Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Topics I want to debate

Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro

It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:13:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

I wonder why that could be.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:15:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 3:13:47 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

I wonder why that could be.

That's one of the reasons I like debating those things. It doesn't scare anybody off.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:16:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 3:15:35 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:13:47 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

I wonder why that could be.

That's one of the reasons I like debating those things. It doesn't scare anybody off.

It's a trap. You lure people in and then demolish them with surprisingly serious arguments.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:48:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 3:21:13 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
I can tell, most of these topics are troll topics.

No they absolutely are not troll topics.
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro

I'd debate this one with you. By simulation, I assume you're referring to a computational simulation right? I've seen some argue it's some mental simulation in God or something.
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 5:56:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro

I'd debate this one with you. By simulation, I assume you're referring to a computational simulation right? I've seen some argue it's some mental simulation in God or something.
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Yes, most likely a computational simulation.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 7:16:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.

My bad, I actually put the wrong topic up, I actually meant The Federal Reserve should be abolished. I was thinking one thing and saying another.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 7:17:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 7:16:17 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.

My bad, I actually put the wrong topic up, I actually meant The Federal Reserve should be abolished. I was thinking one thing and saying another.

Oh.

That's slightly less interesting, but sure, I'll do that one if there isn't anything else you'd be interested in (see my sig for possible alternatives, if you'd like).
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 7:18:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Women's right to vote accepted.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 7:25:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.

You use terminology in a debate like that with me you'll definitely lose. If I think the voters won't understand what you're saying, I'll start pretending to educate you on the very thing you bring up, and just start saying random stuff. Judges hate feeling stupid, so if you say something to make them feel stupid, I'll take their side.

Everybody loves when the guy with big words who confuses them with big words gets schooled on what those words actually mean. If I make it not sound like B.S. To the untrained ear than they'll take my side.

I've beaten people in debates that used confusing terminology before, by merely making up facts about concepts I've never even bothered to Wikipedia.

Oh yeah, I meant to specify. Completely open voting on any topic even remotely about economics with you.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 7:26:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 7:18:27 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Women's right to vote accepted.

I'll put you on my list than. As well as JMK.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 7:34:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 7:25:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.

You use terminology in a debate like that with me you'll definitely lose. If I think the voters won't understand what you're saying, I'll start pretending to educate you on the very thing you bring up, and just start saying random stuff. Judges hate feeling stupid, so if you say something to make them feel stupid, I'll take their side.

That's true, but I probably would tone down - or at least explain - the terminology in a debate like that; or, better yet, I would clarify it when responding to you.

Everybody loves when the guy with big words who confuses them with big words gets schooled on what those words actually mean. If I make it not sound like B.S. To the untrained ear than they'll take my side.

But how exactly would you school me on what they mean? You would say, "you're wrong, the Wicksellian is X." I would say, "Sure, you're right, it's X, plus all this other stuff, and here's how it supports my case, but not yours." If anything, by explaining it, you're doing me a favor - and saving me much-needed characters in the process, lol.

I've beaten people in debates that used confusing terminology before, by merely making up facts about concepts I've never even bothered to Wikipedia.

That's harder to do with economics, though, is it not?

Oh yeah, I meant to specify. Completely open voting on any topic even remotely about economics with you.

Lol, why open voting?

I mean, I prefer judge voting, but with open voting, I'd probably want some sort of ELO floor. Terrible voters are positively infuriating to me. Especially if I were to take the time and effort to research and write a case, I don't want some dipsh1t noobie posting some BS fluff vote that just barely gets under the filter. That's slightly harder to do since Aaron took over vote modding, but it's nevertheless possible.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 7:54:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 7:34:55 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:25:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.

You use terminology in a debate like that with me you'll definitely lose. If I think the voters won't understand what you're saying, I'll start pretending to educate you on the very thing you bring up, and just start saying random stuff. Judges hate feeling stupid, so if you say something to make them feel stupid, I'll take their side.

That's true, but I probably would tone down - or at least explain - the terminology in a debate like that; or, better yet, I would clarify it when responding to you.

Everybody loves when the guy with big words who confuses them with big words gets schooled on what those words actually mean. If I make it not sound like B.S. To the untrained ear than they'll take my side.

But how exactly would you school me on what they mean? You would say, "you're wrong, the Wicksellian is X." I would say, "Sure, you're right, it's X, plus all this other stuff, and here's how it supports my case, but not yours." If anything, by explaining it, you're doing me a favor - and saving me much-needed characters in the process, lol.

I've beaten people in debates that used confusing terminology before, by merely making up facts about concepts I've never even bothered to Wikipedia.

