Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Debating Ignorant People

PalinFan
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 10:46:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
So yesterday my class had a group discussion about Obama's proposal to wiretap internet communications and email accounts. <http://technews.tmcnet.com...; I came out against the proposal citing the fact that historically presidents have used wiretapping for the wrong purposes (See Nixon and Watergate, The FBI wiretapping MLK under LBJ) and that even when the FBI and CIA have enormous amounts of information of a terrorist it may not result in any meaningful action (Bin Laden pre 9/11).

The arguments made by those in favor were "We should unconditionally trust the executive branch" and "There should be rules involved"

When I made the argument that the only way to effectively 'regulate' this was for the executive branch to have to seek a warrant from the independently controlled judiciary, they looked at me not having a clue what I just said.

It was put to a vote and the majority agreed that "We should trust the FBI and Presidents judgement and that it was ok for them to warrantlessly wiretap internet communications"

Has anyone had similar experiences?
Super Man does not come close to the power of Jesus Christ - GodSands
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 10:54:43 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 10:46:03 AM, PalinFan wrote:
So yesterday my class had a group discussion about Obama's proposal to wiretap internet communications and email accounts. <http://technews.tmcnet.com...; I came out against the proposal citing the fact that historically presidents have used wiretapping for the wrong purposes (See Nixon and Watergate, The FBI wiretapping MLK under LBJ) and that even when the FBI and CIA have enormous amounts of information of a terrorist it may not result in any meaningful action (Bin Laden pre 9/11).

The arguments made by those in favor were "We should unconditionally trust the executive branch" and "There should be rules involved"

When I made the argument that the only way to effectively 'regulate' this was for the executive branch to have to seek a warrant from the independently controlled judiciary, they looked at me not having a clue what I just said.

It was put to a vote and the majority agreed that "We should trust the FBI and Presidents judgement and that it was ok for them to warrantlessly wiretap internet communications"

Has anyone had similar experiences?

That's pretty sad. What ages are we talking? I wonder if there were a republican would they be less pliable.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Sort of - In year 9 I was debating on the topic of assassination and forced abdication of 'tyrants' (thought they bastardized the definition of tyrant to despot); I was Con. I said that in human history assassinations have alsomost never created a greater peace. One of my opponents gave a point of information and citied the Cuban Revolution against Fulgencio Batista's regime. I said that Batista's prisons and camps couldn't have been worse than the events that happened after and during the revolution, Santa Clara, and ultimately the Bay of Pigs. A tyrant always lives under the sword of Damocles: "there can be nothing happy for the person over whom some fear always looms" so a tyrany is never as bad as mass war. I also cited the French Second and Third Republics born under the destruction and tyranny brought by German proxy leaders.

Still lost.

I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births" 1v1 and "a new age atheist state would be ideal than any past state".

What can you do? I doesn't matter that much.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:40:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Sort of - In year 9 I was debating on the topic of assassination and forced abdication of 'tyrants' (thought they bastardized the definition of tyrant to despot); I was Con. I said that in human history assassinations have alsomost never created a greater peace. One of my opponents gave a point of information and citied the Cuban Revolution against Fulgencio Batista's regime. I said that Batista's prisons and camps couldn't have been worse than the events that happened after and during the revolution, Santa Clara, and ultimately the Bay of Pigs. A tyrant always lives under the sword of Damocles: "there can be nothing happy for the person over whom some fear always looms" so a tyrany is never as bad as mass war. I also cited the French Second and Third Republics born under the destruction and tyranny brought by German proxy leaders.

Still lost.

I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births" 1v1 and "a new age atheist state would be ideal than any past state".

What can you do? I doesn't matter that much.

I was Pro but their argument was so lame. Speaker one - "Dictaors are bad because they kill people and stuff"; speaker two- "They're Evil!!!! Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!" speaker three - (commie) the 2 months peace is worth the shitstorm that is war.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:40:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 10:46:03 AM, PalinFan wrote:
Has anyone had similar experiences?

Of course. Ignorance is rampant. You'll find it less on DDO, but it's still here too :)
President of DDO
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:41:01 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births"

Were you affirmative or negative? It seems like that would be a pretty easy one to go neg on...
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:42:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:40:25 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
Sort of - In year 9 I was debating on the topic of assassination and forced abdication of 'tyrants' (thought they bastardized the definition of tyrant to despot); I was Con. I said that in human history assassinations have alsomost never created a greater peace. One of my opponents gave a point of information and citied the Cuban Revolution against Fulgencio Batista's regime. I said that Batista's prisons and camps couldn't have been worse than the events that happened after and during the revolution, Santa Clara, and ultimately the Bay of Pigs. A tyrant always lives under the sword of Damocles: "there can be nothing happy for the person over whom some fear always looms" so a tyrany is never as bad as mass war. I also cited the French Second and Third Republics born under the destruction and tyranny brought by German proxy leaders.

