Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

ELO tournament Update (2)

Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2011 10:54:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Current debates :

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

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

Upcoming challenge, BangBang-Coconut is instigating :

"The philosophy of order and nonviolence is preferable to civil disobedience"

As soon as Tim and Andromeda finish a new challenge will be sent out.

Current signups :

CiRrK
Andromeda_Z
Phoenix_Reaper
Merda
headphonegut
el-badgero
BangBang-Coconut
darkkermit
Grape

Results after first debate :

CirRk : 1477.94
Pheonix_Reaper : 850.6274932

Current topics for debate :

Abortion should be outlawed in the US.
The Death Penalty is justified form of punishment
Socialism is less preferable to capitalism
The Constitution is a "living" document
The US-Mexican border should be militarized
US hegemony is desirable
Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence
A university degree is more beneficial than equivalent work experience
Life without parole should be abolished as a punishment
Music is a higher form of art than literature
Debate, on balance, is a worthwhile talent
X should not have been cancelled
X deserved to win the Oscar for Y
Morality is a useful social construct
Individualism ought to be prioritized over collectivism
Objective moral facts most likely do not exist
The regress argument for moral skepticism is logically sound
The philosophy of order and nonviolence is preferable to civil disobedience
Monarchy is, on balance, superior to democracy.
Insider trading should be permitted in the United States
The Confederacy had the moral high ground over the Union in the US Civil War.
Insurgents in Iraq are justified in using force to remove US troops.
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 12:33:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/18/2011 10:54:35 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
Current debates :

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


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


Upcoming challenge, BangBang-Coconut is instigating :

"The philosophy of order and nonviolence is preferable to civil disobedience"

As soon as Tim and Andromeda finish a new challenge will be sent out.

Current signups :

CiRrK

The Constitution is a "living" document

The US-Mexican border should be militarized

US hegemony is desirable

Grape

Insider trading should be permitted in the United States

The Confederacy had the moral high ground over the Union in the US Civil War.

Insurgents in Iraq are justified in using force to remove US troops.


Results after first debate :

CirRk : 1477.94
Pheonix_Reaper : 850.6274932


If it be permitted, I'm trying to figure out who put out the ideas for which debates. It seems fun. For the ones by Serk and Grape I'm about ninety-eight percent sure. The others I don't really know their beliefs too well and so have no basis of figuring theirs out. Serk though is your basic neo-conservative and his debates mirror that. The same for Grape though with AnCap and it's unique perspective on things like the Civil War.
My manwich!
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 1:28:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/19/2011 12:33:37 AM, Merda wrote:
At 6/18/2011 10:54:35 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
Current debates :

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


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


Upcoming challenge, BangBang-Coconut is instigating :

"The philosophy of order and nonviolence is preferable to civil disobedience"

As soon as Tim and Andromeda finish a new challenge will be sent out.

Current signups :

CiRrK

The Constitution is a "living" document

The US-Mexican border should be militarized

US hegemony is desirable

Grape

Insider trading should be permitted in the United States

The Confederacy had the moral high ground over the Union in the US Civil War.

Insurgents in Iraq are justified in using force to remove US troops.


Results after first debate :

CirRk : 1477.94
Pheonix_Reaper : 850.6274932


If it be permitted, I'm trying to figure out who put out the ideas for which debates. It seems fun. For the ones by Serk and Grape I'm about ninety-eight percent sure. The others I don't really know their beliefs too well and so have no basis of figuring theirs out. Serk though is your basic neo-conservative and his debates mirror that. The same for Grape though with AnCap and it's unique perspective on things like the Civil War.

I also submitted the abortion one, the death penalty one (which you r doing now) and the capitalism/socialism debate
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2011 1:53:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i'd go con on the socialism one.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:34:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Monarchy is, on balance, superior to democracy."

Also me, because:

1) I just read Democracy: The God That Failed

2) I would love to see what CirRk would do if he drew this as Pro
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:39:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/18/2011 10:54:35 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:

Abortion should be outlawed in the US.
The Death Penalty is justified form of punishment
Socialism is less preferable to capitalism
The Constitution is a "living" document
The US-Mexican border should be militarized
US hegemony is desirable

This is CirRk.

