|
 In the wake of recent discussions in the Libertarian thread, My PM box, Eripsa's lunatic threads and forum luminary IronKnuckle's racist blog I've come to the opinion that one thing that might benefit the Debate and Discussion forums could be the establishment of a Debate thread. Specifically a thread where people can not only discuss positions, but actually debate them in a formal, or semi-formal manner. Why do I think this is a good idea? Mostly because I like arguing and I frequently have too much time on my hands. In all seriousness, I was part of Canada's greatest debate program for much of my childhood, being taught by one of the pre-eminent debaters in the world, John Baty. This program did a lot to instill in me the idea that a structured debate is a lot more than a simple argument, and that adding a more serious tone to a discussion, even slightly, can do a lot to improve the quality of discourse, the exchange of ideas and the ability to inform those who view it. One of the big problems that sometimes happens on the forums is that contrary voices can get shouted down by sheer weight. Someone like Jrodefeld might be wrong about almost everything, but if someone is arguing in good faith it almost feels cruel that we don't have any format with which to argue against them in a way that isn't a dogpile. What this thread is: Well, really it is whatever people make it. Personally I envision it as one people can use to set up video/audio or text based debates with other posters on the thread that can then be enjoyed by others. A good example of this was a Google hangout chat run by Eripsa of all people. A handful of posters joined in and spent an hour discussing his ideas and what did or did not work about them in a way that was ultimately far more insightful than reading much of his threads. Ideally I think it might be interested to have a monthly/bimonthly/quarterly/whateverly goon debate where a topic is selected by popular discussion and a couple of goons are picked to give the pro's and cons. But that is probably pie in the sky dreaming. What this thread is not: Other threads. This is not the Islam/Palestine thread, or the Gunchat thread or anything else. If the thread sees use at all instead of dropping into archives immediately it would be best if it were used for its intended purpose, rather than serving as some weird proxy battleground thread.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
Is there some sort of IRC being used as a metathread for this thread? It seems like something that would be useful for setting up guidelines, protocol, etc. I do think this is a wonderful idea if it works, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:Is there some sort of IRC being used as a metathread for this thread? It seems like something that would be useful for setting up guidelines, protocol, etc. I do think this is a wonderful idea if it works, though. Definitely willing to set up something like this. I've left it out of the main post because frankly I am sick as a dog right now but I am going to go back and discuss some of the various forms of debate, with particular emphasis on Parli and Oxford styles since they are the ones I think we'd probably see the most success with in a thread like this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
Let me nominate Goku vs. Superman for the subject of the second ever Flawless Debate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 09:15
|
|
|
Goku would beat superman with his instant transmission. He'd instant transmission to the epicenter of the krypton explosion, coat himself in kryptonite, and instant transmission himself back. Superman could try to fly away and hide but goku would instant transmission next to him like some looney toons character till superman was dead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 09:33
|
|
|
Condiv posted:Goku would beat superman with his instant transmission. He'd instant transmission to the epicenter of the krypton explosion, coat himself in kryptonite, and instant transmission himself back. Superman could try to fly away and hide but goku would instant transmission next to him like some looney toons character till superman was dead. Superman is not a man, he's the anthropomorphism of an ideal. And that ideal is America. When created, and as the character has evolved, Superman represents all that is just and proper with the American spirit. He's a raging alcoholic, faster than a speeding bullet, who beats up gangsters and nazis for fun, and would have died had America lost WW2. Goku is a character designed to sell dolls to Japanese men. The idea of America, personified as Superman, can kick the poo poo out of the Japanese any day of the week. Goku doesn't matter when nobody but for weeaboos is left alive to consume Goku-derived products. Goku is dead; Superman is eternal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
I believe my opponents on the pro-superman side, while correctly noting that these characters represent the ideals of their respective countries, make several errors that ultimately undermine their own argument. These errors, once examined, correctly reveal the superiority of Goku. First: that national strength translates into just ideals. No one would suggest that, because one country loses a war and another wins, or one country is stronger, that the winning side's ideals must be better. That is patently false, the ideals must be examined on their own terms, and the qualities of the characters should be treated similarly. Simply assuming a just world is fallacious. Secondly: that Goku is necessarily a 'childish' character, while superman is 'mature'. A simple examination of historical context would prove this wrong. Both characters such as Superman and Goku are aimed at children, because that is the purpose of these stories. Both enculture children. If one is childish, so must the other be. Their usage in this sense is identical. But what of those ideals? Both Superman and Goku have great personal strength. Both uphold the good. But their psychologies are opposed: superman is fundamentally a proud person, holding strict moral codes and expecting others to live up to them as well. Goku is humble, frequently willing to sacrifice himself for his friends, emphasizing the importance of community. It is this difference that makes Goku the better character, someone who embraces the help of many people who are much weaker than him, but always treats them seriously, never being brash. To superman, the earth is something to be saved, but to Goku, it's home.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Let me nominate Goku vs. Superman for the subject of the second ever Flawless Debate. Monkey beats the Jade Emperor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 21:02
