WRDL Debate #3: The Rise of European Nationalism: Winner: Thurisaz

[Lord Commander Palis]

Congratulations!

Thanks dude!

 

[Fawlty]

Oh christ he's made a copy of himself

 

[Fawlty]

Judge Decision is in



HomerThompson scores the debate for snakedafunky

Winner: snakedafunky

I thought snakedafunky was the clear winner. He used historical precedent for how a rise in nationalism is bad for Europe. His position was consistent and supported. Thuriasz was all over the place and never really recovered from a very poorly crafted opening statement that offered no evidence or supporting arguments how his thesis of nationalism rising in Europe being a good thing. His tone was also terrible from a presentation standpoint. Presenting a poor argument in an arrogant fashion makes his claims even weaker for consumption.

snakedafunky easy

IDL scores the debate for Thurisaz

This was a very close and hard to call debate for numerous reasons, but I am choosing Thurisaz as the winner.

The primary reason is because Snakedafunky's argument relies on avoiding the universal nature and properties of nationalism, and simplifying WWII down to something caused by said nationalism when it is more complex. That a rise in nationalism (as compared to a rise in globalism) in Europe would cause pre-1945 conditions and lead up to another war is disproved simply by seeing nationalism existing all over the globe in greater degrees than Europe and there not being any sort of end of days scenario, so basically the primary presuppositions, while supplemented with some examples, are not sturdy IMO.

So, fundamental flaws. That and he also did not engage many of Thurisaz' points whereas Thurisaz did engage Snakedafunky on all points.

Secondary assertions (like there generally being more potential for conflict/competition between various nations) were strong though.

Thurisaz primary point was that nationalism was good in contrast to globalism, and that the preservation of peoples and cultures leads to a more cohesive society, and a retaining of some degree of sovereignty as power closer to home is more likely to serve the people. I think he could have been a lot more clear when making these points though and how it tied in with the larger theme.

Snakedafunky did use some historical examples and his argument was clearer and to the point moreso, and Thurisaz was not coherent at times, especially in the opening statement. So Snakedafunky pulled into an early lead but the debate was marred by different definitions of nationalism and I found Thurisaz, while not clear at times, applied the concept better and the universal nature of it was not something that could be avoided.

I almost scored it a draw, so there was certainly no run-away in this debate as I saw it.

So good job to you both, kudos for taking part.

Palis scores the debate for Thurisaz

Winner: @Thurisaz

Firstly, this debate got a little annoying with them arguing over the definition of Nationalism and how it applies to the rise of European Nationalism. I think snakedafunky was either confused or thought he could somehow spin this and use it as ammo. Thurisaz was right on the dot with his definition and applications he made towards the rise of European Nationalism. As discussed by you guys in here as well, this was kind of a big chunk of the debate and I think it took away from the debate but also made snakedafunky look bad and have less substance.

Secondly, snake's other main point and argument is that the rise of Nationalism in Europe will always be racist... LOL!! Dealing in absolutes like that is retarded, sorry. Because people want their land and their people protected and taken care of first (I'm being very basic with this) does not mean it will "always" be racist. Sure, in the past, racism has been apart of Nationalism, I think though times were different, education, the spreading of modern information is way different. I think that Nationalism, especially Europe, hell anywhere, can work without it being racist... but then again, anything can be racist nowadays to some.

Also, I do not understand snake's constant refuting of tribalism when it comes to Nationalism. I mean... what? Tribalism is everywhere and if you don't think it plays a huge part in Nationalism then you're a damn fool imo as Nationalism is essentially tribalism on a much larger scale.

Lastly, I liked snake's history take on Nationalism, I like how he applied it to his arguments... I don't like how he deals in absolutes. His way of thinking is obsolete imo and not really forward thinking adjusting for modern times. We are talking about Europe here, not the middle east. BECAUSE of history, Europe has had quite a few wake up calls. Currently, they are having a very big wake up call in the form of Islam and integrating with "refugees". I don't believe 'history always repeats itself' and that is basically the crux of snake's argument. History is wonderful, it is a amazing teaching tool, it makes us as a human species better, it doesn't ALWAYS repeat, unless of course you're thinking is completely basic then yeah, we will have wars in the future, like in the past. Yes in some places in the world some asshole will take power and hurt others, blah blah. The correlation of the rise of European Nationalism and the past is just that, the past. Today is way different than the times of the 'One Hundred Day Offensive'.

Because of these distinctions, in my opinion, snakedafunky lost the argument on his own. Is this Rise of Nationalism a good thing? It can be subjective and of someones opinion, so it depends. Do Europeans believe their way of life is under attack? Can 'outsiders' assimilate, be productive and overall work well in Europe in 20 years? 40 years? 100 years? Should Europe risk that or is Europe better on their own, taking care of their own? These are all open ended questions that should be asked and answered with ones opinion, but never called racist.

Without a doubt I thought Thurisaz had the most logical approach, whether I agree on the Rise of Nationalism being good for Europe or not, I wasn't feeling snakedafunkys approach and arguments.

