First affirmative: Tommy
Looks like my readers care about me more than those unloyal bastards over at Grods. 5 votes more care. So, let us begin the debate, and see how long it is before Tommy makes a ‘master debator’ joke as he argues….

ALL BLOGGERS ARE FULL OF SHIT

I realise the immediate hypocrisy. If all bloggers are full of shit, then I, as a blogger, are, by extention, full to the brim with steamy, stinky, almost-rancid poo-poo. Shit so horrible that even its owner doesn’t like the smell. But I’m cool with that. Because unless you’re a deep sea adventurer, or a bounty hunter with nothing to lose, or an FBI Agent on a plane full of snakes, nobody’s life pumps out enough interesting stuff to feed a blog. You can write about politics, or television, or side boobs, but everything you write is based off your own reality. And, as Big Brother has shown us, reality is boring.

And that’s where the shit comes in. Bullshit specifically. It is the lifeblood of a blog. Bloggers bullshit outrage at politics, they bullshit interest in news, they bullshit boring events for the sake of entertainment, they even bullshit words like bullshit into turning from a noun to a verb. Their bullshit knows no shit-bounds.

I hear you thinking to yourself, ‘Tommy, I’m almost convinced, but I’ll need some evidence.’ I also heard what you really think about Muslims, and you should be ashamed of yourself. But if evidence is what you want, evidence is what you’ll get. I give you exhibit A:

Grods readers should be familiar with Samuel Gordon Stewart, as should readers of my blog, as should any number of psychiatric services in Canberra’s suburbs. You want the prime example of bloggers being full of shit?

Read this.

Sambo wrote, by my count, 567 words about Magpies. He even managed to mention how cuts in the ACT Budget affect magpies, a combination of politics and birds that illustrates just how full of shit he is. I am in awe of his shit. I want to smear it over my face and pretend I’m a blogging negro. Look at this quote…

Magpies are lovely birds, they deserve our respect and courtesy.

If this was Today Tonight, a big red rubber stamp graphic would have come over the top of that, and stamped 100% A-GRADE AUSTRALIAN GRAIN-FED BULLSHIT.

Now, The Ed will say in his rebuttal that Samuel Gordon-Stewart doesn’t represent all bloggers. That he’s one man amongst a roster of millions. He’ll then say that my argument was, itself, full of shit, a paradox that I will have no answer for. Then he’ll say it was a bit weird how I said I wanted to smear Sambo’s shit over my face. And then he’ll cry a little.

We all know that’s what is going to happen, so just remember - he is a blogger. As I’ve proved conclusively, using a multitude/one example, all bloggers are full of shit.

I’m not though, cause I’m not a blogger anymore.

I’m a master debator.

Thank you.
__________

First negative: The Editor
It may be useful to begin my defence by noting the definition of “shit”: Solid excretory product evacuated from the bowels. Although Wiktionary provides many (eight) definitions of the word, this is the first, most obvious, and most literal. And if I were arguing that not all bloggers were full of solid excretory product then I could win this debate in less than 100 words by simply pointing to the fact that at least one blogger is not full of shit, for it is outside of his body and smeared on Tommy. Ladies and gentlemen: not all bloggers are full of shit, and some are covered in it. (Sob!)

But I think definition number six is more relevant to this debate:

Nonsense, bullshit
Eg. Everything he says is a load of shit

The expression of any opinion automatically invites screams of “bullshit!” due the guaranteed fact that somebody will disagree with that opinion. Blogging, being the online broadcasting of opinion, is therefore nothing more than a bandwidth tsunami of bullshit. My entire case in this debate will be that there must be one — just one — blogger out there who is not full of shit, bringing the total of shit-filled bloggers to a 32nd-decimal-place-sliver beneath 100%.

I therefore launch my three part attempt to prove that not all bloggers are full of shit by pointing to examples of high quality writing that make valuable contributions to wider debates about politics, society and the human condition. In fact, I will rely heavily on linguistic and legal technicalities due to a distinct lack of writing that makes valuable contributions to wider debates about politics, society and the human condition. If I can successfully argue that at least one blogger is not full of shit then, ladies and gentlemen of the audience, you will have no choice but to kneel down before me vote for The Editor after his demolition of Tommy.

Case in point 1: The Neo-Con
James Paterson may seem at first glance to be totally full of shit, but look a little deeper and you’ll be surprised. His liberal (pun intended) use of the labels EXCLUSIVE and SCOOP are evidence of his outstanding Google journalism leaving mainstream media in his dust. And when he’s not solving economic and geo-political policy dilemmas by quoting his first year uni economics textbook he’s helpfully outlining the Australian political landscape for five-year-olds and inbred foreigners:

Just in case you hadn’t guessed from the title - I’m right wing.

