The Xahar-Constine debate

[Sensei]

The next question is for Ben

How do you think the current situation with Iran's growing nuclear program and threats toward Western countries should be addressed?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The next question is for Ben

How do you think the current situation with Iran's growing nuclear program and threats toward Western countries should be addressed?

We should attempt to reason with Iran diplomatically; simply talking about bombing Iran and other sword rattling measures will not achieve our goals.  If Iran attacks any country, be they a Western nation or not, we should respond with military action ASAP.

[Sensei]

Follow-Up:

To what degree should the US retaliate if Iran directly attacks any other sovereign nation that is NOT the United States?

[Eraserhead]

So there is no specific topic for this debate, I guess?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Follow-Up:

To what degree should the US retaliate if Iran directly attacks any other sovereign nation that is NOT the United States?

The United States should first shore up international support for their efforts, in a way similar to our efforts during the first Gulf War.  Once we have international support, we should not hold back in our efforts: we should work to destroy infrastructure, and basically cut Iran's head off; we should avoid civilian casualties, though.

[Sensei]

Would you care to rebut, Xahar?

[Eraserhead]

Two questions:

1. When does the debate end?

2. Do we have a flash poll afterward to determine the winner?

[Sensei]

Two questions:

1. When does the debate end?

2. Do we have a flash poll afterward to determine the winner?

1) Two more questions after Xahar produces a rebuttal
2) Yes

[Хahar 🤔]

Would you care to rebut, Xahar?

No.

Just kidding.

The government of Iran is intelligent. They will not attack Israel. Israel has nukes. They have no reason to attack any other country. Also, my opponent's plan for a war is wholly unreasonable.

[Sensei]

Elaborate, s'il vous plait.

[Хahar 🤔]

Elaborate, s'il vous plait.

When you go to war, you go to war. Civilian deaths are an unavoidable part of that.

[Sensei]

Xahar:

You said your opponent had no coherent ideology. What parameters do you use to determine what a "coherent ideology" is, and why doesn't Ben have one?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Elaborate, s'il vous plait.

When you go to war, you go to war. Civilian deaths are an unavoidable part of that.

I'm aware of that; I was saying that we should try our best to avoid civilian deaths.

[phk]

What the hell?

[Хahar 🤔]

I refer to a Weltanschauung, a worldview that is internally consistent more often than not.

My opponent does not possess this, because of his influences, instead being overly fond of the fallacy of the middle ground. Varied influences can be useful in the development of a Weltanschauung, but my opponent has taken his and mixed them together, with the distinct intent of trying to bring as many groups together as possible: socialism, conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, internationalism and Zionism, among others. The result is a confused hodgepodge that cannot with a straight face be called an ideology.

For instance, my opponent suggests that we should take sides immediately once fighting breaks out (a nationalist idea), but also that we should refrian from killings (a liberal goal). The two are mutually incompatible. Peace saves lives; war saves countries. To try to find a compromise is to lose wars, and thus save neither lives nor countries.

[Sensei]

How do you respond to this, Ben?

[Countess Anya of the North Parish]

I like the unite thing, but he needs to get  it together.

[Hash]

How boring.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I don't mean to be a jerk here, but why are you having 2 socialists debate?

Xahar/Constine could be a ticket not an adversarial match-up.

[Hash]

2 socialists debate?

LOL. Constine is certainly not a socialist. Stop taking drugs.

[Sensei]

How do you respond to this, Ben?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

How do you respond to this, Ben?

My opponent is correct, in that I have multiple influences on my thinking.  However, he is incorrect when he says that they are not consistent.  My opponent suggests that I have said we should refrain from killing during war; that is simply not true.  I have said that we should try and avoid civilian casualties; simply that we should not go out of our way to cause deaths.

My overall view, though, is fairly consistent, at least in its respective arena.  While someone looking merely at my economic views, which trend more to the left, would consider me a liberal, someone looking merely at my foreign policy would view me as someone closer to the right (as I've been called a neo-con multiple times).

My opponent is correct that I prefer the middle ground, when possible; I believe firmly in the power of compromise; our Constitution itself being a Great Compromise.  Without compromise amongst our Founding Fathers, we would be in a very different position today.

I don't mean to be a jerk here, but why are you having 2 socialists debate?

I'm hardly a Socialist.

[NDN]

I'm hardly a Socialist.

At this point, I'd beg to differ.

[Bacon King]

I'm hardly a Socialist.

At this point, I'd beg to differ.

You have to realize that his economic Political Matrix scores are entirely gamed.

[NDN]

I'm hardly a Socialist.

At this point, I'd beg to differ.

You have to realize that his economic Political Matrix scores are entirely gamed.

True but if you look at the substance of what he's said, it's well to the left of US discourse. Across the board protectionism, nationalization of key industries, etc. are not capitalist. He seems closer to Canada's New Democrats than the US Democratic Party.