The Instigator
DanT
Pro (for)
Losing
6 Points
The Contender
dylancatlow
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

The Political Compass is inaccurate and/or misleading

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 5 votes the winner is...
dylancatlow
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 19,386 times Debate No: 32731
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (86)
Votes (5)

 

DanT

Pro

Resolved: The Political Compass is inaccurate and/or misleading

Rules:
1.) no ad hominem attacks
2.) 1st round is acceptance only

dylancatlow

Con

I accept and look forward to a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 1
DanT

Pro


The Axes


The political compass uses an XY axis graph;


X.) Socio-Economic Axis


Y.) Socio-Cultural Axis




According to the political compass, the right wing is socioeconomic-individualism, the left wing is socioeconomic-collectivism, libertarianism is sociocultural-individualism, and authoritarianism is sociocultural-collectivism.


http://www.politicalcompass.org...


The Oxford dictionary gives the following definitions;


(n) Collectivism (the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.)


(n) Individualism (a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.)


(n) Left Wing (the section of a political party or system advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform.)


(n) Right Wing (the section of a political party or system opposing political or social reform)


(n) Authoritarian (a person who advocates strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom)


(n) Libertarian (a person who advocates civil liberty)


(n) Conservative (a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.)


(n) Progressive (a person advocating or implementing social reform)



The Oxford Definition of collectivism, individualism, authoritarianism, libertarianism, left wing, and right wing does not match those used by the political compass. By definition the Authoritarians are Collectivist, Libertarians are Individualist, Conservatives are Right Wing, and Progressives are Left Wing. According to the Political Compass, this is not the case.



If we were to create a new chart with the Oxford definitions, the axes would become the following;


X.) Socio-Cultural


Y.) Socio-Political


The Y axis would be determined by collectivism vs individualism, and the X axis would be determined by Reformism vs Traditionalism.



The results


Due to the Political Compass’s misinformed axes, the results are very inaccurate.


The Political Compass gives 4 possible results;


1.) Right Wing Authoritarian


2.) Left Wing Authoritarian


3.) Right Wing Libertarian


4.) Left Wing Authoritarian


Those who would fall under the category of Right Wing Authoritarian are;


1.) Traditional Conservatives


2.) Liberal Conservatives


Those who would fall under the category of Left Wing Authoritarian are;


1.) Nationalists


2.) Socialists


Those who would fall under the category of Right Wing Libertarian are;


1.) Anarchists


2.) Classic Liberals


Those who would fall under the category of Left Wing Libertarian are;


1.) Social Liberals


2.) Populists


According to the Political Compass, classic liberals are more authoritarian than social liberals, populists are more libertarian than liberal conservatives, and socialists are more libertarian than traditional conservatives.





If one was to use the correct definitions;


Right Wing Authoritarian would be;


1.) Nationalists


2.) Traditional Conservatives


Left Wing Authoritarian would be;


1.) Socialists


2.) Populists


Right Wing Libertarian would be;


1.) Classic Liberals


2.) Liberal Conservatives


Left Wing Libertarian would be;


1.) Anarchists


2.) Social Liberals



If the correct definitions were used, the chart would be much more accurate, and would not be as misleading. Because the creators of the political compass made up their own definitions, their chart was not only inaccurate, but it misleads everyone who takes the test by rotating the results to the left.




Historical Definitions of Left and Right


The terms Left and Right first arose during the French Revolution, when the National Assembly was divided between Royalists on the Right and Revolutionaries on the Left. Later under the First French Republic the Constitutionalists sat on the Right, the Innovators sat on the Left, and Moderates sat in the center. Other countries, such as the British, began to adopt the identification of Left Wing and Right Wing to refer to radicals and reactionaries, and now the system has become common place.


books.google.com/books?isbn=0231084048



Historical Definition of Libertarianism


The term “Libertarian” was first used by Classic Liberals of the Enlightenment, to refer to proponents of free will, and opponents of determinism. When anarchism was outlawed in France, the term “Libertaire” was used to refer to anarchists. Radical or Left Wing Libertarians were anarchists, who wanted to abolish the state. Reactionary or Right Wing Libertarians were Classic Liberals, who believed a minimized state was a necessary evil for the protection of life, liberty, and property. All libertarians believe the state is dangerous, but Left and Right Wing Libertarians hold different approaches to dealing with that danger; All Libertarians are individualists.