I did like the debate though... I think maybe I was a bit harsh on snakedafunky because he did post some good stuff, but his argument, albeit one that probably would be made by most on the other side of the spectrum, was not one I particularly like and believe to be disingenuous overall... and I am trying to say this as respectfully as possible.

Winner by split decision: Thurisaz


This debate went smoothly and the participants both put in a good amount of work. Thanks to the judges and the participants, and to Lead, Limbo Pete, JDragon, and Bald1.


Thread is now open for all bitching, bickering, feedback and nudes.

 

[HomerThompson]

I'll let the participants have a crack at our reasoning for our decisions before I weigh in again.

 

[Pwent]

homerthompson sided with the lefty side

i, for one, am shocked

 

[snakedafunky]

Judge Decision is in



HomerThompson scores the debate for snakedafunky





IDL scores the debate for Thurisaz





Palis scores the debate for Thurisaz




Winner by split decision: Thurisaz


This debate went smoothly and the participants both put in a good amount of work. Thanks to the judges and the participants, and to Lead, Limbo Pete, JDragon, and Bald1.


Thread is now open for all bitching, bickering, feedback and nudes.

How is that possible?
The topic clearly states "The rise of nationalism in Europe is a good thing". That refers to a clear event in history.
It's like "The rise of communism in Europe is a good thing" or "The rise of fascism in Europe is a good thing" or "The rise of the Roman empire in Europe is a good thing".
They all are events with a clear timeline.

I mean this is not even a disputed historic fact. Has anyone of the judges typed this into google even once?
Seems like people want to discuss right-wing populism and not the "The Rise of nationalism in Europe is a good thing.
Which I made clear at the start.

@Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty

 

[Limbo Pete]

Solid debate, boys. I'll update the other thread soon as i'm not mobile.

 

[Quipling]

This debate was a let down. Thuriaz had a much cleaner argument in his first debate. This one rambled and was overweighted with rhetoric and talking points
. snake did a better job of sticking to his thesis (and within the bounds of the question) but otherwise wasn't better, and often worse.

Palis's analysis was sophomoric. IDL had the most succinct breakdown of the judges, but it looks like his priors tipped the decision.

 

[Lord Commander Palis]

How is that possible?
The topic clearly states "The rise of nationalism in Europe is a good thing". That refers to a clear event in history.
It's like "The rise of communism in Europe is a good thing" or "The rise of fascism in Europe is a good thing" or "The rise of the Roman empire in Europe is a good thing".
They all are events with a clear timeline.

I mean this is not even a disputed historic fact. Has anyone of the judges typed this into google even once?
Seems like people want to discuss right-wing populism and not the "The Rise of nationalism in Europe is a good thing.
Which I made clear at the start.

@Lead @Limbo Pete @JDragon @HomerThompson @IDL @Palis @Thurisaz @snakedafunky @Bald1 @Fawlty

You still miss the mark.

Your examples are interesting because you seem to equate the rise of Nationalism to facism, communism and the Roman empire...? Why is that? All seemingly negatives that Nationalism is lumped into with.

This topic is odd and I think snake your whole argument is based on history repeating itself. It's not a very strong argument for todays age and political climate if we're purely talking about the Rise of European Nationalism in 2017, which has been addressed right?

 

[snakedafunky]

You still miss the mark.

Your examples are interesting because you seem to equate the rise of Nationalism to facism, communism and the Roman empire...? Why is that? All seemingly negatives that Nationalism is lumped into with.

This topic is odd and I think snake your whole argument is based on history repeating itself. It's not a very strong argument for todays age and political climate if we're purely talking about the Rise of European Nationalism in 2017, which has been addressed right?

In that case the topic should have been The Rise of European Nationalism in 2017.

I brought up fascism, communism or Roman empire to show that the Rise of Nationalism in Europe is also a historic event.
You wouldn't discuss communism without Marx and Engels or fascism without Mussolini.
Saying it didn't start with the French revolution is simply wrong. And Nationalist today still want the same thing the people wanted when the Rise of Nationalism in Europe started.

 

[Jesus H. Sherdog]

Nationalism is the belief in national self-determinism. That's about as succinct as it can be put.

And that was the result of the original rise of nationalism in Europe: Serbia and Greece winning independence from the Ottomon Empire, Belgium from the Netherlands, Norwegian independence, Poland, Hungary, etc. By 1815 the major powers in Europe restored the old dynastic system as much as possible, finally resulting in the Carlsbad Decrees pushing nationalism underground.

Hegel (who is the equivalent to Marx for nationalism, not Napoleon the military dictator) argued that nationalism was what would hold modern societies together after the decline of dynastic and religious allegiance.

 

[HomerThompson]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

I've got to disagree with all the fairy tale descriptions of nationalism in here. Nationalism is patriotism's ruder, uglier, dangerous bigger brother. It is about thinking your nation and it's people are inherently superior to others. It's not the belief that every nation should determine it's own course. It's a heightened love of country. It's consistently led to disaster in Europe, as argued by @snakedafunky, and I've yet to see anyone show how it is a good force in Europe. Not in history, and not how it's principles could be of benefit now.

