• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

The Debate Hall Social Thread

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
Speaking of threads, would it be reasonable to post my rebuttal to Amy Chua's Why Chinese Mothers are Superior?

It's heavily anecdotal, but so is hers, so I think it functions as a rebuttal.
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
her article was really taken out of context.

the book is actually about how she learned that her parenting methods were wrong.

her publisher probably thought it would be a good idea to stir up controversy and get publicity for the book (it worked)
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
knock yourself out. the best debate we've had in awhile is taking place in the CE thread, but we could always use a new topic to discuss.

I'd be interested in knowing if we could up the total thread count on the page. There's 10 total, and SEVEN are stickies. (We should sticky this thread too, lol). I'm all for stickies. But leaving only the 2 most recent topics viewable is kind of lame.
It's because the others haven't been posted in in over a month. :( You can see them by messing with how much of the old content you want to see (it's near the bottom of the forum).

I've been away for way too long... how y'all doing?
Damn straight you have!
 

adumbrodeus

Smash Legend
Joined
Aug 21, 2007
Messages
11,321
Location
Tri-state area
Combination of mafia, schoolwork, work, relationships (yes, plural), and social obligations has kept me away.


Oh, and my broken wii means I'm not on smashboards as often as I used to be, though that will change once I fix it.
 

Sieguest

Smash Master
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
3,448
Location
San Diego, CA
It's because the others haven't been posted in in over a month. :( You can see them by messing with how much of the old content you want to see (it's near the bottom of the forum).
Just haven't found anything that piques my interest. (All the religious themed stuff is starting to bore me and I'm not really into some of the other topics.)

That and I'm hyping for AcaDeca Regionals. (Did the subjective events today, have the rest of the contest to do tomorrow.)
 

asianaussie

Smash Hero
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
9,337
Location
Sayonara Memories
You might regard the opposite as regarding religion as boring, which many people could consider offensive. Not everyone shares the same opinion or the same level of tolerance regarding religious matters. Some people even get quite tempermental.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
I'd be interested in knowing if we could up the total thread count on the page. There's 10 total, and SEVEN are stickies. (We should sticky this thread too, lol). I'm all for stickies. But leaving only the 2 most recent topics viewable is kind of lame.
Just saw this. In the main debate hall page, there's a box in the bottom left hand corner that allows you to display thread from all times, not just the last month. I think you can also change the setting permanently in your user CP.
 

thegreatkazoo

Smash Master
Joined
May 31, 2009
Messages
3,128
Location
Atlanta, GA
Finally gonna show some love here and post. Mother Dial(America) is a beach, along with endless applications that say "We've decided to pursue more qualified applicants." Yeah, my mind is rotting in the Classic City. :O

On point, I wanted to see thoughts concerning Egypt. On last check, Mubarak said he wants out, but won't do so because the Muslim Brotherhood would fill the void. Well, if they do fill that void (or for anyone that does), would that mean what the protesters would finally get a democracy?

I'd say no to this, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
Although it is Mubarak will leave a power vacuum, I think ElBradei being the main opposition figure may be able to ensure a transition to democracy. His support is tentative at best and as most people want a democracy, he'll have to give them one, otherwise he might get the boot. Though, I have now way of knowing how this will actually pan out.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Muslim Brotherhood did say that it would support democracy, and would use restraint in creating Islamic policies, unless that was the overwhelming mandate of the people. They could be lying though.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Although it is Mubarak will leave a power vacuum, I think ElBradei being the main opposition figure may be able to ensure a transition to democracy. His support is tentative at best and as most people want a democracy, he'll have to give them one, otherwise he might get the boot. Though, I have now way of knowing how this will actually pan out.

Also, I'm pretty sure the Muslim Brotherhood did say that it would support democracy, and would use restraint in creating Islamic policies, unless that was the overwhelming mandate of the people. They could be lying though.
Though I initially supported the protests, I'm vehemently against them now that Mubarak says he will not run again. The protesters claim they want democracy, but this is not the way to get it. The protesters basically want to overthrow the government. You know what that means? Chaos. And terrorists THRIVE off of chaos. I don't know a lot about the Muslim Brotherhood, but from what I've heard from them, I don't exactly trust them. Even if they are moderate, I don't know if they'll maintain a good relationship with the US.

If the Egyptians really want a stable, fair democracy, they should wait 7 months until the elections, where a more stable exchange of power is likely. My greatest fear is that the US's one main ally in the Arab world will go into a period of chaos and emerge under the control of someone who will cut our ties with Egypt, or worse, make us enemies.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
Though I initially supported the protests, I'm vehemently against them now that Mubarak says he will not run again.
that's probably more like a tactical political decision than anything else. There's this much opposition to him now he likely won't win a re-election.