dylancatlow

Con

My opponent miscalculates when he takes the terms used to label the political compass out of context. The terms are properly analysed within the dichotomy they establish. The terms 'left' and 'right' are used to establish the dichotomy of thought for the economic spectrum while the terms 'libertarian' and 'authoritarian' are used to establish the dichotomy of thought for the social spectrum. Each of these terms entail more than they explicitly represent within the confines of the compass, but that's not to say this is misleading or inaccurate. A libertarian, for example, has libertarian views on both social and economic issues, meaning 'libertarian' can define only those views which are pertinent to the axis it's on (in this case the social axis). The case is no different for 'right' and 'left' properly defining the sides of the economic spectrum.

Rebuttals:

(1)

"The Political Compass gives 4 possible results;

"1.) Right Wing Authoritarian

2.) Left Wing Authoritarian

3.) Right Wing Libertarian

4.) Left Wing Authoritarian"

This is technically incorrect. One being 'right' on the economic axis does not necessarily mean one would be 'right wing'; it only means one has economic views similar to those of the right wing, or that can be described as being 'right wing' as per what each axis explicitly sets out to define.

(2)


"The Oxford Definition of collectivism, individualism, authoritarianism, libertarianism, left wing, and right wing does not match those used by the political compass. By definition the Authoritarians are Collectivist, Libertarians are Individualist, Conservatives are Right Wing, and Progressives are Left Wing. According to the Political Compass, this is not the case."

Because the political compass uses two axes, and no terms exist that solely mean 'economic right' or 'social liberal', the political compass must use terms that may entail more than they do within the compass. This is not to say that this is a problem. The two axis are defined as being the social views axis and the economic views axis, barring any faulty interpretations. There is only one conclusion to be reached for each of the terms paired with the axis.
Debate Round No. 2
DanT

Pro


First off I would like to apologize for the issues with the graphs. In the preview it looked different; the issue is in the site’s code, not my post.


Miscalculates


Con claims that I “miscalculated”, due to the different terms of left and right, and that the terms “left”, “right”, “libertarian”, and “authoritarian” apply to the definitions of political compass, rather than those of the oxford dictionary. The point I was trying to make, is that by redefining these political terms they are using deceptive terms, by creating a semantic shift. When I calculated where the ideologies fell on the political compass, I disregarded the oxford definitions, and used the political compass definitions. According to the political compass, Conservatives are Right Wing Authoritarians, National-Socialists are Left Wing Authoritarian, Progressives are Left Wing Libertarian, and (true) Libertarians are Right Wing Libertarian. The results are shifted slightly the left, in an attempt to create a semantic shift; Liberal Conservatives are not authoritarian, yet according to the political compass, they are; Populists are not Libertarian, yet according to the political compass, they are. The political compass is deceptive.



Right and Left


Con claims that the use of the terms “Left and Right” are not synonymous with “Left Wing and Right Wing”, but the Political Compass website claims they are; they just redefined left and right as an economic scale.


http://www.politicalcompass.org...


Con claims that Collectivist Economics are inherently Left wing and Individualist Economics are inherently Right Wing. This statement is false; Economic Nationalism is collectivist, and would therefore be Left Wing according to the Political Compass.



Definitions


Con did not rebut the Oxford dictionary. Con claims that the political compass focuses on the socioeconomic aspects of the Left and Right, and the sociocultural aspects of Authoritarian and Libertarian. This claim is false; I have already pointed out that economic collectivism is not inherently Left Wing. The political compass’s Authoritarian Right is just as authoritarian as their Libertarian Left. As such, the political compass engages in deception.



The Shift


By changing the definitions of Left Wing, Right Wing, Authoritarian, and Libertarian, the political compass shifts the results to the left.


Here are the political compass’s results for the various ideologies;


http://www.debate.org...



Here are the results of the various ideologies using the real definitions;


http://www.debate.org...



The political compass is attempting a semantic shift, in order to negatively equate conservatism with authoritarianism and positively associate progressivism with libertarianism. According to the political compass, Conservatism is just as authoritarian as Fascism, and Progressivism is just as Libertarian as (True) Libertarianism.


dylancatlow

Con


The political compass does not ascribe different meanings to any of the terms it uses to establish its dichotomies, it merely uses said terms to represent a designated piece (in this case economic or social) of their respective philosophies. This is not inaccurate or misleading, as the axis on which the terms are placed determines which elements of said philosophies are relevant.
In an attempt to befuddle, my opponent has decided to obfuscate the issue by introducing another political compass into the equation. He has not justified why the political compass pertaining to this debate should need to be interchangeable with the compass he has introduced - and he won’t be able to. It is self-evidence (at least I thought it was) that the political compass establishes clear and accurate dichotomies for the scales it sets out to gauge.