@Thurisaz didn't address this in any way in his arguments, and used no examples to support the assertion(that a rise of nationalism is a positive force in Europe). I've seen several more posters assert this benign definition of nationalism that doesn't mesh with history(certainly not in Europe), and isn't the common meaning when discussing it as a phenomenon. It's bullocks.

 

[IDL]

In that case the topic should have been The Rise of European Nationalism in 2017.

I brought up fascism, communism or Roman empire to show that the Rise of Nationalism in Europe is also a historic event.
You wouldn't discuss communism without Marx and Engels or fascism without Mussolini.
Saying it didn't start with the French revolution is simply wrong. And Nationalist today still want the same thing the people wanted when the Rise of Nationalism in Europe started.

I thought you brought up some historical references to argue that it was a bad thing today, right now, in Europe.

Is that not the case?

 

[Thurisaz]

@HomerThompson was about as confused about what Nationalism is as was my opponent. He also didn't understand that the reason I didn't back my stuff in my initial statement was the original 500 word limit for it, which meant all I could do with that was to put forth the arguments I'd be willing to defend. I noticed the previously unmentioned change that removed the size restriction in the formatting later in the debate.

And yes, as @Palis points out, I could easily have refuted the "EN always leads to Nazis" argument by pointing out several European countries that had Nationalist policies for a long time without invading or concentration camping anyone.

Like @IDL noted, I was the only one actually engaging my opponent's arguments, which was tremendously frustrating as I felt it robbed me a chance to back my initial arguments up with substance. His point about WWII being a direct result of Nationalism is also good; WWII was very much a direct result of the enormous punitive measures against the German people, not Nationalism.

I still find it funny that @snakedafunky thinks arguments against multinational empires could in any shape or form be arguments against nationalism. He really should consult the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

 

[Lead]

I'm going to unstick this. Let post-debate debate ensue

 

[CableandThanos]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nationalism

I've got to disagree with all the fairy tale descriptions of nationalism in here. Nationalism is patriotism's ruder, uglier, dangerous bigger brother. It is about thinking your nation and it's people are inherently superior to others. It's not the belief that every nation should determine it's own course. It's a heightened love of country. It's consistently led to disaster in Europe, as argued by @snakedafunky, and I've yet to see anyone show how it is a good force in Europe. Not in history, and not how it's principles could be of benefit now.

@Thurisaz didn't address this in any way in his arguments, and used no examples to support the assertion(that a rise of nationalism is a positive force in Europe). I've seen several more posters assert this benign definition of nationalism that doesn't mesh with history(certainly not in Europe), and isn't the common meaning when discussing it as a phenomenon. It's bullocks.

When you think dumb shit like this no wonder you post the way you do.

Jesus Christ, the judges couldn't even get on the same page about what they are suppose to be "judging"?

This turned out exactly like I said it would. The left screaming racism. You tried to respond to me that there were other things involved, but here in your own words, is your definition of the topic at hand.

Pathetic and one of the main issues people complained about when this debate program first came up.

 

[HomerThompson]

When you think dumb shit like this no wonder you post the way you do.

Jesus Christ, the judges couldn't even get on the same page about what they are suppose to be "judging"?

This turned out exactly like I said it would. The left screaming racism. You tried to respond to me that there were other things involved, but here in your own words, is your definition of the topic at hand.

Pathetic and one of the main issues people complained about when this debate program first came up.

LOL. Correctly identifying what nationalism is hardly makes me dumb. Also, when did anyone scream about racism? Additionally, I don't recall responding to you on this topic at all. Could you point that out for me? Thanks.

 

[CableandThanos]

LOL. Correctly identifying what nationalism is hardly makes me dumb. Also, when did anyone scream about racism? Additionally, I don't recall responding to you on this topic at all. Could you point that out for me? Thanks.

My bad that was Fawlty on the first page, I get both you douches mixed up .

Im just gonna say what I first said when I saw your name associated with any type of debate judging, DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP.

You being anywhere near a debate is fuckin hilarious.

 

[Rod1]

The primary reason is because Snakedafunky's argument relies on avoiding the universal nature and properties of nationalism, and simplifying WWII down to something caused by said nationalism when it is more complex. That a rise in nationalism (as compared to a rise in globalism) in Europe would cause pre-1945 conditions and lead up to another war is disproved simply by seeing nationalism existing all over the globe in greater degrees than Europe and there not being any sort of end of days scenario, so basically the primary presuppositions, while supplemented with some examples, are not sturdy IMO.

@IDL

Thats a bad premise because the world at large is under the period of Pax Americana and the threat of nuclear war.

You can rest assured that if America retreated back to isolationism and Monroe Doctrine and nukes were out of the picture, then war would certainly become an issue in the vast majority of Asia and Africa.

 

[Rod1]

You still miss the mark.

Your examples are interesting because you seem to equate the rise of Nationalism to facism, communism and the Roman empire...? Why is that? All seemingly negatives that Nationalism is lumped into with.

This topic is odd and I think snake your whole argument is based on history repeating itself. It's not a very strong argument for todays age and political climate if we're purely talking about the Rise of European Nationalism in 2017, which has been addressed right?

Because nationalism by defintion is coupled with forced isolation and forced isolation only generates mistrust with neighbours and an instance where there is nothing to lose by breaking up relationships.