That's harder to do with economics, though, is it not?

Oh yeah, I meant to specify. Completely open voting on any topic even remotely about economics with you.

Lol, why open voting?

I mean, I prefer judge voting, but with open voting, I'd probably want some sort of ELO floor. Terrible voters are positively infuriating to me. Especially if I were to take the time and effort to research and write a case, I don't want some dipsh1t noobie posting some BS fluff vote that just barely gets under the filter. That's slightly harder to do since Aaron took over vote modding, but it's nevertheless possible.

Oh no, because I wouldn't be helping you by clarifying. I would literally be lying and just making crap up about your confusing words that are merely meant to pretend to clarify, so you'd have the dual duty of both clarifying while going through the trouble of explaining why I'm full of shitt. Don't worry, I'd find citations that somehow support whatever utterly retarded crap I'm spewing.

The open voting would be to balance out the risk I take by debating somebody more familiar with economics and my unpopular position. It would also give me a chance to use rhetorical devices that work on inexperienced voters, but are ignored by good voters to bridge the gap between us in the debate.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 7:58:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 7:54:49 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:34:55 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:25:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.

You use terminology in a debate like that with me you'll definitely lose. If I think the voters won't understand what you're saying, I'll start pretending to educate you on the very thing you bring up, and just start saying random stuff. Judges hate feeling stupid, so if you say something to make them feel stupid, I'll take their side.

That's true, but I probably would tone down - or at least explain - the terminology in a debate like that; or, better yet, I would clarify it when responding to you.

Everybody loves when the guy with big words who confuses them with big words gets schooled on what those words actually mean. If I make it not sound like B.S. To the untrained ear than they'll take my side.

But how exactly would you school me on what they mean? You would say, "you're wrong, the Wicksellian is X." I would say, "Sure, you're right, it's X, plus all this other stuff, and here's how it supports my case, but not yours." If anything, by explaining it, you're doing me a favor - and saving me much-needed characters in the process, lol.

I've beaten people in debates that used confusing terminology before, by merely making up facts about concepts I've never even bothered to Wikipedia.

That's harder to do with economics, though, is it not?

Oh yeah, I meant to specify. Completely open voting on any topic even remotely about economics with you.

Lol, why open voting?

I mean, I prefer judge voting, but with open voting, I'd probably want some sort of ELO floor. Terrible voters are positively infuriating to me. Especially if I were to take the time and effort to research and write a case, I don't want some dipsh1t noobie posting some BS fluff vote that just barely gets under the filter. That's slightly harder to do since Aaron took over vote modding, but it's nevertheless possible.

Oh no, because I wouldn't be helping you by clarifying. I would literally be lying and just making crap up about your confusing words that are merely meant to pretend to clarify, so you'd have the dual duty of both clarifying while going through the trouble of explaining why I'm full of shitt. Don't worry, I'd find citations that somehow support whatever utterly retarded crap I'm spewing.

Fair enough, though a lot of this stuff could probably only be found in academic papers - but if you found citations and managed to make it sound convincing, at that point you deserve to win.

The open voting would be to balance out the risk I take by debating somebody more familiar with economics and my unpopular position. It would also give me a chance to use rhetorical devices that work on inexperienced voters, but are ignored by good voters to bridge the gap between us in the debate.

How exactly would that bridge the gap? Is the implication that because I'm more familiar with economics, inexperienced voters would be needed to counterbalance "correct" votes - which assumes that I would be in a better position to win, which even I don't quite buy?

I'm really not comfortable with that. I would much prefer a "correct" outcome, which I think would be better handled by a panel of responsible, reputable judges. I don't think my familiarity with economics really obviates the need for good, objective votes.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
Geogeer
Posts: 4,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 8:04:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro

Duh... Can you imagine a checkers/chess board if we didn't have proper white/black separation?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 8:11:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 7:58:29 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:54:49 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:34:55 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:25:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.

You use terminology in a debate like that with me you'll definitely lose. If I think the voters won't understand what you're saying, I'll start pretending to educate you on the very thing you bring up, and just start saying random stuff. Judges hate feeling stupid, so if you say something to make them feel stupid, I'll take their side.

That's true, but I probably would tone down - or at least explain - the terminology in a debate like that; or, better yet, I would clarify it when responding to you.

Everybody loves when the guy with big words who confuses them with big words gets schooled on what those words actually mean. If I make it not sound like B.S. To the untrained ear than they'll take my side.

But how exactly would you school me on what they mean? You would say, "you're wrong, the Wicksellian is X." I would say, "Sure, you're right, it's X, plus all this other stuff, and here's how it supports my case, but not yours." If anything, by explaining it, you're doing me a favor - and saving me much-needed characters in the process, lol.

