The Instigator
nephilim
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Itsallovernow
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Informational Technocracy

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/18/2010 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,796 times Debate No: 11219
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

nephilim

Pro

The essence of free press. Liberal idealism. What makes political dominion after parliamentarism a subject of information? Is it's dominion in a structural thesis of honesty? Is information portrayed in realist assumption a manner of identity? What defines reality? Are there threats to a power structure in liberty of press? What is the modern impact on internet towards society? Information some tyrants before have known to use for purposed illusive brutal medieval power synchrony. This known for a fact is a sherade. My question to you adversary is; Do we love information more than we supposedly doubt our fellow men's sincerity? What is known to all of us is that information has nothing to do opposing or supporting a power structure of society. This is a clue. It is widely standard school education. We are all taught to learn for ourselves. By informationy I reason it isn't a solid power fundament. Technocracy on the other hand has intentions of fragility to portray it's fundament in communication today obviously not to be sensorship. By informationy I reason a total submissive worshipment of what you get to know. This is an ancient thesis in which technocracy combined with informationy referentially an illusion of fundamentally sane ideals as order and law. What an informational technocracy disorderly imposes upon societies actual structure fortunately it's folk. The imposition bestowed on us with this rather disfunctional illusion of what is honest is in information. "This is what has become of us. This is how we are. This is what I want to be. Yes I also learned this." Then...To identify with informations from a technocracy is a rather fragile function although it isn't the body of rule nor a power structure. In fact informational technocracy is an illusion. How then do I defend an illusion more functional than any other way of rule? Simply because there is no rule.
Itsallovernow

Con

For now, I will help the audience understand the resolution and my standing.

=DEFINITIONS=

(Princeton.wordweb.com)

1. Technocracy - a form of government in which scientists and technical experts are in control (The Technocracy Movement was a social movement which arose in the early 20th century. Technocracy was highly popular in the USA for a brief period in the early 1930s, when it overshadowed many other proposals for dealing with the crisis of the Great Depression.)

2. Informational - Informative

Observations-

1. The resolution is not a complete sentence, and my opponent's case is cryptic. Therefore, any arguement posted can not be accused as a semanticized interpretation.

2. This debate is far too confusing to answer all questions.

=ARGUEMENTS=

CONTENTION 1- Technocracy goes against American ideals of Democracy.

Subpoint a) This was only briefly considered in an act of desperation. For example, I, once or twice, briefly considered suicide when I was depressed. It wasn't a good idea, but I was willing to entertain anything that might promise relief. So did the people in the Great Depression with this idea.

=REBUTTALS=

1. My opponent asks: "Do we love information more than we supposedly doubt our fellow men's sincerity?" I can't speak for the people, but since you asked me personally, I can speak for myself. Yes, I do. Periodically, (wo)men can lie. Information, with good sources on the Internet (which I think you're arguing), can be cross referanced for truth. Far more easier, too, than to do that with "our fellow man".

2. "What is known to all of us is that information has nothing to do opposing or supporting a power structure of society." That's not true. We almost impeached a president of ours because we were informed that he was corrupt. He resigned before we could do so.

3. "Technocacy on the other hand has intentions of fragility to portray it's fundament in communication today obviously not to be sensorship. By informationy I reason a total submissive worshipment of what you get to know." Knowledge is power, but it isn't everything. Having scientists and technical experts in control of our government would not be wise. Such a sudden, drastic change in our government can not have more immediate benfiets than nonbenefits.

4. "In fact informational technocracy is an illusion. How then do I defend an illusion more functional than any other way of rule? Simply because there is no rule." Contrary to what you may believe, our country is ruled "by the people, for the people". If you claim that "Informational Technocracy" is an illusion, this is detrimental to your case, since our government, now, is not an illusion.

=NOTE(S)=

This was a very difficult "word wall" to dechipher. I did not understand all of my opponent's points, but I did the best I could.
Debate Round No. 1
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
Itsallovernow

Con

Arguements will be extended, considering my opponent forfieted...
Debate Round No. 2
nephilim

Pro

Presently I advice you to imagine George Orwells 1984 for a comparison to my point of view. His vision of what information as an entity or means of power in society strangely enough portrayed as a nightmare in the film version is the scares of informational technocracy. An indicament there is no rule in such a society is contrary to 1984 a vision of what a free non governmental liberal press has done for us previously. So how is it not a contradiction in this known element of professional press today as a servant of political idealism. By a non-rule in informational technocracy stands the trust and confidence in information provided independently by whomever want's an extraordinary concept of relevancy today. In our presence on internet. Will internet eventually develop into a form of society as it already has serving individualist idealism without any form of goverment or will it develop into informational technocracy with a form of goverment. Look into my previous debates for opinions on this really. Alright so an informational technocracy is established whom bares the authority or prestige to master an informational technocracy? Thus no rule in information by technocracy.
Itsallovernow

Con

"Alright so an informational technocracy is established whom bares the authority or prestige to master an informational technocracy? Thus no rule in information by technocracy."

I believe my opponent is contradicting himself here. This debate is very confusing, and I cannot comprehend my opponent's arguements. However, there is one question, inspired by Cody_Franklin I would like to ask:

"wat?"
Debate Round No. 3
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
Itsallovernow

Con

Itsallovernow forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
nephilim

Pro

nephilim forfeited this round.
Itsallovernow

Con

My opponent did not rebut.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
"Alright so tend an Old fashioned English." You are still entirely enigmatic. You are "defending the internet politically," but what does that *mean*? You never actually lay out what it is you are ever talking about.

You aren't talking to stupid people; if you were using the syntax of English, everything would be all set.
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Alright so I am trying to defend the internet politicly. Informational Technocracy is my idea of what it is today and the essence of "this" is to liberate information.
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Misunderstanding is rather hopeless. Although reaching an understanding is not easy.
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
alright so tend an old fashioned english...
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
"It is fragile but good journalism rescues is what I am going to debate in the next round if my adversary let's me."

I'm so glad you cleared that up?

I realize that this is probably a lost plea, but could you please, please, pretty PLEASE try really hard to write in comprehensible, complete sentences? You are on a debate website for Christ's sake...all we get are the words on the screen to fully understand what you are saying, but you seem to willfully withhold any shred of coherency. It's very trollish >:|
Posted by nephilim 7 years ago
nephilim
Ancient rethorics. It ain't a neutral viewpoint on reality. These thoughts are tendencies in many folk in this modern day and age (maybe I'm a little late to realize it). Yes informational technocracy certainly is underestimated for a structure of society. It is fragile but good journalism rescues is what I am going to debate in the next round if my adversary let's me.
Posted by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
gibberish
Posted by Cody_Franklin 7 years ago
Cody_Franklin
Yeah, I really can't decipher his meaning. It's a superfluous wall of text. I'm really tempted to take this, and just say "wat".
Posted by Puck 7 years ago
Puck
O.o

Freedom of information? Maybe?
Posted by alto2osu 7 years ago
alto2osu
I get a very loose feeling (INCREDIBLY LOOSE) that it has something to do with information being relatively unimportant, esp. if he has any sense of what a "technocracy" would essentially be (which is another big stretch). Considering I piloted a course @ my high school entirely about information as power/capital, I have plenty to say about that, but I can't actually tell if that's what he's talking about :P
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
nephilimItsallovernowTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07