|
|
|
IRC sounds like a good idea to start. Also a libertarian debate would the the poo poo.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
DOCTOR ZIMBARDO posted:Let me nominate Goku vs. Superman for the subject of the second ever Flawless Debate. Sorry, this one's solved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyl97TG8jbA Condiv posted:Goku would beat superman with his instant transmission. He'd instant transmission to the epicenter of the krypton explosion, coat himself in kryptonite, and instant transmission himself back. Superman could try to fly away and hide but goku would instant transmission next to him like some looney toons character till superman was dead. Watch the video. Goku's need for a "fair fight" would keep him from using Superman's weakness against him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
So what you're saying here is that D&D needs less mass discussing, and more mass debating?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
I would argue that Vegeta more broadly encapsulates the Japanese zeitgeist. He's a person from a warrior class of ages gone by having to come to terms with a new group of people that don't accept his destructive form of warrior's honour and thus has to reform.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
Lustful Man Hugs posted:I would argue that Vegeta more broadly encapsulates the Japanese zeitgeist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
I like the idea behind behind what you're saying but I think that you're at least a couple years too late. The age of D&Ders making serious posts or conducting extended debates is mostly a thing of the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:I like the idea behind behind what you're saying but I think that you're at least a couple years too late. The age of D&Ders making serious posts or conducting extended debates is mostly a thing of the past. Just because something is a thing of the past doesn't mean it can't be something of the future. I'll be updating the thread with a more in depth OP tomorrow, and hopefully the thread can trend slightly away from Goku Vs Superman. Though in fairness it'd be an interesting debate. That Goku should totally win.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:37
|
|
|
Caros posted:Just because something is a thing of the past doesn't mean it can't be something of the future. I'll be updating the thread with a more in depth OP tomorrow, and hopefully the thread can trend slightly away from Goku Vs Superman. Though in fairness it'd be an interesting debate. That Goku should totally win. Caros posted:What this thread is:
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
twodot posted:I agree with you in principle, but I think there is a problem here: People can want 1v1 debates and dogpile threads. It's not a zero-sum proposition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Seriously though, as long as it can be properly moderated, I'm all for a thread like this (I promise not to contribute to any more derails).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:People can want 1v1 debates and dogpile threads. It's not a zero-sum proposition. Sounds like a prime subject for our first debate 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 06:39
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:So what you're saying here is that D&D needs less mass discussing, and more mass debating? Logically, there is only one method to eliminate islamist insurgents: eliminate islam. I dare anyone to debate the logic of this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:14
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Logically, there is only one method to eliminate islamist insurgents: eliminate islam. Well, now we have at least one topic for an outright debate that isn't Goku Vs Superman. Not sure genocide would have been my first choice, but hey... whatever gets the thread in motion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:26
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Logically, there is only one method to eliminate islamist insurgents: eliminate islam. Please proceed, Mayor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:29
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well, now we have at least one topic for an outright debate that isn't Goku Vs Superman. Not sure genocide would have been my first choice, but hey... whatever gets the thread in motion. It doesn't need to be genocide, if islamists are willing to abandon the insurgent moniker or insurgents islam. You could impart a special counter-insurgency tax upon all muslims to pay for the actions of islamist insurgents and disincentivize their continued operations. Over time, individuals would abandon the islamist identifier due to tax implications. To speed up this process, one could also ban all islamists from holding state office and enforce it with penalty of death. Still, this is detracting from the original point: logically, an islamist insurgency can only be eliminated by either removing islam or insurgency. Since we have failed to eliminate insurgency, there is only one answer: to eliminate an islamist insurgency, one must eliminate (what the insurgents understand to be) islam. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 07:39 on Jan 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Caros posted:Just because something is a thing of the past doesn't mean it can't be something of the future. Agreed. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 07:53
|
|
|
Justus posted:Sorry, this one's solved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyl97TG8jbA goku's need for a fair fight isn't a thing, goku has used tricks that would be considered unfair multiple times to vanquish foes:
goku likes a challenge, but he doesn't put it above winning a fight. if we're talking about a sparring match, that could go either way cause both would be limited by their not wanting to harm the earth or spectators
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 12:47