In Australia this makes me a Liberal - but don’t worry American readers, not your pansy left-wing liberals, in Australia the Liberal party is the mainstream conservative political party.

[…]

Our equivalent of the Democrats is called the Labor party. Yes it’s true; they cannot spell…

Case in point 2: Mangled Thoughts
This one’s a legal technicality. The appropriately titled blog by a guy named Douglas makes for excruciating reading. Although there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that Douglas is full of shit, the nature of his writing is such that a charge of being full of shit would never stand up in court. With the burden of proof on the prosecution, the case would be thrown out due to the overwhelming presence of utterly incomprehensible sentences.

Case in point 3: Iain Hall
This one’s a piece of piss. Iain “Niceperson” Hall is so full of himself there can’t possibly be any room left for shit. Open and shut.

Anyway, how does one prove that a blogger is full of shit as opposed to just containing shit? There is an onus on Tommy to prove that every blogger in the world is filled to 100% capacity with shit. In short, Tommy’s whole argument is a precariously built house of cards designed to conceal his own blogging flaws, thus proving that he thinks his shit doesn’t smell. The attack on Samuel Gordon-Stewart is like a closet homosexual calling another person a fag, but about magpies because Tommy’s clearly a magpie lover.

I rest my case.
__________

Second affirmative: Tommy
First off Ed, the ‘define the debate word’ trick turned into cliche around Year 5. I almost thought for a second we’d have to thank the timekeeper, the adjudicator and the kids from Our Lady Of The Rosary Primary School for hosting us in their library once we were done.

As for The Ed’s argument, he’s saying that all he needs to do is find one (1) blogger that is not full of shit to prove his point. Which makes sense. I am, of course, arguing that All Bloggers Are Full of Shit. But his argument is dependent on the fact that his examples of bloggers who are not full of shit are actually….. not full of shit.

Let’s take a look at his evidence. Blogger #1 - The Neo-Con. First off, Neo is the name of the guy from The Matrix, and the last 2 Matrix movies were full of shit, therefore ergo henceforth - full of shit. He’s also an 18 Year Old Liberal voter from Melbourne, which adds ‘pretentious private school tosspot’ to his resume, bringing his FullOfShit score to an even 100%.

Tommy’s Verdict - Full Of Shit.

Ed’s second example was Mangled Thoughts. Ed made a good point, this guy writes longer, more incomprehensible sentences than Kim Beazley’s speech writers. Therefore, one cannot truly ascertain whether is is indeed full to the brim of crap so solid that Tom Cruise made a bronze statue out of it.

Or can we?

Let’s take a closer look at his links…

Yes. He uses the word ‘Charlatan’. Twice, if you count ‘Environ-Charlatanism’, which has the dubious honour of making no sense while still sounding like it was written by a complete wanker.

Tommy’s Verdict - Full Of Shit.

Finally, the 3rd example. According to Ed, Iain Hall is so full of himself that he can’t be room left for shit. But, after reading Hall’s blog, I have come to the conclusion that Iain is shit. Therefore - if he is full of himself, he is, by extension, full of shit.

Tommy’s Verdict - Full Of Shit.

But I’m not done. A rebuttal isn’t just me destroying my opponent’s argument, I also have to introduce some new evidence. So, if we take a page out of Ed’s book and start some unecessary defining, we’d all probably agree that if someone is ‘full of shit’, it means they’re either a wanker, a whiny bitch, or a liar. That’s obviously the scientific definition, but let’s run with it.

Now, in light of that definition, let’s take a look at this quote from a prominent blogger.

Familiar? Let me give you a hint. The author has a site that rhymes with ‘Rods’, as in the euphemism for peen. He’s also my opponent in debating, and by my last calculation, that was his FIRST out of three responses. Yet, he, and I quote, “rests his case”. So, if The Editor responds to my rebuttal, he is lying and therefore - full of shit.

I will assume he forfeits, and declare myself the winner. I also declare that there will be a big party to celebrate, and star of The Girl Next Door, Elisha Cuthbert, will present the trophy to me.

(The trophy is a handjob)

Thank you.
__________

Second negative: The Editor
It might be handy to begin my rebuttal of Tommy’s last piece by looking at the definition of the word “case”. In light of that definition it will quickly become apparent that I was merely resting my “piece of luggage that can be used to transport an apparatus such as a sewing machine”, for it was becoming quite heavy. Thankyou timekeeper, adjudicator, and students of Our Lady for hosting this event.

Before continuing I’d like to make a brief point about how I could win this thing without any trouble at all.