Still lost.

I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births" 1v1 and "a new age atheist state would be ideal than any past state".

What can you do? I doesn't matter that much.

I was/am Pro but their argument was so lame. Speaker one - "Dictaors are bad because they kill people and stuff"; speaker two- "They're Evil!!!! Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!" speaker three - (commie) the 2 months peace is worth the shitstorm that is war.

I was Devil's Advocating.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:43:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Btw I am horrible at debating with ignorant people. Admittedly I insult them not because I can't articulate a proper argument, but because they're too ignorant to understand or accept said argument. That's why I prefer formal debates to forum discussion -- I can sensor myself easier and do a better job of being appropriate as I can unintentionally come off as disrespectful or too forceful otherwise. Plus it's easier to produce a well-thought out response without interruption through debating in writing. A real life class debate like the one you described is more difficult because people throw in their kindergarten criticisms and distract/overwhelm you with stupidity.
President of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:45:38 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:41:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births"

Were you affirmative or negative? It seems like that would be a pretty easy one to go neg on...

Indeed. I know women who have gotten pregnant but did not have sex with men ;)

Plus this debate seems a bit silly considering there's a lot of evidence that "virgin" is mistranslated in the Bible; the term is or was supposed to just mean young woman.
President of DDO
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:46:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:41:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births"

Were you affirmative or negative? It seems like that would be a pretty easy one to go neg on...

I was against the master of verbosity. If I remember correctly he claimed that unless I gave evidence of a birth without a sperm cell I was wrong. This wasn't even in scientific terms of impossibility but reality and general impossibility.

The voters were new age atheists so... yeah.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:47:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:43:59 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Btw I am horrible at debating with ignorant people. Admittedly I insult them not because I can't articulate a proper argument, but because they're too ignorant to understand or accept said argument. That's why I prefer formal debates to forum discussion -- I can sensor myself easier and do a better job of being appropriate as I can unintentionally come off as disrespectful or too forceful otherwise. Plus it's easier to produce a well-thought out response without interruption through debating in writing. A real life class debate like the one you described is more difficult because people throw in their kindergarten criticisms and distract/overwhelm you with stupidity.

Agreed.

I remember that we had a class debate on the appropriate drinking age.

I had to defend the drinking age as it currently is at 21.

The other side really had nothing to go on except for the fact that drinking in moderation may help some aspect of your heart and decrease the likelihood of Alzheymer's disease.

To easily refute it, I simply said that one can drink Green Tea to decrease the likelihood of Alzheymer's and physically exercise to decrease chances of heart disease. These two alternatives were much healthier and less risky than alcohol, but all of the kids laughed because they had no idea that I was making a connection.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 11:51:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:43:59 AM, theLwerd wrote:
Btw I am horrible at debating with ignorant people. Admittedly I insult them not because I can't articulate a proper argument, but because they're too ignorant to understand or accept said argument and after all I'm from New York. That's why I prefer formal debates to forum discussion -- I can sensor myself easier and do a better job of being appropriate as I can unintentionally come off as disrespectful or too forceful otherwise. Plus it's easier to produce a well-thought out response without interruption through debating in writing. A real life class debate like the one you described is more difficult because people throw in their kindergarten criticisms and distract/overwhelm you with stupidity.

JK
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:01:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:46:03 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:41:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births"

Were you affirmative or negative? It seems like that would be a pretty easy one to go neg on...

I was against the master of verbosity. If I remember correctly he claimed that unless I gave evidence of a birth without a sperm cell I was wrong. This wasn't even in scientific terms of impossibility but reality and general impossibility.

The voters were new age atheists so... yeah.

That's dumb. During In vitro fertilization, a virgin could become pregnant, but sperm would still be involved. Either way, parthenogenesis could do away with the sperm cell, the resolution didn't mention anything about human virgin births. Or you could just use modal logic to shift the burden of proof to the other side.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:06:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:01:11 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:46:03 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:41:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births"

Were you affirmative or negative? It seems like that would be a pretty easy one to go neg on...

I was against the master of verbosity. If I remember correctly he claimed that unless I gave evidence of a birth without a sperm cell I was wrong. This wasn't even in scientific terms of impossibility but reality and general impossibility.

The voters were new age atheists so... yeah.

That's dumb. During In vitro fertilization, a virgin could become pregnant, but sperm would still be involved. Either way, parthenogenesis could do away with the sperm cell, the resolution didn't mention anything about human virgin births. Or you could just use modal logic to shift the burden of proof to the other side.