Rebuttals:
1) “According to the political compass, Conservatives are Right Wing Authoritarians, National-Socialists are Left Wing Authoritarian, Progressives are Left Wing Libertarian, and (true) Libertarians are Right Wing Libertarian. The results are shifted slightly the left, in an attempt to create a semantic shift; Liberal Conservatives are not authoritarian, yet according to the political compass, they are; Populists are not Libertarian, yet according to the political compass, they are. The political compass is deceptive.”


Once again, you are taking the terms out of context. If ‘authoritarian’ is used to denote authoritarianism on one front, it’s not proper to derive any other connotations other than what is explicitly implied. The political compass does not insinuate that conservatives are synonymous with authoritarian in all regards, rather it only implies conservatives have authoritarian views on social issues (as they do). The case is the same for the other cases my opponent posits.

2) “Con claims that the use of the terms “Left and Right” are not synonymous with “Left Wing and Right Wing”, but the Political Compass website claims they are; they just redefined left and right as an economic scale.”

The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ employed aren't synonymous with the vague 'left wing' or 'right wing', but rather with only economic views of the left and right wings. They are not redefined. It would be redundant for the compass to label the extremes of the spectrums as ‘economic left’ or ‘social libertarian’ as the axes on which the terms apply denote this already.

3) “Con did not rebut the Oxford dictionary. Con claims that the political compass focuses on the socioeconomic aspects of the Left and Right, and the sociocultural aspects of Authoritarian and Libertarian. This claim is false; I have already pointed out that economic collectivism is not inherently Left Wing. The political compass’s Authoritarian Right is just as authoritarian as their Libertarian Left. As such, the political compass engages in deception.”

My opponent is using a straw man to unjustly smear the compass. The compass never mentions ‘left-wing,’ nor does it mention ‘collectivism.’ The term ‘left’ used by the compass is explicitly defined as only pertaining to economic issues, so it’s just untrue to accuse the compass of defining the ‘left-wing’ as anything, as it never entertains such a term.

4)

“The political compass is attempting a semantic shift, in order to negatively equate conservatism with authoritarianism and positively associate progressivism with libertarianism. According to the political compass, Conservatism is just as authoritarian as Fascism, and Progressivism is just as Libertarian as (True) Libertarianism.”

If the compass were merely equating the terms conservatism with authoritarianism, why would it find it necessary to have another axis? What purpose would it serve? My opponent is blanking out the obvious here, namely that the term the axis is on dictates what aspects of said philosophy come into play.

Debate Round No. 3
DanT

Pro


Justification


Con has claimed that there is no justification for the political compass to match the alternative chart I made. This is false; the chart I made uses the oxford definitions of left, right, authoritarian and libertarian. In the last round Con ceded that the oxford definitions were correct, but claimed that the Political compass only focused on part of the platform of the right, the left, the authoritarians, and the libertarians. If this chart was accurate they would match up with the oxford definitions, but they do not. The fact that the chart shifts to the left indicates deception through a semantic shift. Con has not addressed this point, but has rather danced around it.


Authoritarianism


Con claims that the political compass is not calling conservatives authoritarian, but rather social authoritarians. No-where on the website does it differentiate between the two; rather their own website associates authoritarianism and libertarianism with social issues. If one is a sociocultural collectivist, the political compass equates you with authoritarianism. If you are a socioeconomic collectivist the political compass equates you with the Left Wing. This semantic shift makes right wing nationalists, left wing authoritarians. It is for this very reason, the compass is inaccurate.


If Con is correct, and the political compass is only focusing on part of the platform, than the compass suffers from selection bias. When creating a political spectrum chart; if you create arbitrary axes, the chart becomes pseudoscientific. Science is not arbitrary, and you cannot create a scientific chart with arbitrary axes. The chart is inaccurate for these very reasons; the chart is deceptive due to the semantic shift.