Compassion is a more worthwhile human trait than intelligence
A university degree is more beneficial than equivalent work experience
Life without parole should be abolished as a punishment
Music is a higher form of art than literature
Debate, on balance, is a worthwhile talent

I think these are the same person.

X should not have been cancelled
X deserved to win the Oscar for Y

These are the same person, not sure who.

Morality is a useful social construct
Individualism ought to be prioritized over collectivism
Objective moral facts most likely do not exist
The regress argument for moral skepticism is logically sound

This is Merda.

The philosophy of order and nonviolence is preferable to civil disobedience

This is Bang-Bang Coconut.

Monarchy is, on balance, superior to democracy.
Insider trading should be permitted in the United States
The Confederacy had the moral high ground over the Union in the US Civil War.
Insurgents in Iraq are justified in using force to remove US troops.

This is me.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 9:50:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 12:34:55 AM, Grape wrote:
"Monarchy is, on balance, superior to democracy."

Also me, because:

1) I just read Democracy: The God That Failed

2) I would love to see what CirRk would do if he drew this as Pro

It would definitely be interesting. Id have to read the book though, since I would assume thats where you would get your arguments from.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 10:04:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
haha and Id probably do some argument like: Small and centralized governments are better for establishing hegemony + hegemonic stability theory
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 12:26:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 12:16:22 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
It isn't useful or is not a social construct?

I wouldn't argue that it's useful. I would argue that it's a social construct though.
My manwich!
Merda
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 2:41:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 2:35:56 PM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/22/2011 2:22:27 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
And another falls to the dark side.

To moral relativism?

Moral nihilism I believe.
My manwich!
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 3:27:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 10:04:22 AM, CiRrK wrote:
haha and Id probably do some argument like: Small and centralized governments are better for establishing hegemony + hegemonic stability theory

I would not suggest using that argument against someone who has read the book since Hoppe suggests nearly the opposite of that :P
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 3:28:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
what are you with regards to morals cliff? or would you be leaning towards even?
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 3:29:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 3:27:16 PM, Grape wrote:
At 6/22/2011 10:04:22 AM, CiRrK wrote:
haha and Id probably do some argument like: Small and centralized governments are better for establishing hegemony + hegemonic stability theory

I would not suggest using that argument against someone who has read the book since Hoppe suggests nearly the opposite of that :P

damn xD but maybe they wont be an avid reader of Hoppe. If its u...well then screw it, ill come up with something
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 3:54:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i wasn't really expecting a reply anyway :P

so you wanna go for that socialism debate with me cirrk?
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 3:58:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 3:54:11 PM, el-badgero wrote:
i wasn't really expecting a reply anyway :P

so you wanna go for that socialism debate with me cirrk?

Well we cant choose who or what to debate, but if it comes up. Sure
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 4:13:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
i really don't get why we can't just get into debates as normal, only be ranked differently here...
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
el-badgero
Posts: 1,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/22/2011 4:20:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 4:13:02 PM, el-badgero wrote:
i really don't get why we can't just get into debates as normal, only be ranked differently here...

well besides that cliff set this thing up, is doing all the work, and it'd probably make it a whole lot easier for him to keep track of things :)

it'd be cool to have it properly incorporated into the site though.
DATCMOTO's moustache makes him look like an eejit...

edit: nah, i'm jealous... God's an eejit definitely though!
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 10:17:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 4:13:02 PM, el-badgero wrote:
i really don't get why we can't just get into debates as normal, only be ranked differently here...

One of the main reasons of the ELO was to try to deal with complaints that the leader board was not a true representative of debating skill so the rules of these debates are set up to counter some specific problems such as :

-newb sniping, ELO handles that directly if a high ranking member tries to snipe a newb they will advance very little if they win and their rank can even drop the newb hangs with them at all as they are expected to get all 7:0 due to the ELO algorithm

-topic sniping, this is the reason for the random format. Some members will only debate in areas where they have well developed stock arguments and thus the debates are one person struggling to match on the fly an argument which has been presented and refined many times.

