Transcribed by G!
As a Facebook user, I have come across numerous arguments taking place on the comment section of wall posts, here is a long example of one such arguments regarding a current event. All names have been changed because I did not ask for the consent of the participants of this argument to publish their comments, and therefore do not have the right to use their real names (I wouldn't have done that anyway).
The participants are represented by letters A through I, in-text reference to any of the participants by other participants are are enclosed in [], as well as third persons mentioned who did not participate in the argument
Insults that may reveal the occupation of any participants are generalized and stated as [insult]
Spelling and grammar are not changed from their original text.
I am posting this as an experimentation in short story writing, no ill intent whatsoever.
Overview:
The first argument occurs between participants B and D, the second the major argument occurs between A (the creator of the post) and F. E and G are frequent commentators to the argument and E briefly argues against A in a developing third argument before the post is terminated. C, H and I are onlooking commentators.
Original post:
A: If anyone wants some good debate practice, I recommend the first electoral debate which airs tonight between Romney and Obama.
Comments:
B: I call Romney
C: As of 10:09 pm on CBC, 75% for Obama, 19% for Romney, 6% unsure.
B: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...well there goes america's economy
D: [B] ur a racist
B: how, just because I don't support Obama I'm a racist?
D: wanna debate whether ur a racist or not?
E: Hm....That will be a great debate for sure. I'm for Obama,but wouldn't debate on it.
C: "Republican", not "racist", would be a better adjective, now that you can debate about.
B: Obama had a 1.3 billion dollar debt for 2011...thats bad leadership
D: were not talking about whether obamas bad or not, were talking about whether ur a racist or not. [B] get ur head in the game
B: Im not a racist
D: u support hitler, your argument is invalid
B: I do NOT support hitler
D: i clearly remember what u said last year
E: Oh,yes. I do,and I bet at least 5 people could remember what he said about Hitler in our maths class,[makes a joke about B's name]
D: ^[E]'s killer chirps
B: I said hitler was a good leader not a good person and i have never once in my life said i support him
D: does a good leader cause millions of deaths?
B: no a good leader is able to take a country from a depression to ruling half of europe. A bad person kills millions of people. The two statements are not intertwined...plus when stalin took over he killed anyone that did not support him, does that make him a bad leader? NOPE. Stalin like hitler is a bad person but a good and effective leader.
D: so theyre proficient leaders. not good. good means pleasing and approved of. do u find hitler pleasing? u probably do, coz ur a racist
E: Um. From what I see, A trait for great leader, in many cases, is the leader who achieve those by avoiding as much deaths and disadvantages(that are handed down to the minority or disadvantaged) and achieve greatness to his/her nation.
A: [B], you told me and [other person] we were Hitler's mistakes. I'm not even Jewish asshole.
E: [A]. Which [other person]?[#1] [#2] or [#3]?
A: [#1]
E: Oh,I see.
F: I am 100% advocating the Chicago School of Economics, but Romney is obviously the worst of two evils in this case.
E: Support your reason why Romney is obviously the worse of the two evils.
F: Look, as a basic principle, the best government in a modern, liberal state is a limited government. While some intervention can be beneficial in the case of an oligarchical market, socially intrusive policies are almost guaranteed to backfire by a) coercing people to adopt certain mindsets or b) inciting insurgence. Alas, Romney's social policy is too invested in wombs to not be coercive and morally patronising...the role of the government is not to impose moral agendas. Romney wants to metamorphose it into some male-privilegesque, white-supremacist, non-secular vision of his personal ethics.
E: I see why. So,if that's so,then would Romney's conservative policies will try to force people into certain moral agendas that he (or the Tea Party) likes/believes in,which would basically force the people to follow and leave the others who are deprived and disadvantaged?
E: *believes in,and will force the people
F: Since he is planning to enforce some of his beliefs legally, yes...there's so many factors into why limiting freedoms is wrong, ranging from justice, to role of the gvt, to homogenisation and its sociopolitical repercussions to potential civil disobedience.
E: Absolutely. Those will,from what see, threaten the nation and its people indirectly or directly,as well as dividing and oppressing the different social and racial groups.
From what I've read from a French novelist,diversity and speciality is an integral part of survival.
A: But [F], you speak of why government needs to have a smaller and less apparent role. yet, are you not aware it is a traditionally republican standpoint for less government?
G: clearly Romney was better prepared
A: Also [E], are you actually using Voltaire? Also, diversity and specialty are not exactly Voltaire's key focus. Have you actually read his works...also [F] are you not aware that Romney isn't allowed to just go off and force his beliefs because he wants too? They have this thing called the constitution and this other thing called congress.