Economic Left and Social Libertarian


Con claims that it would be redundant for the political compass to use labels such as “Social Libertarian” or “Economic Left”. Not only is this false, as the website equates authoritarianism with sociocultural collectivism, but this does not address the point I made, about the non-authoritarians being labeled as “authoritarian”, and authoritarians being labeled as “libertarian”. The political compass’s authoritarian left are the only real authoritarians, and the political compass’s libertarian right are the only real libertarians. Labeling all Progressives as “Libertarian” and all Conservatives as “Authoritarian” is not only deceptive, but false.


Strawman


My opponent is falsely accusing me of straw manning the political compass. He claims that the political compass never used the words “collectivism”, “Left wing”, or “right wing”.


According to the political compass’s own website, and I quote;


“In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line. If we recognise that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes.… That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.


Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis…. While the former involves state-imposed arbitrary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved.”


According to the political compass, those who favor socioeconomic collectivism and sociocultural collectivism are Authoritarian Left, but those who favor socioeconomic collectivism and sociocultural individualism are Libertarian Left. According to the political compass; because National-Socialists favor sociocultural collectivism when implementing socioeconomic collectivism they are authoritarian left, and since conservatives favor sociocultural collectivism when opposing socioeconomic collectivism, they are authoritarian right. The political compass does not take into account, that socioeconomic collectivism is also authoritarian.


Contradiction


In his rebuttal, con has contradicted himself. First he claims that the Right Wing does not refer to conservatism. To rebut the semantic shift he claims that the right wing of the political compass is conservatism, and due to the authoritarian-libertarian axis, conservatives are not being labeled right wing authoritarians. Not only is this a contradiction, but it is fallacious reasoning. Just because the political compass is labeled a certain way does not mean the results are accurate. Pro’s rebuttal did not address my point about inaccuracy; it only served to contradict his repetitive argument.


Recap


So far pro has not rebutted my arguments; he has just danced around them. The political compass is inaccurate, and pseudoscientific. By redefining words, and shifting the results, the compass has created a semantic shift. By semantically shifting political terms, the political compass is being deceptive.


dylancatlow

Con

The political compass comprises of two independent scales represented on a single plane. Both scales pertain to the degree of governmental intervention one would favor in their ideal society, but differ on which aspects of society (economic or social) are to be taken as variables for their estimations. For reasons I do understand, my opponent refuses to accept that the terms used operate only as they pertain to the axis they are applied to. The axes employ terms that define the extremes of what each axis sets out to gauge (economic or social). I fail to see how using terms to represent major components of their respective ideologies makes the compass inaccurate or misleading - especially when it’s explicitly explained that this is how the terms are being used.



Rebuttals:

1) “Con claims that the political compass is not calling conservatives authoritarian, but rather social authoritarians. Nowhere on the website does it differentiate between the two; rather their own website associates authoritarianism and libertarianism with social issues. “


The compass is not using the terms differently than how they are commonly understood, but rather establishing a specific dichotomy with terms with opposing views pertaining to what the spectrum is measuring. It’s incredibly myopic to accuse the compass of equating conservatives with authoritarianism, as the latter term entails much more as it stands than it would it does within the compass. Authoritarian is on the social scale, and deriving economic implications from it - as my opponent does when he accuses the compass of equating conservatism with the broad term - means he doesn’t understand the basics of the compass.


2) “If Con is correct, and the political compass is only focusing on part of the platform, than the compass suffers from selection bias. When creating a political spectrum chart; if you create arbitrary axes, the chart becomes pseudoscientific. Science is not arbitrary, and you cannot create a scientific chart with arbitrary axes. The chart is inaccurate for these very reasons; the chart is deceptive due to the semantic shift.”


My opponent apparently doesn’t know what selection bias means, nor does he understand the point I was trying to make. If you refer to what he is responding to, you will see his blatant use of straw mans.

3) “The political compass does not take into account, that socioeconomic collectivism is also authoritarian.”


This quote is pretty much representative of all the misguided and false arguments my opponent has posited throughout this debate. Namely, my opponent is taking the terms used out of context, and attempting to apply them to things outside how the terms are being used. Then, when his straw manning of the definitions of terms doesn’t seem to produce valid results, he throws up his hands and proclaims the compass to be inaccurate. The compass could just have easily labeled the economic axis with ‘authoritarian’ on the one side, and ‘libertarian’ on the other, because each of these respective terms entails with it either ‘left’ economic views or ‘right’ economic views.


