Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Issues I MIGHT enjoy debating with others

YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Capitalism has no value. (Pro)
-Be wary of the definition of value. lol

2) Cocaine should be legalized. (Pro)
-Oh the bliss... I would imagine.

3) The United States should make Iraq a state. (Pro)
-I am an imperialist. Accept it.

4) Private Military Corporations have the potential to more effectively defend human rights than the United Nations.
-Be very careful on this one. I haz evidence.

5) Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.
-This is an objective fact.

6) Arguing about evolution is stupid.
-But people do it anyway.

7) The societal benefits of abortion outweigh even the most vile hypothetical moral objections.
-I'm going to talk about Malthusian Economics (probably), David Riccardo (and his various theories), biopower, efficiency and (If I'd be so bold) de facto eugenics

8) It is absurd to expect to be able to reason your way to believing in God.
-I love this topic because it irritates atheists, confuses dogmatic Christians (especially Catholics and reformed "theologians"), and generally gets everyone upset. It's not that I'm trying to elicit schadenfreude here, only that this argument is the one that resonates with me the most and ends the angst between faith and reason. Note- I might reword the resolution.

9) Regardless of wether health care is a right, government's should provide it.
-Liberalism ftw.

10) Opposing affirmative action policies in college admission is not pragmatic when considering the prospective implications to society in the aggregate.
-This will be REALLY fun.

11) Hegel was a dipsh!t.
-Troll debate.

12) There is no tenable objective morality, and even if there were, it would be inaccessible to humans.

13) Meaning is meaningless.
Tsar of DDO
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 7:56:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Define 1 further and I want to do 9.

However, any obligations I make will need to be given at a later time. I already have too many people I need to challenge.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:19:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 7:56:41 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Define 1 further and I want to do 9.

However, any obligations I make will need to be given at a later time. I already have too many people I need to challenge.

On 1, I haven't actually worked out how I'm going to implement that semantic clusterfuck. On 9, that should be interesting. Between you and I, it would be a true clash of political ideology; a "cold war" of value. I'd love it.
Tsar of DDO
Ron-Paul
Posts: 2,557
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:24:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:19:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 12/4/2012 7:56:41 PM, Ron-Paul wrote:
Define 1 further and I want to do 9.

However, any obligations I make will need to be given at a later time. I already have too many people I need to challenge.

On 1, I haven't actually worked out how I'm going to implement that semantic clusterfuck. On 9, that should be interesting. Between you and I, it would be a true clash of political ideology; a "cold war" of value. I'd love it.

Ok great. I'll challenge you on 9 when I have time. Thanks.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:33:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
1) Capitalism has no value. (Pro)
-Be wary of the definition of value. lol

2) Cocaine should be legalized. (Pro)
-Oh the bliss... I would imagine.

3) The United States should make Iraq a state. (Pro)
-I am an imperialist. Accept it.

4) Private Military Corporations have the potential to more effectively defend human rights than the United Nations.
-Be very careful on this one. I haz evidence.

Now this would be interesting. Conceptual or status quo? If status quo, specified to a specific firm?

5) Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.
-This is an objective fact.

Now here is a debate I would like to see.

6) Arguing about evolution is stupid.
-But people do it anyway.

Hey guys here's a thought. STFU.

7) The societal benefits of abortion outweigh even the most vile hypothetical moral objections.
-I'm going to talk about Malthusian Economics (probably), David Riccardo (and his various theories), biopower, efficiency and (If I'd be so bold) de facto eugenics

8) It is absurd to expect to be able to reason your way to believing in God.
-I love this topic because it irritates atheists, confuses dogmatic Christians (especially Catholics and reformed "theologians"), and generally gets everyone upset. It's not that I'm trying to elicit schadenfreude here, only that this argument is the one that resonates with me the most and ends the angst between faith and reason. Note- I might reword the resolution.

Gimme a bit of time and I might actually enjoy taking this. I'm not promising much of a fight, since this is your home ground at least more than it is mine, but it would certainly be fun.

9) Regardless of wether health care is a right, government's should provide it.
-Liberalism ftw.

10) Opposing affirmative action policies in college admission is not pragmatic when considering the prospective implications to society in the aggregate.
-This will be REALLY fun.

Can you explain this more? I just did debates over affirmative action in school so I'm well prepped on the topic.

11) Hegel was a dipsh!t.
-Troll debate.

12) There is no tenable objective morality, and even if there were, it would be inaccessible to humans.

How would it be inaccessible to us, presuming it existed?

13) Meaning is meaningless.

