Debate?

vicky23 · Post by **vicky23** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:31 am

Controversial i know. But how about capitalism vs socialism in the US?

Its probably a stalemate but id like to see you defend capitalism.

Alliteration · Post by **Alliteration** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:02 am

vicky23 wrote:Controversial i know. But how about capitalism vs socialism in the US?

Its probably a stalemate but id like to see you defend capitalism.

That seems more like a topic for economics; can you relate it to philosophy in some way?

Handcuffed · Post by **Handcuffed** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:08 am

I'm considering this, but don't want to waste too much time on it.

Possible topics would be existence of gods (I would argue against) and moral vegetarianism (I would argue for).

Alliteration · Post by **Alliteration** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:36 am

Handcuffed wrote:I'm considering this, but don't want to waste too much time on it.

Possible topics would be existence of gods (I would argue against) and moral vegetarianism (I would argue for).

I'm comfortable arguing the contrary positions on both those topics.

DoxysTurtle · Post by **DoxysTurtle** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 6:50 am

Okay like I said... On like Donkey Kong... I'd prefer this take place in real time, moderated or not, in the chatroom... Some of the possible ideas (anyone is free to steal these if they want to challenge Allit to them):

1) Whether using the Nuremburg Defense is ever ethically and morally justified
2) Whether logic is objective.
3) Whether there is a fundamental rift between science and religion.
4) Whether Zeno’s Paradox proves that there is no real relative change.
5) Whether a paradigmatic interpretation of science is valid.

Now I'm thinking semi-formal debate. Rules about response times / responses. Prepared Opening Statements and talking points. Setting a time a week or so ahead of time in chat for this to happen.

Looking forward to your response,

Dream's Turtle

blakbridge1010 · Post by **blakbridge1010** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 7:42 am

So, in the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge and debating skills, I've agreed to put in a few ideas for a debates. More will come as the trickle in, but for now, two propositions:

1. Moral agents ought to do what is in their self-interest (opposing)
2. Taxation qualifies as theft (defending)

I'd also be interested in doing something on intellectual property

Handcuffed · Post by **Handcuffed** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 8:07 am

blakbridge1010 wrote:So, in the spirit of the pursuit of knowledge and debating skills, I've agreed to put in a few ideas for a debates. More will come as the trickle in, but for now, two propositions:

1. Moral agents ought to do what is in their self-interest (opposing)
2. Taxation qualifies as theft (defending)

I'd also be interested in doing something on intellectual property

Interesting... Both typical right libertarian arguments. In fact, the first sounds Ayn Randian.

shell · Post by **shell** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:29 pm

DoxysTurtle wrote:Okay like I said... On like Donkey Kong... I'd prefer this take place in real time, moderated or not, in the chatroom... Some of the possible ideas (anyone is free to steal these if they want to challenge Allit to them):

1) Whether using the Nuremburg Defense is ever ethically and morally justified
2) Whether logic is objective.
3) Whether there is a fundamental rift between science and religion.
4) Whether Zeno’s Paradox proves that there is no real relative change.
5) Whether a paradigmatic interpretation of science is valid.

Now I'm thinking semi-formal debate. Rules about response times / responses. Prepared Opening Statements and talking points. Setting a time a week or so ahead of time in chat for this to happen.

Looking forward to your response,

Dream's Turtle

Putting my two cents worth in here......I don't think that would be fair to the rest of us, if you did the debate in the chat room. The whole idea of the thread was to do it here, so that we all could watch.

*steps away from the microphone....and blushes*

shell · Post by **shell** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 12:31 pm

Tries to figure out how one debates something.....to be on the side......well, like this......debating the existence of God......how does one put themselves on the other side of that, if they do believe in God....how do they debate that there isn't?
I have tried and tried to wrap my head around how to do that......and I just can't figure it out.

DoxysTurtle · Post by **DoxysTurtle** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:31 pm

shell wrote:
Putting my two cents worth in here......I don't think that would be fair to the rest of us, if you did the debate in the chat room. The whole idea of the thread was to do it here, so that we all could watch.

*steps away from the microphone....and blushes*

Um well hmm... Alliteration and I discussed that last night, actually amused ourselves with that you might wish to watch. Given this is his field, though I may have more formal debate experience, I wanted the edge of it being live. We were going to, if we got permission post the full transcripts of the debate. So you could more than watch it unfold either if we end up picking a convenient time and day, or afterwards. Live debate is a very different form than us debating in the forum as it changes tactics quite a bit.

As to the arguing something you don't believe, I find it easy. Without being able to look at the other side and try to understand it, you lack a foundation of knowing your side. Think of you switching. Even while in top mode, you can often see from the side of the bottom what is happening. Alliteration for a living does this sort of thing. My background in math, computer science and engineering, lead to my doing it in a very different way. However if you can't imagine choosing to argue for something you don't believe, how do you know your beliefs are correct? Could it not be that the other side lacks contradictions under closer inspection?

Alliteration · Post by **Alliteration** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 2:54 pm

Dammit, turtle ninja'd my post!

As he said, any chat debates will have logs posted afterwards (perhaps even with my thoughts on how things go inserted).

As for debating the other side...it's pretty much like playing "devil's advocate".

DoxysTurtle · Post by **DoxysTurtle** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:31 pm

So after out discussion in chat we agree.

TOPIC: The use of the nuremburg defense to justify one's actions as morally permissible is itself immoral.

I will defend that statement, taking that it is immoral. You may attack it as either amoral or moral. Now we just need figure out rules and when to debate...

Alliteration · Post by **Alliteration** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 4:54 pm

The debate will take place on Tuesday, November 1st, at 9pm EST. The rules will be posted here when they are decided.

les · Post by **les** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:06 pm

Alliteration wrote:The debate will take place on Tuesday, November 1st, at 9pm EST. The rules will be posted here when they are decided.

that's 1 am UK

Alliteration · Post by **Alliteration** » Tue Oct 25, 2011 5:10 pm

les wrote:
Alliteration wrote:The debate will take place on Tuesday, November 1st, at 9pm EST. The rules will be posted here when they are decided.

that's 1 am UK

There will be logs, most likely :)

Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?

Re: Debate?