The protesters claim they want democracy, but this is not the way to get it. The protesters basically want to overthrow the government. You know what that means? Chaos. And terrorists THRIVE off of chaos. I don't know a lot about the Muslim Brotherhood, but from what I've heard from them, I don't exactly trust them. Even if they are moderate, I don't know if they'll maintain a good relationship with the US.
The Muslim Brotherhood haven't been violent in at least a decade, furthermore they're completely disorganized they have no leadership, to say they could do anything other then tie their own shoes would give them to much credit. Your argument is basically grasping at straws, denying them the right to over throw their government because of likely terrorists ties is silly, and just shows terrorists have at least won when it comes to you.

If the Egyptians really want a stable, fair democracy, they should wait 7 months until the elections, where a more stable exchange of power is likely. My greatest fear is that the US's one main ally in the Arab world will go into a period of chaos and emerge under the control of someone who will cut our ties with Egypt, or worse, make us enemies.
Why must they wait 7 months for their current president to leave? when the 2005 election is riddled with corruption and questionable tactics. Furthermore, waiting for an election for 7 months is a problem because the Egyptian government isn't really prepared for it. Through out the entire presidency the president never made any case to turn Egypt into a real democracy, it's basically crony capitalism, if you're not friends with the administration chances are you're pretty ****ed.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
that's probably more like a tactical political decision than anything else. There's this much opposition to him now he likely won't win a re-election.
That doesn't have to do with what I'm saying.

The Muslim Brotherhood haven't been violent in at least a decade, furthermore they're completely disorganized they have no leadership, to say they could do anything other then tie their own shoes would give them to much credit. Your argument is basically grasping at straws, denying them the right to over throw their government because of likely terrorists ties is silly, and just shows terrorists have at least won when it comes to you.
I don't know why you feel that way, but regardless of whether the Muslim Brotherhood is capable of taking over is insignificant. Any terrorist that takes over is a problem, whether or not it's the Brotherhood.

Oh, they have the right to overthrow the government. It would just be a horrible idea.

Why must they wait 7 months for their current president to leave? when the 2005 election is riddled with corruption and questionable tactics. Furthermore, waiting for an election for 7 months is a problem because the Egyptian government isn't really prepared for it. Through out the entire presidency the president never made any case to turn Egypt into a real democracy, it's basically crony capitalism, if you're not friends with the administration chances are you're pretty ****ed.
It's a lot better than the alternative, which is continue to fight and die, then let chaos take over and whoever has the most power becomes president. Also, the current administration has little power; what makes you think they'll control the next election? The protesters have already accomplished the goal of preventing Mubarak from getting re-elected; now the only things further protests will accomplish are death, fear, and chaos.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
That doesn't have to do with what I'm saying.
Ever think that maybe he's not seeking re-election because there no possible way for him to win?

I don't know why you feel that way, but regardless of whether the Muslim Brotherhood is capable of taking over is insignificant. Any terrorist that takes over is a problem, whether or not it's the Brotherhood.
By that logic then why allow democracy at all, you're always running that risk why are you targetting Egypt? This could happen in any country.

It's a lot better than the alternative, which is continue to fight and die, then let chaos take over and whoever has the most power becomes president. Also, the current administration has little power; what makes you think they'll control the next election? The protesters have already accomplished the goal of preventing Mubarak from getting re-elected; now the only things further protests will accomplish are death, fear, and chaos.
The president in egypt is autocratic, there's no reason not to believe that they could swing the elections if they're not fair. This guy is a really bad guy, he through in his opposition leader in prison, his supporters beat up people who disagreed with them. He never once condemned these acts probably riled it on.

The protesters want him out now, the chance that a terrorist might get elected is a silly argument fueled by fear.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Ever think that maybe he's not seeking re-election because there no possible way for him to win?
I get your implication, but his motivations for stepping down are irrelevant. The point is that he's stepping down, even though it's probably for the wrong reasons.

By that logic then why allow democracy at all, you're always running that risk why are you targetting Egypt? This could happen in any country.
I'm not targeting the situation because it's Egypt, I'm targeting it because there's a much higher chance of a terrorist regime to take over in a chaotic situation. If there's a stable election, people are more likely to think over who they actually want to be in power, and there's a far less chance of a radical leader taking over.


The president in egypt is autocratic, there's no reason not to believe that they could swing the elections if they're not fair. This guy is a really bad guy, he through in his opposition leader in prison, his supporters beat up people who disagreed with them. He never once condemned these acts probably riled it on.
Mubarak certainly wasn't and isn't a good president, and he's handled the protests poorly, but I don't think he's going to be able to manipulate the next election. If he makes it so that his son is elected, the protesters will go nuts, and he knows that.