4) “In his rebuttal, con has contradicted himself. First he claims that the Right Wing does not refer to conservatism. To rebut the semantic shift he claims that the right wing of the political compass is conservatism, and due to the authoritarian-libertarian axis, conservatives are not being labeled right wing authoritarians. Not only is this a contradiction, but it is fallacious reasoning. Just because the political compass is labeled a certain way does not mean the results are accurate. Pro’s rebuttal did not address my point about inaccuracy; it only served to contradict his repetitive argument.”


Your arguments are beginning to get exhausting to refute. The ‘right’ and ‘left’ used apply to the economic views of each of these respectively. There is no vague ‘right wing’ or ‘left wing’ mentioned. These would only be derived from the appropriate analysis of how the compass would define these terms. If authoritarianism as it’s used in the compass entails only authoritarian social views, it’s misleading to claim the compass just equates conservatives with ‘authoritarianism.’


5) “So far pro has not rebutted my arguments; he has just danced around them. The political compass is inaccurate, and pseudoscientific. By redefining words, and shifting the results, the compass has created a semantic shift. By semantically shifting political terms, the political compass is being deceptive.”


There are no arguments to speak of. You are just repeating your mantra of blatantly false proclamations, reducing any rebuttals I have to denial of your obviously false claims, a lot like refuting the claim that 2+2 = 5. Once again, the compass does not redefine words, it does not create a semantic shift (I don’t even know what you mean by this), and it is most certainly not inaccurate or misleading. Anyone who understands the compass will see this.



Debate Round No. 4
DanT

Pro


My opponent still fails to grasp my argument. My opponent claims that the political compass is not creating a new definition for left wing, right wing, authoritarian, and libertarian, but rather the compass focuses on the sociocultural aspect of authoritarianism and libertarianism and the socioeconomic aspect of the left and right. Even if they do not intent to give misleading results, they are creating a semantic shift with the results. You cannot arbitrarily choose the axes, because it screws up the results.


The Oxford Right (sociocultural Traditionalism) includes;


1.) Nationalists


2.) Traditional Conservatives


3.) Liberal Conservatives


4.) Classic Liberals


The Oxford Left (sociocultural Reformism) includes;


1.) Socialists


2.) Populists


3.) Social Liberals


4.) Anarchists



The Compass’s Right (Socioeconomic Individualism) includes;


1.) Traditional Conservatives


2.) Liberal Conservatives


3.) Classic Liberals


4.) Anarchists


The Oxford Left (Socioeconomic Collectivism) includes;


1.) Nationalists


2.) Socialists


3.) Populists


4.) Social Liberals


Nationalists are listed as left wing because they are socioeconomically collectivist. Anarchists are listed as right wing because they are Socioeconomic Individualists. By definition Nationalists are Right Wing, and it is fallacious to claim that they are Left Wing simply because Economic Nationalism is Collectivist.


Conservatism is not socioeconomic


Con claims that the political compass does not equate conservatism with authoritarianism, because Conservatism is a socioeconomic scale, and authoritarianism is a sociocultural scale. This is false; by definition conservatism is a sociocultural scale, and authoritarianism is sociopolitical. Con agreed with these definitions back in round 2. Just because the political compass redefines conservatives as socioeconomic, does not make them socioeconomic. All that does is create a semantic shift.


“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.” ~ Abraham Lincoln


Bias


If you wanted to poll a population to determine how many people are conservative, but you only counted those who agreed with the economic platform of conservatives, than you are engaging in selective bias.


Other than selection bias, the political compass also suffers from information bias. Due to the faulty axes, people are placed in the wrong categories.



http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk...


Strawman


Pro keeps claiming that I am straw manning the political compass, and taking the compass out of context. Yet I have provided a quote from the compass that proves otherwise. It is Pro who does not understand the compass, and who has not bothered to read the explanation of the compass on their website. Instead of addressing my arguments, Pro is just resulting to ad hominem attacks while dismissing my arguments.


Left Wing and Right Wing


My opponent keeps claiming that the political compass does not reference left wing and right wing. Simply because the compass does not say “wing” does not mean they are not referring to the “right wing” when they use the word “right”. My opponent has already claimed that the compass’s “economic right” refers to “conservatives”, thus associating “conservatism” and “progressivism” with a socioeconomic scale. By definition “conservatism” and “progressivism” are not socioeconomic, but rather sociocultural. Once again, the two are not synonymous. If the “economic right”, refers to conservatism, than the compass is semantically shifting the definition of conservatism.