Teh lulz.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 8:55:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You're going to have no problem with people taking you up on the health care debate, so I'll comment on a few of the others. If you're willing, how about doing a few of these with me? The reason I ask is because usually it's pretty difficult for me to find debates/debaters that appeal to me, but several of your propositions are intriguing and that rarely ever happens :P

1) Capitalism has no value. (Pro)
-Be wary of the definition of value. lol

You should just define it here since I'm sure everyone is going to ask for it.

3) The United States should make Iraq a state. (Pro)

I may take this.

4) Private Military Corporations have the potential to more effectively defend human rights than the United Nations.

I may take this.

5) Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.

Define absurd. I imagine the base of your argument will be "We can never know so why bother," but you might as well confirm or deny since that's pretty obvious.

8) It is absurd to expect to be able to reason your way to believing in God.

I'm admittedly curious where you're going with this. Keep in mind that God can and is defined in many ways. While I don't think you should have to debate under the conditions that say "God" is defined as a chair, I think a very loose, spiritual interpretation of God (such as something akin to how Einstein feels about God) might get you in trouble with this resolution.

13) Meaning is meaningless.

This will only work if your argument reduces to you asserting that everything is meaningless. Yes or no? Either way, I might take you up on this one.
President of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:10:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:33:31 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
1) Capitalism has no value. (Pro)
-Be wary of the definition of value. lol

2) Cocaine should be legalized. (Pro)
-Oh the bliss... I would imagine.

3) The United States should make Iraq a state. (Pro)
-I am an imperialist. Accept it.

4) Private Military Corporations have the potential to more effectively defend human rights than the United Nations.
-Be very careful on this one. I haz evidence.

Now this would be interesting. Conceptual or status quo? If status quo, specified to a specific firm?

To say something has the potential to do something is to reflect on the status quo and anticipate the prospects in the future. An example? Executive Outcomes in Sierra Leone.

5) Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.
-This is an objective fact.

Now here is a debate I would like to see.

I've been saying it forever.

6) Arguing about evolution is stupid.
-But people do it anyway.

Hey guys here's a thought. STFU.

I've been saying this forever too. People don't like me for it though. When I treat something that someone REALLY cares about as not in conflict with the thing they think it is in conflict with (without resorting to BS like "intelligent design" people become upset.

7) The societal benefits of abortion outweigh even the most vile hypothetical moral objections.
-I'm going to talk about Malthusian Economics (probably), David Riccardo (and his various theories), biopower, efficiency and (If I'd be so bold) de facto eugenics

8) It is absurd to expect to be able to reason your way to believing in God.
-I love this topic because it irritates atheists, confuses dogmatic Christians (especially Catholics and reformed "theologians"), and generally gets everyone upset. It's not that I'm trying to elicit schadenfreude here, only that this argument is the one that resonates with me the most and ends the angst between faith and reason. Note- I might reword the resolution.

Gimme a bit of time and I might actually enjoy taking this. I'm not promising much of a fight, since this is your home ground at least more than it is mine, but it would certainly be fun.

Read the debate I had with Keytarhero that reads "Faith and reason are irreconcilable." I think that Larz was the only one who actually had a scintilla of understanding of what I was talking about. Roy thought I cheated (which was unusually idiotic). It went FAR over InVino's head and the rest of them too. But if you want an idea of what I'll say, that's where to go.

9) Regardless of wether health care is a right, government's should provide it.
-Liberalism ftw.

10) Opposing affirmative action policies in college admission is not pragmatic when considering the prospective implications to society in the aggregate.
-This will be REALLY fun.

Can you explain this more? I just did debates over affirmative action in school so I'm well prepped on the topic.