The protesters want him out now, the chance that a terrorist might get elected is a silly argument fueled by fear.
A terrorist won't get elected, no. The only way a terrorist could come to power in Egypt is if there's complete chaos, which I think would happen if the government is toppled. If a stable election takes place, there won't be a problem. I would hope the military would be able to maintain order if the government collapses, but I'm not entirely sure whether they're on the protesters' side or their own side.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,195
Location
Icerim Mountains
I have to side with Aesir here, the protests are still going on because Mubarak HAS to go, the protesters won't accept anything less. There were tons of "changes" recently made, concessions if you will, including an elimination of martial law, the promise of fair elections, etc. They aren't buying it. Mubarak's last election was a rigged election, so expecting him to not run or "win" again is difficult to accept. All that aside waiting 7 months is too long. It'd be akin to asking one of us to just go 7 months without electricity or food or clean water. Their very lives are at stake, at least that's how they feel, so a more immediate resolution is necessary. Plus this course of action does not mean that the new government will automatically be a bad one, because it should have the necessary oversight to ensure it's not another Mubarak that wins.

My greatest fear is that the US's one main ally in the Arab world will go into a period of chaos and emerge under the control of someone who will cut our ties with Egypt, or worse, make us enemies.

Our alliance is fake, though, due to our exploits 30 years ago which started this whole mess. As usual the US tried to establish some sort of foothold in a land not their own and the mole turned. Not siding against us over Israel is pretty much the only reason he didn't go totally Saddam Hussein on us, but the correlation is still clear.
 
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
1,172
Location
UCSD
To be fair, if the protests and such end and Mubarak is allowed to regain any power, there's no reason why Mubarak wouldn't take action against the protesters.

So they're kinda fighting for their lives here.



And it's good to be unbanned lol.
 

El Nino

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
1,288
Location
Ground zero, 1945
For an insider opinion, an Egyptian blogger/journalist answered questions from around the world about the political future of the country, the role of the Muslim Brotherhood, etc:

http://www.araborganizing.org/blog/archives/301

Hossam el-Hamalawy: I see him stepping down pretty soon or else he will be taken into custody of the protestors and will be put on trial.

I do not worry about power vacuum because the people are already taking initiatives on the ground to fill any security or political vacuums as we saw in the case of the popular committee that are running security now in the Egyptian neighborhoods, following the evacuation of the police.

Regarding ElBaradei, I do not want to see him as an interim leader because he will diffuse the revolution, not take it forward.
Washington, DC: If Mubarak steps down, is there a fear that a radical regime will take his place instead of a democratic one? How likely is that to happen?

Hossam el-Hamalawy: If you are taling radical, like in radical redistribution of wealth and active support for the spread of regional dissent against both the local Arab dictators and the western backers, then we welcome the radicalism. But if it was radicalism in the direction of religious fanatacism we definitely do not want that and I see no signs on the ground that religious fanatics are taking over.
The protests have been very organized and peaceful until the pro-government supporters got involved. Witnesses on the ground reported that after the protests moved through a neighborhood, people would stay behind to pick up trash. After the first few days when there were problems with looting, people organized their own security committees to protect themselves and their property. When looters attempted to break into the Egyptian History Museum, which houses artifacts such as King Tut's mummy, protesters formed a human shield around the museum to protect it.

The situation on the ground did not seem chaotic, prior to the pro-government rallies.

Amnesty International's summary of Egypt's human rights record:

The protests in Egypt erupted in the context of more than 30 years of severe repression and widespread human rights violations – most committed with impunity.

The government has crushed previous calls for reform using powers under a state of emergency that has been in force continuously for 30 years – the entire period of President Mubarak's rule.

Critics have been rounded up, prosecuted on trumped-up charges, and imprisoned after grossly unfair trials.

Tens of thousands of people labelled as a threat to security have been held without charge under repeated administrative detention orders, some for years. Some detainees have been systematically tortured.

About 16 million Egyptians – around one-in-five – live below the poverty line, many in sprawling slums, denied their basic social and economic rights.

The protesters across Egypt are now demanding their long-overdue human rights, they are demanding to be allowed to live in dignity and with social justice.

During the current uprising, the state has failed to protect protesters from violent attacks by police and pro-government supporters, imposed draconian restrictions on freedom of expression and rounded up, detained and allowed attacks on human rights workers and journalists.
Back in June of 2010, there were protests when the police allegedly beat a man to death for taking video footage of police corruption. His name was Khaled Said.

Article: http://www.arabist.net/blog/2010/6/14/the-murder-of-khaled-said.html
News report: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGhoJ...1&feature=fvwp

During the protests, the police and/or the military used live ammunition against the protesters, as well as vans and buses to run people over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqydgpyVNKY

Some historical background: Former Egyptian president Anwar Sadat was assassinated in 1981 by extremists for his earlier role in the Camp David Accords, which took place during the Carter administration. Mubarak assumed control of the country and put emergency law, or martial law, in place. At the time, you could say that it made sense. When a head of state gets assassinated, security is bound to be a top priority. However, the state of emergency was never lifted from 1981 to now. Under martial law, citizens have almost no rights. Media is state controlled, and police brutality is commonplace. People have been tortured and killed while in police custody.