Mantra


Pro claims I am not making any arguments, but rather reaping a mantra. In actuality it is the opposite; I made sound arguments, and Pro dismissed them due to X. I pointed out that X is not a justification for dismissal, but Pro keeps repeating his mantra of X. My argument has yet to be rebutted, as Pro has done nothing but dismiss it.


dylancatlow

Con

Not incidentally, my position is not only my opinion; it's also the opinion of the creators of virtually every political compass ever made.

Examples of other political compasses employing the same terms as the own pertaining to this debate (no cherry-picking necessary) :

focusedpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/political-compass-parties-1972-to-2008.jpg">http://solutionfocusedpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/political-compass-parties-1972-to-2008.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org...

http://img391.imageshack.us...

http://www.politicalcompass.org...

http://www.mwaddell.com...

http://www.examiner.com...(2).jpg

http://www3.telus.net...

http://gotoquiz.com...





Rebuttals:

1)"Con claims that the political compass does not equate conservatism with authoritarianism, because Conservatism is a socioeconomic scale, and authoritarianism is a sociocultural scale. This is false; by definition conservatism is a sociocultural scale, and authoritarianism is sociopolitical. Con agreed with these definitions back in round 2. Just because the political compass redefines conservatives as socioeconomic, does not make them socioeconomic. All that does is create a semantic shift."

The compass does not redefine 'conservatives' as anything, as it never uses the term 'conservative.'

2) "If you wanted to poll a population to determine how many people are conservative, but you only counted those who agreed with the economic platform of conservatives, than you are engaging in selective bias."

Is this compass doing this?

3) "Other than selection bias, the political compass also suffers from information bias. Due to the faulty axes, people are placed in the wrong categories."

The compass doesn't put people into categories; that's for the people to determine themselves with the information the compass provides.

4) "My opponent keeps claiming that the political compass does not reference left wing and right wing. Simply because the compass does not say “wing” does not mean they are not referring to the “right wing” when they use the word “right”. My opponent has already claimed that the compass’s “economic right” refers to “conservatives”, thus associating “conservatism” and “progressivism” with a socioeconomic scale. By definition “conservatism” and “progressivism” are not socioeconomic, but rather sociocultural. Once again, the two are not synonymous. If the “economic right”, refers to conservatism, than the compass is semantically shifting the definition of conservatism."

I've already rebuted this sort of nonsense in previous rounds.

5) " My opponent has already claimed that the compass’s “economic right” refers to “conservatives”

No I did not. And if I did, I would be wrong.




Debate Round No. 5
86 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Please stop trying to fabricate reasons to vote against me. It is not only dishonorable but extremely pathetic.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Now who is being overtly dishonest?

You said;

"7) PRO: 'Con claims that the political compass is not calling conservatives authoritarian, but rather social authoritarians. No-where on the website does it differentiate between the two...'

Actually, it does:

'Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that...[etc] '"

I replied;

"You claimed that the political compass differentiated between calling conservatives authoritarian and calling them social authoritarians. You pointed to the following quote;
'Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that...[etc] '

That does not refute my point. Conservatives are traditionalists, and progressives are reformists. This puts conservatives (both collectivist and individualist conservatives) in the authoritarian right, and nationalists and socialists in the authoritarian left. This quote simply defines the axises it does not differentiate between calling conservatives authoritarian and calling them social authoritarians."

You than replied

"You are NOT paraphrasing me here. I did not talk about conservatives AT ALL. You are adding unwarranted specificity to my arguments."

Than I replied

"See the argument you quoted in your response? It clearly says 'conservative'. Thus by contesting the argument you quoted, you are discussing conservatism."
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
DanT: Please stop misrepresenting me. I never said "LOOK CONSERVATISM", you were the one who made "Conservatism" an issue.

Ok, this is serious. You're being overtly dishonest here:

'Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that...[etc] '"

DanT: See the argument you quoted in your response? It clearly says "conservative". Thus by contesting the argument you quoted, you are discussing conservatism.

---

I'm not looking at this debate again. Conduct to CON for overt dishonesty.

I'm disappointed, DanT. This time I'm not joking around.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Please stop misrepresenting me. I never said "LOOK CONSERVATISM", you were the one who made "Conservatism" an issue.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
@ DAN TEE: "Thank you for finally giving some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Next time I will know how to present it so the voter can better understand the concepts."