Let's say you are a poor urban minority high school student. It's your 12th grade year and even though all of your friends have dropped out of school to join the Bloods and terrorize South Central LA, you stuck around to listen to some dips!t talk about things he/she doesn't understand or care about. You've never had a good education because you live in a poor neighborhood with a depleted tax base, apathetic citizens and a fvckload of crime. Essentially, you are a societal urchin. White people hate you because they are afraid you are going to steal their Coach leather accessory. Asians hate you because you for pretty much the same reason. But yet, you're in school, trying to do better for yourself, despite every possible odd against you. So then, one day, you decide to apply to college. You have decent grades, but so what? There were no clubs other than gangs and no extracurricular activities other than crack. No leadership opportunities, no chance for self improvement, no hope for a better life. You bagged groceries at night to help put bread on the table because your father walked out on you and your three younger siblings wouldn't be fed otherwise -it's not like your mother has a job. Essentially, life dealt you a sh!tty hand from birth -but you're not stupid. Your best friend, however, is. He deals drugs on the street corner now and will die in a gang shooting before he turns 30. You apply to the University of California and get accepted, but some stupid white girl get's her panties in a wad because she was captain of the tennis team, leader of the beta club and made an 1150 on her SATs after studying with a tutor for five weeks (at $40 USD/hr) before the test. You only made a 1070. No tutor. Not even decent math or english classes. This was you. So the admissions clerk reads your application and that of Miss Priss from Snooty High outside of Malibu. Who's he going to admit? Kid who fought the system and barely made it out alive or entitled b!tch whose parents gave her everything? Obviously the former. The latter can go to community college. Sad story aside though, what else could you have done? Dealt drugs? You're smart, remember, so it's not like you'd be on the street forever. You'd climb the chain and rise to the height of leadership within the underworld of criminal syndicalism. You might even build an empire and get rich, or die trying.

I know this is just a story, but it's not too far off base. Something to think about.

11) Hegel was a dipsh!t.
-Troll debate.

12) There is no tenable objective morality, and even if there were, it would be inaccessible to humans.

How would it be inaccessible to us, presuming it existed?

If all knowledge is sourced from humans, and all humans are equal, how could it be that the objective truth were knowable, where it came from the mouth of a mere man. Arthur Leff called this the test of the "Grand Sez Who."

13) Meaning is meaningless.

Teh lulz.

Yup.
Tsar of DDO
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 9:34:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1) Capitalism has no value. (Pro)

I would have to hear your definition of value.

5) Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.

I would do this.

7) The societal benefits of abortion outweigh even the most vile hypothetical moral objections.

This strikes me as peculiar attempt to dismiss moral considerations almost entirely. I honestly don't know what to make of this, traditionally speaking, morality is what aims at "the good."

10) Opposing affirmative action policies in college admission is not pragmatic when considering the prospective implications to society in the aggregate.

Potentially.

12) There is no tenable objective morality, and even if there were, it would be inaccessible to humans.

This would probably become a metaphysical debate...

13) Meaning is meaningless.

Yes, and black is white. This one is easily my favorite, because my guess is that you'd try to deconstruct one concept (meaning) while leaving the other (meaninglessness) completely untouched. What would it mean to deconstruct meaninglessness? Or meaning, for that matter? Regardless, the topic is fun because you'd be defending a contradiction.
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 10:24:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
12) There is no tenable objective morality, and even if there were, it would be inaccessible to humans.

Maybe there's just the Tower of Babel to be torn down? I've been thinking about this one, too. World Communism, lol.
signature
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 10:28:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
13) Meaning is meaningless.

I've been meaning to do a "Logic is Illogical" debate for a long time. As Pro.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2012 10:30:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/4/2012 10:28:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
13) Meaning is meaningless.

I've been meaning to do a "Logic is Illogical" debate for a long time. As Pro.

How would anyone justify voting for you? Flipped a coin?
signature
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 3:06:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 10:30:56 PM, badger wrote:
At 12/4/2012 10:28:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
13) Meaning is meaningless.

I've been meaning to do a "Logic is Illogical" debate for a long time. As Pro.

How would anyone justify voting for you? Flipped a coin?

Logic is inconsistent in it's furthest implications. But in it's casual application, it's useful.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 3:33:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
7) The societal benefits of abortion outweigh even the most vile hypothetical moral objections.
-I'm going to talk about Malthusian Economics (probably), David Riccardo (and his various theories), biopower, efficiency and (If I'd be so bold) de facto eugenics

Will this be a benign form of eugenics? Who will institute the eugenics project? Will there be sufficient financial inducement for people to voluntarily submit themselves into the project?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
BennyW
Posts: 698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 3:59:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
1) Capitalism has no value. (Pro)
-Be wary of the definition of value. lol

2) Cocaine should be legalized. (Pro)
-Oh the bliss... I would imagine.

3) The United States should make Iraq a state. (Pro)
-I am an imperialist. Accept it.

4) Private Military Corporations have the potential to more effectively defend human rights than the United Nations.
-Be very careful on this one. I haz evidence.

5) Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.
-This is an objective fact.

6) Arguing about evolution is stupid.
-But people do it anyway.

