The Instigator
Daktoria
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Max.Wallace
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Liberal Empiricism Is Vulnerable to Conservative Perpetual Abuse

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Daktoria
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,316 times Debate No: 58938
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (3)

 

Daktoria

Pro

To be clear, this is a positive, not normative debate. It merely describes what is, not what ought to be.

Liberals might encounter anti-intellectual conservative bullies who play dumb in not understanding what liberals are talking about, especially when it's merely a creative idea that hasn't been concretely proven yet. In turn, when liberals aim to concretely prove their ideas, anti-intellectual conservative bullies physically assault them or socially duress them in order to prevent them from actually completing their proofs.

Often, these bullies will compound this with hiding behind plausible deniability since no evidence of the assault/duress, and/or by blaming the victim in claiming the liberals were harassing and provocative such that they were asking to be abused. They might even go so far as to appeal to folk community common sense in saying that the victim is a lazy bum who's expecting special treatment since many people in society are abused, and that despite how the liberal is actually being prejudiced against, the conservative will say the individual is just "blaming society" for what's a personal problem. Other times, the anti-intellectual conservative bullies simply charm authorities with simple-minded emotional compatibility, and then make appeals to authority by claiming their victims are emotionally incompatible.

Therefore, the empirical proof required for liberals to prove their ideas will never come to fruition since the process will be interrupted before the result is achieved. As long as this physical assault/social duress takes place over and over, liberal empiricists will never be free to prove their ideas. It is only if liberal empiricists are lucky enough to exist in environments where they are not near such anti-intellectual conservative bullies that they will achieve results, and organize with fellow liberals to create systems of justice that enable future liberal ideas to be created.
Max.Wallace

Con

I am a little confused by your position, are you for or against a "liberal empire"?
Debate Round No. 1
Daktoria

Pro

This debate wasn't meant to be personal.

Just to entertain though, my position is there are different types of liberals and conservatives.
Max.Wallace

Con

I accepted this debate before reviewing your profile, and as an avowed, self described conservative,being you, I cannot in any way believe you subscribe to a liberal empire as good and just. This should be a tie, or a loss for me, as it was my mistake to challenge ye.

If you wish to continue the debate, then so be it. May the most truthly win!
Debate Round No. 2
Daktoria

Pro

Well yes, I self-describe as a conservative, but it's because Debate.org provides few self-description options.

A better description would be "cosmopolitan patriot with civic responsibility". The conservative type that I describe in this debate does not describe myself by any stretch of the imagination.

Anyway, best of luck.
Max.Wallace

Con

I concede.
Debate Round No. 3
Daktoria

Pro

I would appreciate if any and all voters kept this debate at a tie. No debate was had, so no debate should be judged.
Max.Wallace

Con

Liberalicus Empiricus, el dabato almightio, will vote for you, and I withhold judgement.
Debate Round No. 4
Daktoria

Pro

Maybe, maybe not. We'll see.
Max.Wallace

Con

You may have won this war of the words friend, but don't worry, I'll be back!
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
Suppose 10,000 proteomic research projects are funded to test the functions of 10,000 randomly selected proteins, and to be directed by 10,000 scientists. Empiricism at its purest.

Alternatively, suppose 10,000 die-hard 'theorists' are paid to sit in think tanks and 'deduce' or 'calculate' the functions of 10,000 proteins.

The empiricists will discover a few cancer-fighting or Alzheimer-reducing proteins that stand out from the rest, and these will justify the testing of thousands of redundant, boring, or completely inert proteins. Scientists assigned to study the special proteins will make headlines, they'll be lauded as the best of their fields, they'll control the largest and most abundant research grants throughout their lives, possibly win Nobel prizes. All this by virtue of being exactly as competent as the other 9,900+ scientific 'nobodies' who were assigned to test the boring proteins. It's a lottery.

Meanwhile the thinktank scientists will have long since predicted the redundancy of most of these proteins. They'll have delegated theoretical difficulties to each other. They'll have implemented game theory, chaos theory, and various mathematical properties of the elements table. They'll know a creature's proteins by looking at its genes, they'll know when two proteins are destined to cancel each other out, and they'll have endless explanations for why two harmless proteins might mix to become harmful. Their ideas will be filed, classified, packaged, and easily interpreted by future projects. They'll understand future roadbumps. They'll distinguish important empirical investments from wasteful ones.

Which was the better investment? Short-term, probably empiricists. To Congress, probably empiricists. Looking at Nobel Laureates, probably empiricists. My hunch favors the thinktank anyway though.
Posted by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
I might re-instigate this debate as CON. I don't even know if I disagree, but the phrasing makes me want to draw a bunch of theoretical Venn diagrams and flowcharts, and that might give me a clearer understanding than demonstrated by CON here. On the other hand, I might be too tempted to spend time doodling this to respond in time.

In fact, I might have to resist my liberal inner urge to bring an empirical twist to the discussion, and test whether the results "meta-confirm" the hypothesis.
Posted by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
The point is to get to the point and use your words concisely, not to carry on and on and on.

The resolution refers to conservative perpetual abuse. It's like saying it refers to blue squares. Are all blue shapes square? No. Are all squares blue? No. Is all conservatism perpetually abusive? No. Is all perpetual abuse conservative? No.
Posted by Mike_10-4 3 years ago
Mike_10-4
I would take this debate, however, 2K characters per Round is too short.
Posted by CordialCongressman 3 years ago
CordialCongressman
I'd be happy to accept this debate. What is the round structure?
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
no it doesn't, it just says "Conservative " in the reso not a certain type
Posted by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
I agree. All conservatives are not what I've described here. This debate talks about a specific type of conservatism.
Posted by CordialCongressman 3 years ago
CordialCongressman
To brand all conservatives are anti-intellectual bullies is wrong. If an uneducated layman argues with an educated citizen, this does not make him an anti-intellectual, nor a bully. Branding those who disagree with you as unintelligent may, however, make you a bully.
Posted by Daktoria 3 years ago
Daktoria
Yes, Sagey. The point is anti-intellectual conservative bullies will often turn the liberal dialectic method on its head by simply repeating themselves over and over.
Posted by Preston 3 years ago
Preston
it is, plus its usually flipped.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by brant.merrell 3 years ago
brant.merrell
DaktoriaMax.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: CON did not attempt to refute any points, and should have put his Round 1 in the comments section before accepting the debate.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
DaktoriaMax.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
DaktoriaMax.WallaceTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Well, that was disappointing.