to decide for everyone your view of the debates here. The ILP debates aren’t war games, their mostly just an exchange of ideas. It ain’t life or death. It’s entertainment with a little thought behind it. Most of the debates are between friends and receive very few votes because most folks know they are friends. If you want blood, go play video games.
What Game?
I’ll play…
If either Tab or Stoic request me to do so, I will be happy to give a more in-depth analysis (it goes so much faster in my head than it comes out with my fingers on a keyboard) when I have more time.
I would request that my vote not count towards the official tally at this time.
I would have voted for Tab, but I will say that Stoic led until the conclusion. Stoic’s conclusion was rushed as is apparnt by the spelling/grammatical errors. The conclusion merely hinted…flirted…with ideas that could have been closed out much more assertively, but again, were rushed.
I understand that you were busy, Stoic, and wanted the Debate to go longer, but I have to judge what is there. It doesn’t count, anyway.
Briefly:
Tab opened up in (gasp!) the way one would expect by mentioning Dictators who presided over evil regimes. Interestingly, he acknowledged immediately that some Dictators are, “Really good,” when they are good, which I think may have been in anticipation of an introduction by Stoic which would highlight beneviolent dictators. Nice move.
Tab closes with the point that Democracy waters-down the power and spreads it throughout.
Stoic then opened by saying that Democracies are not much different, in terms of evils committed. Stoic also agreed that Dictatorships are usually all one way or all the other way.
Stoic also makes the interesting, and unexpected, point that Dictatorships are simply more efficient. Dictators do not have to answer to voters, or anyone else for that matter, so that gives a Dictator the theoretical ability to make the best decision in the shortest amount of time.
Tab then follows up by stating that Dictatorships are more likely (in terms of dead) to commit atrocities against their own people than Democracies. Tab makes an excellent point using game theory that really should be read fully to be appreciated. Tab agrees that while a Dictator can more quickly make a decision, there is nobody to stop him from making the WRONG decision, namely one that unwittingly kills millions of people via starvation.
Tab also concludes by making points concerning how the democratic election process can often result in the, “Right,” thing occurring.
Stoic then proceeded to kick fucking ass with his next post. Read it. That’s all I’m going to say about it.
Tab concludes first by making an argument about the unliklihood of militant uprising amongst the populace of a Dictatorship. The problems with this argument are:
1.) It’s happened recently, very recently.
and
2.) Rising up against a Democracy is no easier. In fact, people might avoid such an uprising in the hopes that the Democratic process will eventually lead to something better.
Tab then defies Stoic to name his beneviolent dictatorships.
Tab also points out that the personal skill sets that apply to winning a militant uprising usually do not translate well into management of a country, at least, not peaceful management.
Stoic’s conclusion is just rushed. It’s one-line argument after one-line argument, quote-and-shoot, etc.
I would say that Stoic led right until the end. Even after Tab’s reasonably good conclusion, the Debate was Stoic’s to lose.
Vote: Tab
Cheers Pav. Edge of seat stuff.
Tab 5
Stoic 1
Trajicomic 0
Im more than heppy with my vote not counting due to post count, but i do hope you’re not implicating me as one of these “friends” you speak of.
I took the time to read through the discussion thoroughly and base a decision on logic. With me its a matter of pride - that is why I set up a thread asking to judge a debate for others. Im not interested in debating just trying my hand as a judge.
Don’t worry B., tragic is just being an ass.
Shit, I think we have our first of three Judges, Tab.
How about each of us gets to pick a judge, or Barcelonic can find two, whichever you prefer.