7) The societal benefits of abortion outweigh even the most vile hypothetical moral objections.
-I'm going to talk about Malthusian Economics (probably), David Riccardo (and his various theories), biopower, efficiency and (If I'd be so bold) de facto eugenics

8) It is absurd to expect to be able to reason your way to believing in God.
-I love this topic because it irritates atheists, confuses dogmatic Christians (especially Catholics and reformed "theologians"), and generally gets everyone upset. It's not that I'm trying to elicit schadenfreude here, only that this argument is the one that resonates with me the most and ends the angst between faith and reason. Note- I might reword the resolution.

9) Regardless of wether health care is a right, government's should provide it.
-Liberalism ftw.

10) Opposing affirmative action policies in college admission is not pragmatic when considering the prospective implications to society in the aggregate.
-This will be REALLY fun.

11) Hegel was a dipsh!t.
-Troll debate.

12) There is no tenable objective morality, and even if there were, it would be inaccessible to humans.

13) Meaning is meaningless.

I might be interested in 1, 7, 10, 12, and 13 although I sense a trick in 13 as the whole resolution is worded as an oxymoron.
You didn't build that-Obama
It's pretty lazy to quote things you disagree with, call it stupid and move on, rather than arguing with the person. -000ike
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:28:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2012 3:33:09 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
7) The societal benefits of abortion outweigh even the most vile hypothetical moral objections.
-I'm going to talk about Malthusian Economics (probably), David Riccardo (and his various theories), biopower, efficiency and (If I'd be so bold) de facto eugenics

Will this be a benign form of eugenics? Who will institute the eugenics project? Will there be sufficient financial inducement for people to voluntarily submit themselves into the project?

Notice the adjective modifier to eugenics: "de facto" -meaning that while it is not the imposition of policies of eugenics which would be the stated purpose, but surely would be the effect. Remember the chapter in Freakonomics about abortion? Think about that in the context of managing the reproductive rates of populations. How might I do that? Mass campaigns to promote sexual hygiene and governmentally subsidized birth control -to specific parts of the population. (Granted, in real life I'm not sure I would favor that, but I'm in the process of working on a manuscript where that is implemented, along with some other things.)
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:31:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Biebz wrote:
13) Meaning is meaningless.

Yes, and black is white. This one is easily my favorite, because my guess is that you'd try to deconstruct one concept (meaning) while leaving the other (meaninglessness) completely untouched. What would it mean to deconstruct meaninglessness? Or meaning, for that matter? Regardless, the topic is fun because you'd be defending a contradiction.

You're not far off, but missed the point of the method. Avital Ronell gave a lecture about this somewhere that I can't remember. I'd probably do something like that. And yes, she is VERY MUCH of the Jacques Derrida school of thought.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:31:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 10:30:56 PM, badger wrote:
At 12/4/2012 10:28:13 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/4/2012 7:34:46 PM, YYW wrote:
13) Meaning is meaningless.

I've been meaning to do a "Logic is Illogical" debate for a long time. As Pro.

How would anyone justify voting for you? Flipped a coin?

Meh.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:35:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 10:24:24 PM, badger wrote:
12) There is no tenable objective morality, and even if there were, it would be inaccessible to humans.

Maybe there's just the Tower of Babel to be torn down? I've been thinking about this one, too. World Communism, lol.

There's a tower of bullsh!t to be torn down, and I'll be happy to provide the intellectual wrecking ball.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:54:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 8:55:16 PM, Danielle wrote:
You're going to have no problem with people taking you up on the health care debate, so I'll comment on a few of the others. If you're willing, how about doing a few of these with me? The reason I ask is because usually it's pretty difficult for me to find debates/debaters that appeal to me, but several of your propositions are intriguing and that rarely ever happens :P

I'm honored :)



1) Capitalism has no value. (Pro)
-Be wary of the definition of value. lol

You should just define it here since I'm sure everyone is going to ask for it.

This is one of those times where I have a feeling about something and I'm not sure where I'm going to take it, but might argue for it anyway because it feels right. The reason I announce these topics is because I feel like making a return to debating but I want people to have some time to prepare -and I want some time to prepare myself too. That said, when I work out the definition, I'll let everyone know.

3) The United States should make Iraq a state. (Pro)

I may take this.

I tried to argue this with Ore Ele some time ago but IDK what happened.

4) Private Military Corporations have the potential to more effectively defend human rights than the United Nations.

I may take this.

I'll be talking about Sierra Leone, and Executive Outcomes. You familiar with the case?

5) Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.

Define absurd. I imagine the base of your argument will be "We can never know so why bother," but you might as well confirm or deny since that's pretty obvious.