I've beaten people in debates that used confusing terminology before, by merely making up facts about concepts I've never even bothered to Wikipedia.

That's harder to do with economics, though, is it not?

Oh yeah, I meant to specify. Completely open voting on any topic even remotely about economics with you.

Lol, why open voting?

I mean, I prefer judge voting, but with open voting, I'd probably want some sort of ELO floor. Terrible voters are positively infuriating to me. Especially if I were to take the time and effort to research and write a case, I don't want some dipsh1t noobie posting some BS fluff vote that just barely gets under the filter. That's slightly harder to do since Aaron took over vote modding, but it's nevertheless possible.

Oh no, because I wouldn't be helping you by clarifying. I would literally be lying and just making crap up about your confusing words that are merely meant to pretend to clarify, so you'd have the dual duty of both clarifying while going through the trouble of explaining why I'm full of shitt. Don't worry, I'd find citations that somehow support whatever utterly retarded crap I'm spewing.

Fair enough, though a lot of this stuff could probably only be found in academic papers - but if you found citations and managed to make it sound convincing, at that point you deserve to win.

The open voting would be to balance out the risk I take by debating somebody more familiar with economics and my unpopular position. It would also give me a chance to use rhetorical devices that work on inexperienced voters, but are ignored by good voters to bridge the gap between us in the debate.

How exactly would that bridge the gap? Is the implication that because I'm more familiar with economics, inexperienced voters would be needed to counterbalance "correct" votes - which assumes that I would be in a better position to win, which even I don't quite buy?

I'm really not comfortable with that. I would much prefer a "correct" outcome, which I think would be better handled by a panel of responsible, reputable judges. I don't think my familiarity with economics really obviates the need for good, objective votes.

I don't think bad votes would make up for good ones, but I think rhetoric is a part of debate, and the higher ELOs seem less susceptible to rhetoric despite the fact that rhetoric is absolutely a legitimate part of debate. A floor of 2500 ELO seems like a good balance. The idiots who place their votes randomly are out of the picture, while rhetoric is still useful for gaining points.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 8:12:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 8:04:27 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro

Duh... Can you imagine a checkers/chess board if we didn't have proper white/black separation?

That's my main contention.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 8:15:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 8:11:24 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:58:29 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:54:49 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:34:55 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 7:25:25 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 6:08:51 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 5:58:02 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:56:41 PM, ResponsiblyIrresponsible wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
Gold standard- Pro

In about two weeks, I'd love to take this.

I knew throwing that out there would make you bite. It's a risky topic, but I think you won't have the automatic win you think you do.

I don't see it as an automatic win, though I think the case is extremely feeble; you'd be better off arguing for free banking or some sort of currency competition than a gold standard. I'd be more comfortable arguing for a Taylor Rule with a fixed, non-time-varying Wicksellian than that, lol.

You use terminology in a debate like that with me you'll definitely lose. If I think the voters won't understand what you're saying, I'll start pretending to educate you on the very thing you bring up, and just start saying random stuff. Judges hate feeling stupid, so if you say something to make them feel stupid, I'll take their side.

That's true, but I probably would tone down - or at least explain - the terminology in a debate like that; or, better yet, I would clarify it when responding to you.

Everybody loves when the guy with big words who confuses them with big words gets schooled on what those words actually mean. If I make it not sound like B.S. To the untrained ear than they'll take my side.

But how exactly would you school me on what they mean? You would say, "you're wrong, the Wicksellian is X." I would say, "Sure, you're right, it's X, plus all this other stuff, and here's how it supports my case, but not yours." If anything, by explaining it, you're doing me a favor - and saving me much-needed characters in the process, lol.

I've beaten people in debates that used confusing terminology before, by merely making up facts about concepts I've never even bothered to Wikipedia.

That's harder to do with economics, though, is it not?

Oh yeah, I meant to specify. Completely open voting on any topic even remotely about economics with you.

Lol, why open voting?

I mean, I prefer judge voting, but with open voting, I'd probably want some sort of ELO floor. Terrible voters are positively infuriating to me. Especially if I were to take the time and effort to research and write a case, I don't want some dipsh1t noobie posting some BS fluff vote that just barely gets under the filter. That's slightly harder to do since Aaron took over vote modding, but it's nevertheless possible.

Oh no, because I wouldn't be helping you by clarifying. I would literally be lying and just making crap up about your confusing words that are merely meant to pretend to clarify, so you'd have the dual duty of both clarifying while going through the trouble of explaining why I'm full of shitt. Don't worry, I'd find citations that somehow support whatever utterly retarded crap I'm spewing.