That pre-med working out for you?
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:11:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:06:38 PM, innomen wrote:
That pre-med working out for you?

Yer. My evolution/genetics lab partner is doing pre-med, too, which is pretty cool. We always finish early and get to leave before everyone else.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:15:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:01:11 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:46:03 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:41:01 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:35:13 AM, Zetsubou wrote:
I also did ones which I lost because of voter pre bias - "the impossibility of Virgin births"

Were you affirmative or negative? It seems like that would be a pretty easy one to go neg on...

I was against the master of verbosity. If I remember correctly he claimed that unless I gave evidence of a birth without a sperm cell I was wrong. This wasn't even in scientific terms of impossibility but reality and general impossibility.

The voters were new age atheists so... yeah.

That's dumb. During In vitro fertilization, a virgin could become pregnant, but sperm would still be involved.
We included IVA, Parthenogenesis and the Japanese double mother baby born with IVF as sex. It involved sperm onw way or another.
Either way, parthenogenesis could do away with the sperm cell, the resolution didn't mention anything about human virgin births.
It was a assumption and unlike on DDO manipulation of semantics doesn't go very well in live debates.
Or you could just use modal logic to shift the burden of proof to the other side.
The burden of proof was on his side. I stressed that point and he just denied it.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:22:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:15:35 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
We included IVA, Parthenogenesis and the Japanese double mother baby born with IVF as sex. It involved sperm onw way or another.

Parthenogenesis does not involve sperm.

Either way, parthenogenesis could do away with the sperm cell, the resolution didn't mention anything about human virgin births.
It was a assumption and unlike on DDO manipulation of semantics doesn't go very well in live debates.

I've used semantics in live debates and I've never lost. Besides, there's nothing logically impossible about human parthenogenesis, it just hasn't been observed.

Or you could just use modal logic to shift the burden of proof to the other side.
The burden of proof was on his side. I stressed that point and he just denied it.

They were pre-supposing materialism. You should have hammered him on the meaning of the word "impossible." Something is logically impossible only if it can't occur in all conceivable worlds. There are possible worlds where God could exist.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:28:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Honestly, in live debates, I'd say 80% of what determines the outcome is your presentation. You have to appear authoritative, but not condescending.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:30:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:28:12 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Honestly, in live debates, I'd say 80% of what determines the outcome is your presentation. You have to appear authoritative, but not condescending.

In a lot of things this is true.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:31:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 11:51:07 AM, innomen wrote:
JK

Lol you might be kidding but my gf for one believes that to be absolutely true. We've actually talked about why I come off so abbrasive sometimes and she's convinced it's the New Yorker thing (being from the midwest, hanging out with my friends to her is a huge culture shock).
President of DDO
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:39:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:31:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:51:07 AM, innomen wrote:
JK

Lol you might be kidding but my gf for one believes that to be absolutely true. We've actually talked about why I come off so abbrasive sometimes and she's convinced it's the New Yorker thing (being from the midwest, hanging out with my friends to her is a huge culture shock).

Well, it is a characteristic that i have found in a few New Yorkers. Once you get by that little lack of patience and candid reaction, all is good ;-)
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:41:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
One thing I generally don't like about New York is the New York Jets football fans. They tend to irritate me, but all is well since my Colts are doing well thus far this season.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:46:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
And Yankees fans? Man they come into Boston just to act like a$$es. Of course some Red Sox fans aren't exactly the pillars of our community.
studentathletechristian8
Posts: 5,810
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 12:47:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:46:15 PM, innomen wrote:
And Yankees fans? Man they come into Boston just to act like a$$es. Of course some Red Sox fans aren't exactly the pillars of our community.

Yankees fans piss me off as well.

Red Sox fans are ALWAYS justified in the ways in which they act towards baseball in ALL circumstances ;)
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 2:15:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 1:03:36 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
I think it's important to recognize the distinction between those who are ignorant, and those who willfully recognize what's right in front of them.

That is a incredibly important distinction! ;P
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/2/2010 3:01:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/2/2010 12:39:45 PM, innomen wrote:
At 10/2/2010 12:31:57 PM, theLwerd wrote:
At 10/2/2010 11:51:07 AM, innomen wrote:
JK

Lol you might be kidding but my gf for one believes that to be absolutely true. We've actually talked about why I come off so abbrasive sometimes and she's convinced it's the New Yorker thing (being from the midwest, hanging out with my friends to her is a huge culture shock).

Well, it is a characteristic that i have found in a few New Yorkers. Once you get by that little lack of patience and candid reaction, all is good ;-)

I remember seeing two senators from New York arguing over some bill. They kept interrupting each other and repeating the same thing over and over that didn't make any sense. They were rude.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.