The point is that with the exception of the Aristotelian search for the uncaused cause, there is nothing more -but that is not a sufficient argument for the existence of God. The point is that we cannot know, so why bother looking. This occurred to me when I was trudging through Wittgenstein some time back.

8) It is absurd to expect to be able to reason your way to believing in God.

I'm admittedly curious where you're going with this. Keep in mind that God can and is defined in many ways. While I don't think you should have to debate under the conditions that say "God" is defined as a chair, I think a very loose, spiritual interpretation of God (such as something akin to how Einstein feels about God) might get you in trouble with this resolution.

I'm would prefer to limiting "God" to a monotheistic conception, but this is where I thumb my nose at every atheist who says: "there is no proof!" and every Anglican or catholic who shouts "faith seeking reason!" I don't know how Einstein feels about God, but my view is this: both faith and reason are means to belief. Belief exists in two kinds: that grounded in fact, and that not grounded in fact. Facts are knowledge that is observable, empirical, universally knowable attributes of the physical world. Belief not grounded in fact is over, distinct from, and not governed by knowledge of the physical. It cannot be confirmed or tested. If it is believed (that is belief not grounded in fact) it must be done on the basis of faith (which is the willful acceptance of that for which there is no proof, no fact, no confirmable knowledge). I argued it before -sort of- with Keytar and it went over the heads of most -I was also unclear in communicating several aspects of the argument- but Roy, InVino and basically everyone other than Larz who actually judged the debate turned on a hypothetical assertion (Keytar made) that itself was contradicted by the foundation of my argument. That told me (1) that I didn't reiterate enough, (2) that this was not something people were willing to accept and (3) that I needed to be more clear. It was, I think -at the risk of being arrogant- probably something like what Ayn Rand felt after writing the Fountainhead.

13) Meaning is meaningless.

This will only work if your argument reduces to you asserting that everything is meaningless. Yes or no? Either way, I might take you up on this one.

Think about when we provide meaning to events or phenomena. For example: a bolt of lightning strikes the pope dead -lol- as he is arguing against gay marriage. My, how tempting it would be to conclude that this was an indication of divine disagreement! But no. That's too bold an assertion. Think about when a tragedy occurs of any kind, then someone gives a speech and we all feel better because somehow, in affixing the 'meaning' to human suffering, it seems less arbitrary and therefore hurts less. Nonsense. Life is arbitrary, chaotic and messy. But to accept that is much harder than to say "Oh, [insert episode of human suffering]... blah blah blah."
Tsar of DDO
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 6:40:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the debates on the value of capitalism and "meaning" are going to have similar rebuttals... at least they would from me. Since you were forthcoming with your position, I'll say that mine would be akin to saying that an individual's applied meaning or value, while subjective, is no less significant or real. So if I value capitalism (advantages, repercussions, anything about it really...) or believe that XYZ gives my life meaning, then that is true/real whether you agree with my perception or not. You said, "Think about when we provide meaning to events or phenomena." To me it seems like you've already defeated your own argument. If we provide meaning to things, then clearly meaning has a definition. If it has a definition, it has use. If it has use, it has meaning. I would use a variation of this argument for those 2 debates.

As for private militias, I wasn't familiar with Executive Order but I looked it up (thanks for mentioning it). My argument would still be the same, as you could note that the success of EO and Sierra Leone was anecdotal and that it could have easily gone the other way (if the RUF had used diamond wealth to buy EO's services instead). However, as an anarchist, I'm used to arguing on behalf of privatized everything. This would be one of those debates where I argued for the sake of honing my skills and challenging myself to debate outside of my comfort zone, on a topic I didn't necessarily feel strongly about (the DP is another example of those types of debates).

I don't think you can so simply assert that we can never know if God exists. Interesting topic. I like that you're very bold with these assertions. You come across as someone who cares more about having a very thoughtful conversation rather than winning a debate. That's why I'm very interested in debating you. These are really the best debate propositions I've seen in a long time :) So in this order, my preferences would be...

- The United States should make Iraq a state.

- Private military corporations have the potential to more effectively defend human rights than the United Nations.

- Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.
President of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 8:39:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2012 6:40:38 PM, Danielle wrote:
I think the debates on the value of capitalism and "meaning" are going to have similar rebuttals... at least they would from me. Since you were forthcoming with your position, I'll say that mine would be akin to saying that an individual's applied meaning or value, while subjective, is no less significant or real. So if I value capitalism (advantages, repercussions, anything about it really...) or believe that XYZ gives my life meaning, then that is true/real whether you agree with my perception or not. You said, "Think about when we provide meaning to events or phenomena." To me it seems like you've already defeated your own argument. If we provide meaning to things, then clearly meaning has a definition. If it has a definition, it has use. If it has use, it has meaning. I would use a variation of this argument for those 2 debates.