Fair enough, though a lot of this stuff could probably only be found in academic papers - but if you found citations and managed to make it sound convincing, at that point you deserve to win.

The open voting would be to balance out the risk I take by debating somebody more familiar with economics and my unpopular position. It would also give me a chance to use rhetorical devices that work on inexperienced voters, but are ignored by good voters to bridge the gap between us in the debate.

How exactly would that bridge the gap? Is the implication that because I'm more familiar with economics, inexperienced voters would be needed to counterbalance "correct" votes - which assumes that I would be in a better position to win, which even I don't quite buy?

I'm really not comfortable with that. I would much prefer a "correct" outcome, which I think would be better handled by a panel of responsible, reputable judges. I don't think my familiarity with economics really obviates the need for good, objective votes.

I don't think bad votes would make up for good ones, but I think rhetoric is a part of debate, and the higher ELOs seem less susceptible to rhetoric despite the fact that rhetoric is absolutely a legitimate part of debate. A floor of 2500 ELO seems like a good balance. The idiots who place their votes randomly are out of the picture, while rhetoric is still useful for gaining points.

I think rhetoric is important, generally, because how we say things, rather than what we say, can sway judges - but I think the point at which experienced judges become less receptive to it is when it turns into, basically, BS'ing.

But, sure, the floor works for me.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah
n7
Posts: 1,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2015 8:51:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 5:56:20 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/5/2015 3:53:34 PM, n7 wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro

I'd debate this one with you. By simulation, I assume you're referring to a computational simulation right? I've seen some argue it's some mental simulation in God or something.
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Yes, most likely a computational simulation.

Cool. Send me the challenge whenever.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.


Uphold Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-Sargonist-n7ism.
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:32:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Just curious, do you be an economic Austrian?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 5:33:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

I mean, are you an economic Austrian?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 6:25:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 5:32:57 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Just curious, do you be an economic Austrian?

Yes
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 6:46:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 6:25:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:32:57 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Just curious, are you an economic Austrian?

Yes

Interesting. All Austrians seem to be Pro gold standard ... HG, walle_ras, you, maybe Subutai ...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 8:48:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 6:46:41 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/6/2015 6:25:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:32:57 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Just curious, are you an economic Austrian?

Yes

Interesting. All Austrians seem to be Pro gold standard ... HG, walle_ras, you, maybe Subutai ...

I want money to be a natural and Democratic thing, not something decided by government. That one online currency we have seems like a good example. A gold standard wouldn't be bad if the government and others wanted to use that, but it shouldn't be required.
ResponsiblyIrresponsible
Posts: 12,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2015 9:37:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 5/6/2015 8:48:12 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/6/2015 6:46:41 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/6/2015 6:25:11 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/6/2015 5:32:57 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/5/2015 2:57:59 PM, Wylted wrote:
White/black separatism- pro
Privatizing the police- pro
Broken window policing- pro
Female genital mutilation- pro
Women's right to vote- con
We're living in a simulated universe- pro
Bringing back slavery- pro
Non human/ or children's rights- con
Gold standard- Pro


It's not a long list, but I usually have an easy time getting whoever I want to accept debates.

Just curious, are you an economic Austrian?

Yes

Interesting. All Austrians seem to be Pro gold standard ... HG, walle_ras, you, maybe Subutai ...

I want money to be a natural and Democratic thing, not something decided by government. That one online currency we have seems like a good example. A gold standard wouldn't be bad if the government and others wanted to use that, but it shouldn't be required.

There is no "natural and democratic" component to a gold standard - the supply of money is contingent on how much gold you can mine, which literally couldn't support the current size of the U.S. economy, so you would see, at present:

(a) monetary base shrink
(b) money supply shrink
(c) interest rates soar
(d) NGDP collapse

On the flip side, let's say we discover a gold mine abroad.

(a) monetary base soars
(b) money supply soars
(c) rates plummet
(d) NGDP soars out of control - i.e., hyperinflation

What's the check against unforeseen jumps in the money supply? Having a fiat currency enables us to set an independent monetary policy whereby a central bank can respond to shocks - what we care about is the aggregate NGDP, or PY, but if velocity is uncertain or unexpectedly jumps, the money supply has to adjust accordingly; otherwise, we have unpredictable and undesirable jumps irrespective of how much the base actually changes. The impact on exports is even more dire and volatile.

It's a really, really bad policy.. if you're worried about inflation, as I'm sure you are, the correct approach is constrained discretion.
~ResponsiblyIrresponsible

DDO's Economics Messiah