You see, to try and expose a single blogger that is not full of shit I could simply point to examples such as eggbaconshipsandbeans — a favourite food porn site of mine. I enjoy reading these factual posts with lovely factual pictures of English breakfast fry-ups to remind myself of those wonderful days I spent in London. If the man says there are red formica tables, vinegar at every place, chunky yellow chips, and he backs it up with photographic evidence, who are we to argue?

Or I could point to GrodsCorp’s very own jLo whose travel blog proves that she is far from full of shit, rather she is full of highly amusing tales and, more often than not, beer.

But where would the fun be in that?

Instead, having been forced by (un)popular vote to argue a side of this debate that is almost certainly unwinnable due to probable voting trends, I must at this point consider how it is that I can best drag Tommy down with me as I crash and burn. I must ensure that in sealing his victory Tommy has no choice but to use his final turn to eat his own liver. With this in mind, ladies and gentlemen, by the conclusion of this argument I will have shown you why I believe that Tommy – a blogger – is not full of shit. This brilliant strategy makes sure that Tommy has no option but to dedicate his final 750 words to destroying any last scrap of credibility and pride he may still posses; that is, after being totally humbled last time around by Iain Hall.

1) Tommy has a human side

Regardless of his tendency to attack anyone/thing different to him, he has actually written a well-argued, well-considered and admirable piece about political intolerance of homosexual marriage:

As I’ve said before on this blog, I’m a different strokes (hehe strokes) for different folks kinda guy. I don’t care who you worship (unless you’re a Mormon), who you vote for (unless it’s Liberal) or who you want to shag (unless they’re ugly).

There’s also a really nice pic of kissing lesbians at the bottom.

2) Tommy hates Wil Anderson
It’s a totally normal reaction to a totally ordinary talent:

I hate the way he sucks in his saliva after he makes a joke. I hate that his name only has one L, and how I only realised that after I wrote ‘Will’ twenty-five times in this blog. I hate the way he speaks. I hate the way he always laughs at his own jokes.

I mean, who can argue with that kind of logic?

3) Tommy makes biting social comment casually disguised as humour

Check out this scathing-but-spot-on assessment of the concept of “middle Australia”:

Middle Australia is not something you can define. It’s an intangible construct, derived from post-modern concepts of our very existence. A veritable paradox of disenfranchisement in the information anti-disestablishmentarianism jimmybingbong era.

I could’ve picked out three noxious examples from my own blog, put them forward as beacons of superior blogging, and waited for their subsequent annihilation by my worthless worthy foe. However there are far too many shit-filled posts to choose from and I lack the resilience to deal with that sort of negative attention. Also, I’d hate to give Iain Hall any ammunition to go off and post on his dirty corner of the internet the blog equivalent of a smug, shit-eating grin of an I told you so entry. So, Tommy, with your own blogging in the spotlight it’s over to you. Will you accept the fact that you are not completely full of shit and therefore forfeit the debate to me, or will you suck it in and prove your shitfilledness in order to claim victory?

My case is once again resting.
__________

Third affirmative: Tommy
After minutes of effort, we’ve finally come to this. My last response. The third affirmative. The big one. The one that people will talk about for seconds to come.

And what has the discussion turned to, after Ed’s skillful dodging of his case resting?

Me.

I can’t say I’m shocked, I am a little attention whore. I just figured I would be the one making the debate about me. But I didn’t want it like this. I mean, choosing between my own competitiveness and my own dignity! Do I say ‘Yes, I’m full of shit’, win the debate and upload a video of me stripping? Or do I say ‘No, I am not full of shit’ and keep my pride? And then upload a video of me stripping?

There’s no easy solution. Dignity and pride, or the glory of winning a meanginless debate on the all-important BLOGOSPHERE?

Hmm…

I’ll take glory for $500, thanks Alex.

I AM FULL OF SHIT.
A conclusion, by Tommy

Let’s take a look at Ed’s evidence first.

That Homo Marriage blog? Full of shit. I mean, I linked opposition to gay marriage to the White Australia policy. I made it seem like if you let Bert and Ernie tie the knot, that you may as well hook up old Jethro to a cross and have some Kentucky Fried Negro. Full of shit.

The Wil Anderson blog - I said, and I quote, ‘I’m not saying I’m funnier than Wil Anderson’. That’s bullshit. I am absolutely funnier than Wil Anderson. I also said that I wasn’t saying ‘I was better than him’, which is also bullshit, because I don’t spell my name ‘Tomy’ like a little consonant-excluding cockmuncher. Ergo - better than him.

My Guide To Middle Australia - Ok, this one was awesome. But, I made a Kim Beazley fat joke - the same tired old comedy I bagged out Wil Anderson for. Therefore, I was hypocritical, and, you guessed it - full of shit.