As for private militias, I wasn't familiar with Executive Order but I looked it up (thanks for mentioning it). My argument would still be the same, as you could note that the success of EO and Sierra Leone was anecdotal and that it could have easily gone the other way (if the RUF had used diamond wealth to buy EO's services instead). However, as an anarchist, I'm used to arguing on behalf of privatized everything. This would be one of those debates where I argued for the sake of honing my skills and challenging myself to debate outside of my comfort zone, on a topic I didn't necessarily feel strongly about (the DP is another example of those types of debates).

I don't think you can so simply assert that we can never know if God exists. Interesting topic. I like that you're very bold with these assertions. You come across as someone who cares more about having a very thoughtful conversation rather than winning a debate. That's why I'm very interested in debating you. These are really the best debate propositions I've seen in a long time :) So in this order, my preferences would be...

- The United States should make Iraq a state.

- Private military corporations have the potential to more effectively defend human rights than the United Nations.

- Arguing about the existence of God is absurd.

We'll see. I think the PMC topic would be more read because that is a topic that the children debated some time ago. Do you like the phraseology of the resolution?

As a sketch of my argument I would begin by framing the objective, that is the advancement of universal human rights. I'd rely heavily on various UN documents, less on political theory, simply because the former is more accessible to the audience we're arguing before. I'd cite the failure of the UN across a broad spectrum of cases, and the United States, and explore the structural and political limitations which caused that failure (most notably in Rwanda, Sierra Leon and Darfur), and then compare those institutional limitations which the UN faces -but PMC's do not face- with several instances of where success has been seen. That said, it is not my burden in that resolution to prove that this has absolutely been the case or will on all occasions continue to be the case. Rather, it is only to argue for potentiality.

I'd rather talk about the epistemological issues surrounding God's existence with the resolution I typed after the one you listed. That, it seems to me, is a more salient topic because it it more immediate than the other one. However, I offered it, so I'm happy to defend it.

The Iraq thing is easily, though, my favorite topic too -simply because of what it would entail calling into question. It redefines sovereignty, makes nation-statehood contingent upon respect for human rights and extends in possibly the most profound possible way the Truman Doctrine while simultaneously (and perhaps un-democratically) advancing democratic peace. It's my theory of the only way that this experiment in nation building we have endeavored ourselves to pursue can work. It's also a middle finger to international norms that have been in place since Westphalia. So needless to say, it's a hot mess of political theory intersected with international pragmatism.
Tsar of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 9:59:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:10:06 PM, YYW wrote:

10) Opposing affirmative action policies in college admission is not pragmatic when considering the prospective implications to society in the aggregate.
-This will be REALLY fun.

Can you explain this more? I just did debates over affirmative action in school so I'm well prepped on the topic.

Let's say you are a poor urban minority high school student. It's your 12th grade year and even though all of your friends have dropped out of school to join the Bloods and terrorize South Central LA, you stuck around to listen to some dips!t talk about things he/she doesn't understand or care about. You've never had a good education because you live in a poor neighborhood with a depleted tax base, apathetic citizens and a fvckload of crime. Essentially, you are a societal urchin. White people hate you because they are afraid you are going to steal their Coach leather accessory. Asians hate you because you for pretty much the same reason. But yet, you're in school, trying to do better for yourself, despite every possible odd against you. So then, one day, you decide to apply to college. You have decent grades, but so what? There were no clubs other than gangs and no extracurricular activities other than crack. No leadership opportunities, no chance for self improvement, no hope for a better life. You bagged groceries at night to help put bread on the table because your father walked out on you and your three younger siblings wouldn't be fed otherwise -it's not like your mother has a job. Essentially, life dealt you a sh!tty hand from birth -but you're not stupid. Your best friend, however, is. He deals drugs on the street corner now and will die in a gang shooting before he turns 30. You apply to the University of California and get accepted, but some stupid white girl get's her panties in a wad because she was captain of the tennis team, leader of the beta club and made an 1150 on her SATs after studying with a tutor for five weeks (at $40 USD/hr) before the test. You only made a 1070. No tutor. Not even decent math or english classes. This was you. So the admissions clerk reads your application and that of Miss Priss from Snooty High outside of Malibu. Who's he going to admit? Kid who fought the system and barely made it out alive or entitled b!tch whose parents gave her everything? Obviously the former. The latter can go to community college. Sad story aside though, what else could you have done? Dealt drugs? You're smart, remember, so it's not like you'd be on the street forever. You'd climb the chain and rise to the height of leadership within the underworld of criminal syndicalism. You might even build an empire and get rich, or die trying.