Mubarak has said that the protesters will not be prosecuted, but given his government's history of corruption and state-sanctioned torture, no one is willing to take his word.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Wow, the irony of APNS' post is hilarious.

I have to side with Aesir here, the protests are still going on because Mubarak HAS to go, the protesters won't accept anything less. There were tons of "changes" recently made, concessions if you will, including an elimination of martial law, the promise of fair elections, etc. They aren't buying it. Mubarak's last election was a rigged election, so expecting him to not run or "win" again is difficult to accept.
As long as he actually steps down, that's all that's important. If he doesn't, then they probably should overthrow the government because he'll just keep getting reelected until he dies. But I don't think he's planning to get reelected, honestly. Not because he's an honest guy, but because he knows he'd be captured at some point.

All that aside waiting 7 months is too long. It'd be akin to asking one of us to just go 7 months without electricity or food or clean water. Their very lives are at stake, at least that's how they feel, so a more immediate resolution is necessary.
I think waiting 7 months is a lot better than risking being put under another dictatorship. Honestly all this rioting is what's giving them the worst problems right now. They waited 30 years for this, now suddenly the next 7 months are so unbelievably long that they can't wait and make sure the power handoff is stable?

Plus this course of action does not mean that the new government will automatically be a bad one, because it should have the necessary oversight to ensure it's not another Mubarak that wins.
1. There's NO way another Mubarak will get elected. If elections are rigged to put the son in office, the protesters will go nuts and probably would overthrow that administration.

2. No, it won't automatically be a bad one. It could turn out to be the government of their dreams, a nice, stable, healthy democracy. But there's a much greater chance of a radical leader taking over during a chaotic overthrowing of the government.

Our alliance is fake, though, due to our exploits 30 years ago which started this whole mess. As usual the US tried to establish some sort of foothold in a land not their own and the mole turned. Not siding against us over Israel is pretty much the only reason he didn't go totally Saddam Hussein on us, but the correlation is still clear.
I don't honestly know if they like us, but they certainly don't hate us like the rest of the middle east does. Moreover, they rely on us; we provide them with a lot of aid. So as it currently stands, they have to work with us.

{Long post}
All this is fine, and I'm not saying the protesters are barbarians or anything, but I just don't think they're prepared for what would happen if they completely overthrow the government.
 

El Nino

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 4, 2003
Messages
1,288
Location
Ground zero, 1945
All this is fine, and I'm not saying the protesters are barbarians or anything, but I just don't think they're prepared for what would happen if they completely overthrow the government.
I think they are prepared. I think the level of organization in the protests kind of attests to that. When the police pulled out, protesters organized their own security forces to stop the looting. That takes a lot of ground level work and cooperation between common people.

I also think that the fear of Muslim extremism taking root is a predominantly Western fear. It is not entirely without basis, but I think the reasoning for it is too simplistic. Witnesses on the ground reported on twitter that Christian groups offered to guard Muslim protesters when they went to pray. I think those types of alliances will have a lasting impact, and it would be hard for a Muslim extremist group to take power because too many people will remember that the Christians stood up for them.

These situations are always dangerous, and stability is one of the most important things, but people don't trust Mubarak anymore. Even if he says he wants a stable transition, no one will believe him. And if he really did want that, he would tie his loose ends now, arrange for an interim government, and leave the country. His presence is causing the most problems, and his presence is a greater threat to stability.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Fair enough, you're probably right that my fear of an unstable government is western-biased. However, I do think the protesters should be prepared with some plan of an interim government if they want to oust Mubarak. I don't think they're thinking that far ahead; they're currently just focused on getting rid of Mubarak.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Well now that Mubarak is out, it appears the military has taken over, which presumably will lead to a fairly stable exchange of power. Good news.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
Nice! I subscribed.

Yes, it is quite interesting that we don't have many national holidays dedicated to science. That's a good point that I've never really thought about.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
the chances of complete chaos breaking out was next to none, Either a transition government would have been established or a the military would have kept it stable. Regardless terrorists taking it over was a far fetched idea.

Also we should all look at how in 19 days Egypt got what Iraq tried to get in 8 years.
 

Savon

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
730
Location
New Orleans
I qualified for nationals at the NFL Louisiana State debate tournament.

Going against the best people in my state, I got 2rd in Student Congress, 2nd in Public Forum Debate, and 3nd in Extemporaneous speaking. I will be going to Dallas for nationals in June.
 
Top Bottom