G: the country is ran by congress, not presidents
A: Exactly
F: No, a republican government is in fact more socially intrusive than a liberal one, which is a point I raised a few comments before. Additionally, knowing that Romney's legislation is potentially going to get congress seats in the prospect of his election, his proposed laws that restrict abortion (coercive: fact) and grant rapists parental rights (coercive: fact) become a looming possibility...Romney's economic policy is also not centred around the actual principle of a free market but, in fact, aims to fortify this gross misrepresentation of actual skill in the face of wealth. Whoever thinks investing money in coprorations in an attempt to generate jobs in an economy that is home to some of the world's most profitable businesses will change the market landscape, rather than aggrandise this fabricated inequality is a contemptible thinker. Markets create jobs and those are fired mostly by the average consumer, rather than corporations.
G: unlike Canada, in the US, presidential election is separate from the house and the senate...personally, i think neither Obama nor Romney should be the president
F: House and Senate members of the same political party basically follow the same agenda, so my point stands.
G: what do you mean? obama is a democrat and yet there are more republicans in the house of reps
E: [A]. It wasn't from Voltaire.
A: Well actually no they don't [F]. If you had any understanding of American politics
F: Please enlighten me on how they never ,IN PRACTICE, have followed a common agenda.
A: Ahhh I see. So basically you are generalizing. If you had ANY knowledge of American politics you would realize that congressmen do not necesarilly vote on party agenda, instead on Lobbyist intervention, and personal beliefs. It isnt like Canada where everyone follows a straight line. Also how can you tell what happens at the next congressional election? Also your insinuation that all Republicans are for legal rape, and religious intolerance, is exceptionally offensive to me. As I am a republican who is for abortion, religious tolerance, and a free enterprise based economy...and one more point, Fay you may be a great debater. There is no doubt about it. But you know nothing about how the world works, and yet you like to pretend you do.
F: If you had any idea of how the world works, or the guile behind it, you would not be disregarding the past practical manifestations of this example. Nobody mandates that party members have a shared agenda, yet they do - because there are political forces such as donations driving politicians' actions and because THE MAIN STATES THAT WOULD ELECT MITT ROMNEY ALSO CONTRIBUTE THE MAJORITY OF CONSERVATIVES IN THE CONGRESS & SENATE, HENCE ENSURING THAT THE MAJORITY HAVE SIMILAR AGENDAS. When you learn how to differentiate between how things theoretically and practically work please comment on my knowledge of not just how a tiny pocket of politics called "American Politics", but also THE WORLD works...you sound libertarian, NOT CONSERVATIVE to me. I am also a libertarian, which is why I am not a Republican.
A: No [F], I am a Republican through and through. I am simply stating that you should not go on pretending you have an actual understand of American Politics, and do not call then a "tiny pocket". If you had any world knowledge you would understand that what will be happening in America is one of the single most important elections in the coming decade. Now here is the thing. You have an exceptionally large vocabulary, which it appears you attempt to hide behind. As anyone who can understand what your are saying would understand that it is senseless gibberish that is basically repeating the same thing over and over again...you are a drone, If I may say. You have no understanding of what you are actually saying, you only understand how to convey your ever impressive vocabulary. Which in life, as much as you may hope, will get you 0 friends
F: [A], I put forward two very functional arguments on why your ideology rarely works. I guess though, I am anything, if you may say.
A: Honestly I am quite sick of this asinine conversation. So I shall resort to my default response. Quiet yourself [insults F]
F: Oh dear, liberty and justice embodied have spoken. Lo and behold how they abstain from casual contradiction like few before.
A: Go fuck yourself.
F: Shhh, it shall all be alright...calm down.
A: I'll reiterate. Go fuck yourself, also get off my post.
F: Reconsider why you are so insistent on berating ME rather than my argument and CALM DOWN BRENTHEN, DAMN.
A: Let me reestablish my position. Go fuck yourself.
H: Y'all ball so hard.
G: Ye shall cease your dispute.
H: Everyone calm down or I will be forced to get involved. And then dat shit cray.
G: my comment has been eaten alive! i shall demand justice!
A: Oooohhhh [H], he so Cray cray!!! He fuk shit up in da ghetto! He one badasss muttha fucka
E: Um...Sorry to disrupt but,I'll read a part of the Introduction Sheet that we received during the meeting:
'Debating Etiquette'. 3. "....Refrain from using any type of name-calling or insulting during the debate."
4."Conform to the standards of formal speech practiced in debating by eliminating colloquialisms,slang and swear-words from your vocabulary during the debate."
A: [E]. Fuck off.
E: Oh,really? It's you who should calm down! You weren't following the basic etiquettes that are necessary in debating! You kept asking [F] to f**k off,saying that she'll have 0 friends,calling her [insult] (even though she is),which wasn't an appropriate title.
A: [E], you seem to be confused. This isn't a debate. Did you not know that? Did you miss the memo? So why don't you stop playing the people's advocate and instead, go with my saying of the day. Go fuck yourself. Don't you have some girls to stalk [E]?
I: hm, now this is getting personal.
A: Yep.
--post terminated--