I know this is just a story, but it's not too far off base. Something to think about.

Giving people benefits because they are poor, had a bad education, came from a broken home, or suffered discrimination is not affirmative action. Virtually everyone agrees that suffering disadvantage is grounds for help. Republicans propose legislation to this effect from time to time, which the Democrats always kill. Affirmative action is providing benefits solely on grounds of race, except for Asians who are deemed not "disadvantaged." So the issue is whether the children of President Obama or Colin Powell ought to get 200 points added to their SAT scores for college admissions.

UC San Diego was adding 200 points to the SAT scores of anyone with a Latin surname. This was a boon to the elite from South America who applied. When affirmative action was ended in California, the percentage of Asians in the UC system increased and very other group decreased.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:02:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2012 9:10:06 PM, YYW wrote:
Read the debate I had with Keytarhero that reads "Faith and reason are irreconcilable." I think that Larz was the only one who actually had a scintilla of understanding of what I was talking about. Roy thought I cheated (which was unusually idiotic). It went FAR over InVino's head and the rest of them too. But if you want an idea of what I'll say, that's where to go.

Tip: When no one understands hat you are trying to say, it just might be your problem, not theirs.
emj32
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 10:03:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:59:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Republicans propose legislation to this effect from time to time, which the Democrats always kill.

Provide sources?
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 11:05:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2012 9:59:48 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:10:06 PM, YYW wrote:

10) Opposing affirmative action policies in college admission is not pragmatic when considering the prospective implications to society in the aggregate.
-This will be REALLY fun.

Can you explain this more? I just did debates over affirmative action in school so I'm well prepped on the topic.

Let's say you are a poor urban minority high school student. It's your 12th grade year and even though all of your friends have dropped out of school to join the Bloods and terrorize South Central LA, you stuck around to listen to some dips!t talk about things he/she doesn't understand or care about. You've never had a good education because you live in a poor neighborhood with a depleted tax base, apathetic citizens and a fvckload of crime. Essentially, you are a societal urchin. White people hate you because they are afraid you are going to steal their Coach leather accessory. Asians hate you because you for pretty much the same reason. But yet, you're in school, trying to do better for yourself, despite every possible odd against you. So then, one day, you decide to apply to college. You have decent grades, but so what? There were no clubs other than gangs and no extracurricular activities other than crack. No leadership opportunities, no chance for self improvement, no hope for a better life. You bagged groceries at night to help put bread on the table because your father walked out on you and your three younger siblings wouldn't be fed otherwise -it's not like your mother has a job. Essentially, life dealt you a sh!tty hand from birth -but you're not stupid. Your best friend, however, is. He deals drugs on the street corner now and will die in a gang shooting before he turns 30. You apply to the University of California and get accepted, but some stupid white girl get's her panties in a wad because she was captain of the tennis team, leader of the beta club and made an 1150 on her SATs after studying with a tutor for five weeks (at $40 USD/hr) before the test. You only made a 1070. No tutor. Not even decent math or english classes. This was you. So the admissions clerk reads your application and that of Miss Priss from Snooty High outside of Malibu. Who's he going to admit? Kid who fought the system and barely made it out alive or entitled b!tch whose parents gave her everything? Obviously the former. The latter can go to community college. Sad story aside though, what else could you have done? Dealt drugs? You're smart, remember, so it's not like you'd be on the street forever. You'd climb the chain and rise to the height of leadership within the underworld of criminal syndicalism. You might even build an empire and get rich, or die trying.

I know this is just a story, but it's not too far off base. Something to think about.

Giving people benefits because they are poor, had a bad education, came from a broken home, or suffered discrimination is not affirmative action.

"Urban" is politically correct for black or latino, Roy. Although the rest of your post leads me to believe you know this.

Virtually everyone agrees that suffering disadvantage is grounds for help. Republicans propose legislation to this effect from time to time, which the Democrats always kill.

I don't care about parties in this context, and Bush would have, yes. I liked Bush. As to wether or not Democrats killed certain efforts to that end made by Republicans, that I can't speak to.

Affirmative action is providing benefits solely on grounds of race, except for Asians who are deemed not "disadvantaged."

