This forum uses cookies
This forum makes use of cookies to store your login information if you are registered, and your last visit if you are not. Cookies are small text documents stored on your computer; the cookies set by this forum can only be used on this website and pose no security risk. Cookies on this forum also track the specific topics you have read and when you last read them. Please confirm whether you accept or reject these cookies being set.

A cookie will be stored in your browser regardless of choice to prevent you being asked this question again. You will be able to change your cookie settings at any time using the link in the footer.

A debate
#4
There was another issue besides cold facts and well-spun arguments that cost many a debator the win. Probably no more famous instances could be found as those in the history of US Presidential candidacy debates. Usually it was the incumbant which battered his opponent with nasty language, insults, and degrading behavior. No matter how flimsy the argument, or how justified the insults, the bullies in debates were always called out by those watching. The negativity and drama were the headlines the next day, not: 'Vice-president's arguments were logical, coherent, and common-sensical, declared winner.'

Napoli made his notes while Jon spoke. He even looked pleased for a moment, nodded and wrote down a few key phrases. It is the system of governance that determines the ability of capitalism to function to one degree or another. He wrote it word for word, to be sure the quote was precise.

A clear transfer of power. Romans - supreme power. Plan of succession?

He nodded when the modertor assigned his time. They would go back and forth the two of them. Each given their alloted minutes to lay out an argument, then the other would stand for a short rebuttal to immediately address concerns spoken by the other. Once rebuttal was concluded, their full time could begin.

Professor Napoli laid out his notes on the pulpit, folded his hands calmly and began his short rebuttal with a reprimand.

"My opponent said I should seek my Econ tutor." He smiled briefly, a disappointed expression so many of his students had seen before. "I ask my opponent to refrain from insults. This is a professional debate not a school project. Please present logical arguments, not emotional punches, young-man." He looked over his shoulder. The few seconds cost him precious time, however the purchase was worth pointing out who was bullying and who was being bullied. Since it was now pointed out, any future statement which deviated in the slightest from strict professionalism would stick in the minds of the moderator and audience alike. There was a reason Professor Napoli took his time walking to the podium, took a drink of water and neatly arranged his notes before beginning. It was about crafting an image, maturity and wisdom were credibility after all. Hard facts and statistics had their place, but the source was more likely to win or lose an argument rather than the sheer weight of numbers.

"My opponent brought up the greusome imagery of past conquerers. Alexander the Great, Charlemange, and an allusion to Julius Ceasar. He did this to invoke emotion in the audience. To compare the Ascendancy to a violent, power-hungry ruler so that you would overlook the fact his arguments are thin. For instance, the Roman Empire was not constructed out of ..." he held up the paper with the quote on it despite the fact that he did not need to read it to recall the specific words. It was all about credibility: a man who wrote down Little Bird's exact wording when nobody else had must have the best insight into properly interpreting those same words.

..."authority vested in one man. But this isn't my class on European Empires, so I won't subject the audience to a lecture in historical philosophy... no matter how riveting." He chuckled slightly, feeding the image of the man the audience wanted to root for. Professor Napoli was a man of hard-edges and high standards, but he was also approachable and likeable. He took a drink of water. Time was ticking away.

"I would point out that the audience ought not fall for this invokation of emotion. The emperors, ceasars, and kings of the past were tyrants. The Ascendancy most surely is not. Not a single Dominance in this great Custody was conquered. In fact, they asked for admission. Style of governance does not matter. Only tyranny matters, and the Ascendancy is hardly a tyrant."

The time for rebuttal was called and Professor Napoli prepared to switch gears and argue his own point once more.

He took a drink of water again and began once allowed to. "It is my understanding that this debate is not about classifying the CCD system of governance. But if we are going to do so, I will lay out a few points of discussion. Yes, capitalism is not a system of governance. But you cannot ignore economic policy when discussing the merits of a nation. As for the matter of succession, that is easily defined within the offices of Patrons. And once more, power is not littered with the politics of parties, buy-offs, and favors. The best performer earns the right to lead. Easy, transparent and simple. Kindergartners would understand it.

Perhaps the CCD is more closely aligned to that of a constitutional oligarchy, but power in the hands of a few does not a tyrannical dictatorship equal. When was the last time your assets were seized by the state? When were your loved ones executed for speaking against the Ascendancy? When were you last prosecuted for practicing your religion in public? It doesn't happen! And not just because we have a state-unified religion or because everyone is pleased with the Ascendancy. But because the CCD is not an overlording tyrant! If this is a dictatorship, then I welcome it!!"


Professor Napoli gathered his thoughts for a moment, and his voice returned to that of a teacher.

"Governments depend on the consent of its citizens always. Let us settle by saying that the Soviet Union was socialist. Yet it was a dictatorship. It was a dictatorship because the cement of the Soviet Union minimized any effort to bring about meaningful economic and political change within their own borders. But does this not sound similar to former Britain or the current United States? Where there is a monopoly of power held by a minority it is always fair to call that society a dictatorship!

Capitalist society stands as a dictatorship. Its institutions serve to maintain capitalism by reducing the potential to change the economic and political order to any great extent. The very definition of capitalism is that the 'Best always wins out.' There are many dictatorships in the world; undoubtedly included were historical Britain and the present-day United States.

So speak not of classifying the CCD as a dictatorship. Speak only of the unhindered right to of our citizens to seek their own prosperity; to win the best. Speak only of a stable nation unafraid of border-wars and cultural persecutions and religious infighting. Speak only of what it means to be a Custody citizen. All would agree, the Custody is a greater place than its contemporaries in the Americas."


He retook his seat, fully aware that Jon's follow-up arguments were constructed on foundations of sand and Napoli was the wave to wash him away. The argument, that the CCD is a vile dictatorship, was invalid. If it is, then, as he said, the people of the Custody welcome it.

<small>NPC Professor Napoli</small>
Reply


Messages In This Thread
[No subject] - by Jon Little Bird - 08-09-2013, 02:38 AM
[No subject] - by Ascendancy - 08-10-2013, 07:07 PM
[No subject] - by Jon Little Bird - 08-11-2013, 12:55 AM
[No subject] - by Ascendancy - 08-11-2013, 08:16 AM
[No subject] - by Jon Little Bird - 08-13-2013, 04:05 AM
[No subject] - by Ascendancy - 08-15-2013, 05:30 PM
[No subject] - by Jon Little Bird - 08-16-2013, 04:44 AM
[No subject] - by Ascendancy - 08-16-2013, 06:28 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)