And these specific examples ignore just how full of shit my blog is. First off, my name isn’t Tommy, that’s my nickname. My name is Gareth. And this may shock you, but I’m really not that cool. I mean, I’m not uncool, I have a leather jacket, but I’m pretty middle of-the-road. Hell, the name of my blog is TommyIsCoolDotCom, and I don’t even own that domain. More bullshit. And according to the person that does own the domain, Seattle is Beautiful in the Spring. Considering it’s in one of the coldest states in America, MORE bullshit. I’m even indirectly full of shit!

Now I could sit here for days and pick apart my own blog. I’m my own worst enemy. It’s horrible. It’s almost as bad as say, admitting to liking Rolf Harris shows. But it’s time to end this charade, to win this cage fight once and for all, like Don Muraco over ‘Superfly’ Jimmy Snuka at Madison Square Garden in 1983, only this time Jimmy Snuka won’t come back into the blog and give me a Superfly Splash from the top of the cage. You’re such a sore loser, Superfly Jimmy Snuka.

Anyway, now is the part where I make a callback to my first blog, making it seem like I have a coherent argument and a logical train of thought. As I said there, bloggers bullshit. They bullshit so much they turn it into a verb. You want proof? Me and Ed have spent nearly 3000 words debating whether or not bloggers are full of shit, on an internet blog.

And there were no pictures of boobies.

If that’s not full of shit, I don’t know what is.

I rest my case.
__________

Third negative: The Editor
So just like Tommy said, almost 3000 words have been blogged in the GrodsCage and I have a sinking feeling that anything I bother writing here is going to make b(l)og-all difference to the adjudication of this debate. My opponent has had a very successful crack at proving the world’s most obvious claim: that all bloggers are full of shit. In the course of our CageFight he has pointed to some excellent examples of shit-filled bloggers, including himself. In defence I’ve tried hard to posit that some bloggers aren’t totally filled with shit through the use of technicalities, but the force of Tommy’s affirmative arguments has been almost overwhelming (even though I’ve been funnier.)

I’m spent. I’ve got nothing left to give.

However, after briefly considering forfeiting the contest and taking GrodsCorp offline in disgrace, I have decided to give it one final red-hot go. Drawing on the spirit of the Queensland Liberal/National coalition — who are now blatantly chasing the sympathy vote in tomorrow’s state election — I’m going to appeal to my readers’ sense of pity and inbuilt support for the underdog.

You see, ladies and gentlemen. The blogosphere is full of shit and it’s only getting worse. Regardless of how useful bloggers may once have been there are two main ways in which the reputation of blogging is being further soiled every day:

(a) People like Iain Hall who believe that they’re making valuable contributions to the sum total of human understanding and knowledge one filthy and illiterate blog post at a time. But that’s just one remote outpost of rural Queensland. Multiply Iain Hall by a couple of million and it’s a truly frightening prospect. And just for the record, I’m highly aware of my own full-of-shit status, but a lot more realistic about the likely social, political and global influence of my blog.

(b) The commercialisation of blogging whereby the whole concept of blogging is hijacked and twisted to serve the nasty purposes of corporations like McDonalds and news organisations like The Sydney Morning Herald and News Ltd. I’ve written before about how journalists are giving up on journalism in favour of publishing the opinions of Kevin from Bathurst as news (Hi, Kev!)

Add to that the billions of assorted emo and MySpace blogs, along with one GrodsCorp and one TommyIsCoolDotCom, and there’s no doubt that the blogosphere is a generally shitty place. But let’s, for a moment, consider what could’ve been and what is still possible.

Blogging represents the democratisation of information flow. Whereas 20 years ago Kevin from Bathurst was dependant upon his local newspaper, and television and radio stations for news and comment, thanks to the internet and blogging Kevin from Bathurst now is the news and comment. What if Kevin from Bathurst offered researched, well-formed and reasonably articulated writing to the world that made a valuable contribution to wider debates about politics, society and the human condition? What if it was possible to turn to the blogosphere as another source from which information and opinion could be gathered and critically incorporated into one’s worldview? Can it be that amongst the mountains and piles and avalanches of shit blogging there is but one blogger whose work was the first building block of the respectable blogosphere? Can it be that there is one blogger out there who is not full of shit?

After three attempts to prove that not all bloggers are full of shit my final message to you, ladies and gentlemen, is that you should dare to dream. Dream of a world where blogging is a noble and admirable pursuit. Dream of a world where blogging can make a difference. Dream that somewhere out there is a blogger who will defy the current trends and trigger a blogging revolution.

If you dare to dream, ladies and gentlemen, vote affirmative for negative. Vote yes for no. Dare to dream and vote for The Editor.

Make a difference.

I rest my case.