Actually, race has been the historical precondition, but legally it is a history of segregation and cultural disadvantage that functions as the necessary prerequisite, of which race has been used as both a metric (to an extent) and an indicator.

So the issue is whether the children of President Obama or Colin Powell ought to get 200 points added to their SAT scores for college admissions.

So your point is that because there are exceptions in some cases the entire concept must be vacated, or are you just out to toss extraneous information in? In either case, if you can't see the point of the objective for the fact that it may advantage some perhaps less meritorious of it, then we have nothing to talk about because I can not change your mind.

UC San Diego was adding 200 points to the SAT scores of anyone with a Latin surname. This was a boon to the elite from South America who applied. When affirmative action was ended in California, the percentage of Asians in the UC system increased and very other group decreased.

There are more admissions policies than that at UC San Diego.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2012 11:06:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2012 10:02:29 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 12/4/2012 9:10:06 PM, YYW wrote:
Read the debate I had with Keytarhero that reads "Faith and reason are irreconcilable." I think that Larz was the only one who actually had a scintilla of understanding of what I was talking about. Roy thought I cheated (which was unusually idiotic). It went FAR over InVino's head and the rest of them too. But if you want an idea of what I'll say, that's where to go.

Tip: When no one understands hat you are trying to say, it just might be your problem, not theirs.

Ever read The Fountainhead, Roy?
Tsar of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 9:35:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2012 11:05:34 PM, YYW wrote:
Affirmative action is providing benefits solely on grounds of race, except for Asians who are deemed not "disadvantaged."

Actually, race has been the historical precondition, but legally it is a history of segregation and cultural disadvantage that functions as the necessary prerequisite, of which race has been used as both a metric (to an extent) and an indicator.

>No, in California Asians have been as discriminated against more severely than Latinos or Blacks. However, Asians are not considered disadvantaged. It's solely about race. Many Blacks freely say that they have never suffered any discrimination that held them back. One of the latest twists is to use genetic testing to determine if a person should receive affirmative action. White people who turn out to have enough Black and Native American genes to exceed 20% qualify for affirmative action, even though no one even treated th as anything other than White.

So the issue is whether the children of President Obama or Colin Powell ought to get 200 points added to their SAT scores for college admissions.

So your point is that because there are exceptions in some cases the entire concept must be vacated, or are you just out to toss extraneous information in? In either case, if you can't see the point of the objective for the fact that it may advantage some perhaps less meritorious of it, then we have nothing to talk about because I can not change your mind.

Yes, money is tight and whatever money available ought to go to people who are genuinely disadvantaged. It is immoral and insulting to treat anyone as being inherently needy without regard to their actual circumstances.

UC San Diego was adding 200 points to the SAT scores of anyone with a Latin surname. This was a boon to the elite from South America who applied. When affirmative action was ended in California, the percentage of Asians in the UC system increased and very other group decreased.

There are more admissions policies than that at UC San Diego.

>What is your point? Obviously admissions criteria could not be used to otherwise discriminate against those getting the 200 bonus points.

What happened was that unqualified applicants were admitted to the more elite UC system, where many ultimately flunked out. When affirmative action was ended by voter referendum, students were admitted to appropriate schools in the Cal State system and the graduation rates increased.

The main purpose of affirmative action is to treat the guilt felt by white liberals. It hurts the people it is supposed to benefit, it hurts the educational system, and it hurts deserving people who could have benefited from help.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2012 10:07:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
WSA said you were interested in debating Rawls' theory of justice.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 12:46:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2012 10:07:18 PM, socialpinko wrote:
WSA said you were interested in debating Rawls' theory of justice.

Nvm sent a challenge over. http://www.debate.org...
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
YYW
Posts: 36,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2012 8:54:27 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/6/2012 9:35:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 12/5/2012 11:05:34 PM, YYW wrote:
Affirmative action is providing benefits solely on grounds of race, except for Asians who are deemed not "disadvantaged."

Actually, race has been the historical precondition, but legally it is a history of segregation and cultural disadvantage that functions as the necessary prerequisite, of which race has been used as both a metric (to an extent) and an indicator.

>No, in California Asians have been as discriminated against more severely than Latinos or Blacks.

I agree, on a cultural level, yes. Regarding collegiate admissions, the Supreme Court thinks otherwise. Their opinion not mine.

However, Asians are not considered disadvantaged.*

*In collegiate admissions.

It's solely about race. Many Blacks freely say that they have never suffered any discrimination that held them back.

Genetic testing aside -which I didn't know about, btw.- elaborate on this point.
Tsar of DDO