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Logically, there is only one method to eliminate islamist insurgents: eliminate islam. How well did it work for the Romans? When they killed the trouble making leadership of their Jewish (and later Christian) problems? If you kill Paul, what does that do to Paul's ideas. If you kill Justin, what does that do to Justin's ideas. Short term the Romans had stability. Long term they lost the ideological fight. "Fear not them that kill you, and after that can do no more". You will perpetuate the ideology. And what if violent extremism is not something peculiar to Islamic extremists?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:It doesn't need to be genocide, if islamists are willing to abandon the insurgent moniker or insurgents islam. You could impart a special counter-insurgency tax upon all muslims to pay for the actions of islamist insurgents and disincentivize their continued operations. Over time, individuals would abandon the islamist identifier due to tax implications. To speed up this process, one could also ban all islamists from holding state office and enforce it with penalty of death. But then you're still left with insurgency. Which is the part that's, you know, actually bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Logically, there is only one method to eliminate islamist insurgents: eliminate islam. There's no logic in it, so 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:There's no logic in it, so There are plenty of historical antecedents for the effectiveness of what he's suggesting. The "kill everybody who doesn't quit with the bullshit" route, is a pretty common solution historically. I think it's more viable to argue that to choose it is to be on the wrong side of history (the side of force and power.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
You all seem to be missing the critical point that Islam is the one true way, and this whole kerfluffle would be solved if the decadent west would abandon its heathenry and recite the shahada with their hearts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:How well did it work for the Romans? When they killed the trouble making leadership of their Jewish (and later Christian) problems? If you kill Paul, what does that do to Paul's ideas. If you kill Justin, what does that do to Justin's ideas. Short term the Romans had stability. Long term they lost the ideological fight. Conceptually, MIGF 's approach to foreign policy is to pretend that the USA is playing one of those old 4X computer games like Civilization or Master of Orion. Rhetorically his strategy seems to be predicated on the hope that people will be so caught up in how morally repugnant his ideas are that their brains will freeze up with outrage before they have time to realize how patently ridiculous he is being. He wants you to debate the ethics of genocide rather than thinking too hard about how logistically impossible and strategically stupid it would be to actually follow through on such a ridiculous proposition. BrandorKP posted:There are plenty of historical antecedents for the effectiveness of what he's suggesting. The "kill everybody who doesn't quit with the bullshit" route, is a pretty common solution historically. I think it's more viable to argue that to choose it is to be on the wrong side of history (the side of force and power.) There are numerous reasons that the Geostrategic calculations that drove the foreign policies of the ancient Assyrians or Romans would not be viable today but "force" or "power" being on the "wrong side of history" are not among them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Point of order op, a lot of people seem to be addressing their posts to each other as opposed to the chair. Bad form
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
kustomkarkommando posted:Point of order op, a lot of people seem to be addressing their posts to each other as opposed to the chair. The chair refuses to recognize the naive poster from Germany. Good side of history, bad side of history, doesn't matter since we've hit the end of history. The victor writes the history, and we're too soft to defeat this global islamist insurgency.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:The chair refuses to recognize the naive poster from Germany. Did you watch "The Power of Nightmares" and decide to nakedly devote yourself to a fearmongering approach that even neoconservatives approached obliquely?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:There are plenty of historical antecedents for the effectiveness of what he's suggesting. The "kill everybody who doesn't quit with the bullshit" route, is a pretty common solution historically. I think it's more viable to argue that to choose it is to be on the wrong side of history (the side of force and power.) It may be effective but the statement is false. Eliminating Islam will (by definition) eliminate Islamist insurgents; it is sufficient. It is not necessary, however, so his claim fails. And there's no logic there, it's just a claim. Equally valid response: redefine the word 'insurgent' to include 'does not follow or acknowledge the existence of Islam" and you've eliminated Islamist insurgents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
So how many unarmed human beings would it take to kill a grizzly bear?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
eNeMeE posted:It may be effective but the statement is false. Further: If you eliminate Islam and they then pick some other religion to misinterpret to continue their insurgency, what have you gained?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Conceptually, MIGF 's approach to foreign policy is to pretend that the USA is playing one of those old 4X computer games like Civilization or Master of Orion. No, I flustered MIGF when I took a directly realist position. He actually takes a very distinct position that is far from realism when you pick at him on certain issues. His repugnance is his bankrupt logic, because an America that Plays to Win the Game would probably not pay Israel a dime, for example, and would instead be extracting tribute, but that is a policy he would find repugnant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:So how many unarmed human beings would it take to kill a grizzly bear? The most realistic strategy would be to exhaust the grizzly until it was too weak to fight back. The major problem is that a grizzly can move at 30 mph and even Usain Bolt tops out at 27 mph. Maybe this could be calculated using caloric intake.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 2, 2024 01:30 |
|
|
Gas
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:28
|
|