---

I've been giving you constructive criticism this whole time. This was the FIRST INSTANCE where you stopped your goddam nonsense about "votebombing" or "OMG SOURCES" or "LOOK CONSERVATISM" and actually addressed the semantics issue I continually brought forth.

Regardless, cheers.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
Just about every round I described them as such. It was just worded differently. Instead of presenting the subcategories in the form of definitions, I described their positions within the main categories.

Thank you for finally giving some CONSTRUCTIVE criticism. Next time I will know how to present it so the voter can better understand the concepts.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
You know, DAN TEE, your presentation on the definitions was quite clear, a hell of a lot clearer than it was in the debate. If I were you, I would compare how you presented the information below to how it was presented in the debate, if it was presented in the debate (I cannot find it).

That's all I'm going to say because I really am sick of this debate. And no, I'm not going to change my vote. The context was ridiculously unclear in the debate. It's extremely easy to come to the conclusion of semantics abuse when the context is so unclear as to totally obfuscate meaning as you did repeatedly during the debate.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
"lol, anyway, you know my stance on the voting here. I consider it largely meaningless except to forward a discussion and offer constructive criticism."

The thing is you are not offering constructive criticism. You have in the past, but this time you are just making false accusations.

You, like many others on this site, need to learn the definition of semantics.

There are two main types of semantics;
1.) Semantic shift
2.) Semantic Argument
A semantic shift is when you shift a the meaning of a definition to draw a positive or negative connection. Like if fascist was used to refer to libertarianism, despite being opposites, in order to negatively associate libertarians wit Nazis.

A semantic argument is when you attack the words used rather than the context of the word. If the context is made clear, than there is no need to get hung up on the words used.
Posted by DanT 4 years ago
DanT
In the first round I gave the following definitions using the oxford dictionary;

(n) Collectivism (the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.)
(n) Individualism (a social theory favoring freedom of action for individuals over collective or state control.)
(n) Left Wing (the section of a political party or system advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social reform.)
(n) Right Wing (the section of a political party or system opposing political or social reform)

(n) Authoritarian (a person who advocates strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom)
(n) Libertarian (a person who advocates civil liberty)
(n) Conservative (a person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in relation to politics.)
(n) Progressive (a person advocating or implementing social reform)

I than went on to define the 8 subcategories using the above definitions;

(n) Nationalist (Right Wing Authoritarian)
(n) Socialist (Left Wing Authoritarian)
(n) Anarchist (Left Wing Libertarian)
(n) Classic Liberal (Right Wing Libertarian)
(n) Liberal Conservative (Individualist Conservative)
(n) Traditional Conservative (Collectivist Conservative)
(n) Populist (Collectivist Progressive)
(n) Social Liberal (Individualist Progressive)
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
lol, anyway, you know my stance on the voting here. I consider it largely meaningless except to forward a discussion and offer constructive criticism.

I wouldn't score at all if others were not scoring.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by AnthraSight 4 years ago
AnthraSight
DanTdylancatlowTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con supported all of his premises to a convincing degree, yes pro was tough to understand.. and he wasn't as cogent.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
DanTdylancatlowTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments - upon further evaluation, I found PRO's semantics to be of such an atrocious level as to award S&G to CON as well. Conduct to CON for overt dishonesty by PRO in contesting my RFD.
Vote Placed by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
DanTdylancatlowTied
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: I agreed with Pro on this subject. I always go to read arguments wit ha clear mind. It still seems that Pro convinced me to still be on his side. You both had good sources. Good debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
DanTdylancatlowTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con argued that the political compass ought to be judged use the way that the test makers conceived the terminology, rather than the way the words are commonly given meaning. To avoid being misleading, the political compass should not need special understanding of the terminology. That said, the terminology is bandied about loosely, with lots of ideas, some quite unconventional, of what constitutes "left" and "right." That means that its not surprising non-standard definitions were used. No doubt they seemed justified to the test makers.
Vote Placed by Lizard 4 years ago
Lizard
DanTdylancatlowTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments seemed more confusing to me than the political compass in question. As Con pointed out, right-left deals with ecomimic positions while top-bottom deals with social positions. I haven't ever had any problem undersanding it, and Pro's objections to it didn't show me any real flaws. Pro accused Con of making new arguments in the last round, but I don't think they count as new arguments if they're direct responses to quotes?