-style sniping, some members are very weak to certain tactics for example semantic argument can cause people to concede in default and some members take advantage of this. Again the random draw eliminate this sniping.

As debate interest seems to be increasing how does everyone feel to increasing the draws to two active debates at a time?

I also need to debate next so I need a topic and a pro/con stance, the first person to pick it from the above list, or suggest it sets it.
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 10:30:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 10:17:14 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/22/2011 4:13:02 PM, el-badgero wrote:
i really don't get why we can't just get into debates as normal, only be ranked differently here...

One of the main reasons of the ELO was to try to deal with complaints that the leader board was not a true representative of debating skill so the rules of these debates are set up to counter some specific problems such as :

-newb sniping, ELO handles that directly if a high ranking member tries to snipe a newb they will advance very little if they win and their rank can even drop the newb hangs with them at all as they are expected to get all 7:0 due to the ELO algorithm

-topic sniping, this is the reason for the random format. Some members will only debate in areas where they have well developed stock arguments and thus the debates are one person struggling to match on the fly an argument which has been presented and refined many times.

-style sniping, some members are very weak to certain tactics for example semantic argument can cause people to concede in default and some members take advantage of this. Again the random draw eliminate this sniping.

As debate interest seems to be increasing how does everyone feel to increasing the draws to two active debates at a time?

I also need to debate next so I need a topic and a pro/con stance, the first person to pick it from the above list, or suggest it sets it.

Debate - US Hegemony is desirable

=D
CiRrK
Posts: 670
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 10:31:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/23/2011 10:30:42 AM, CiRrK wrote:
At 6/23/2011 10:17:14 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 6/22/2011 4:13:02 PM, el-badgero wrote:
i really don't get why we can't just get into debates as normal, only be ranked differently here...

One of the main reasons of the ELO was to try to deal with complaints that the leader board was not a true representative of debating skill so the rules of these debates are set up to counter some specific problems such as :

-newb sniping, ELO handles that directly if a high ranking member tries to snipe a newb they will advance very little if they win and their rank can even drop the newb hangs with them at all as they are expected to get all 7:0 due to the ELO algorithm

-topic sniping, this is the reason for the random format. Some members will only debate in areas where they have well developed stock arguments and thus the debates are one person struggling to match on the fly an argument which has been presented and refined many times.

-style sniping, some members are very weak to certain tactics for example semantic argument can cause people to concede in default and some members take advantage of this. Again the random draw eliminate this sniping.

As debate interest seems to be increasing how does everyone feel to increasing the draws to two active debates at a time?

I also need to debate next so I need a topic and a pro/con stance, the first person to pick it from the above list, or suggest it sets it.

Debate - US Hegemony is desirable

=D

Pro
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/23/2011 10:44:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 6/22/2011 3:28:08 PM, el-badgero wrote:
what are you with regards to morals cliff? or would you be leaning towards even?

Similar to Harris, but I don't think it is necessarily as trivial as he makes it. Though I would interject here I still don't know if Harris believes what he says or does he just dumb everything down for a lay audience.

I would start by not disputing that

a) the worst possible world is one where everyone has maximal suffering which means all of their basic desires are unsatisfied to the fullest extent

b) the best possible world is one where everyone has maximal fulfillment which means all of their basic desires are satisfied to the fullest extent

Our ought would then be to move from b -> a.

This would be where it becomes non-trivial. Harris does not consider this assertion of ought to be important at all, he just notes it is obvious and if you dispute it then you are "broken" and not worth talking to.

I don't think that is trivial to assert and would agree with William Lane Craig that the only reason Harris has that perspective is that he is in the majority of what we call non-psychopaths.

I would argue that this can be considered to be properly basic - that we should act so that we can think about how we should act. This of course is very similar to Decartes who took it as properly basic that he existed as something that thought because he could think about if he existed.

From this axiom the rest can be developed.

It is also non-trivial to figure out an objective way to do this but that is the same with anything. We still do not know for example the nature of gravity but we do not dispute there is such a thing as gravity.

For basics of desire theory see :

Reiss, Steven (2004), "Multifaceted nature of intrinsic motivation: The theory of 16 basic desires"