Total Posts:24|Showing Posts:1-24
Jump to topic:

Looking for challenger

Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 12:08:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 12:02:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 12:01:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
I'm an ancap. Most of you aren't. Challenge me if you have at least wikipedia level knowledge with ancap.

Can I do it...?

Only if I think debate is a superior medium to forums/PM for the topic.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 12:14:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why don't you challenge Roy. I have never seen him refuse a debate and he is obviously pro-state and has described anarcho-capitalism fairly unkindly.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 12:15:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 12:08:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 5/29/2011 12:02:18 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/29/2011 12:01:42 PM, Sieben wrote:
I'm an ancap. Most of you aren't. Challenge me if you have at least wikipedia level knowledge with ancap.

Can I do it...?

Only if I think debate is a superior medium to forums/PM for the topic.

I was just kidding. I'm not stupid enough to debate you on econ.
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 12:17:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 12:14:59 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
Why don't you challenge Roy. I have never seen him refuse a debate and he is obviously pro-state and has described anarcho-capitalism fairly unkindly.

Yes, I would like to see that.
kfc
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 12:23:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

See comments.

I would debate Roy, but he refused to do the wildwest voting thing. I think his arguments against it are bad, and therefore just a pretense to not debate me (on fair grounds).

I am afraid to debate Roy with open voting for several reasons. For one, a lot of people dislike me and like Roy. So I can always get trolled. I had a hard enough time winning this debate here http://www.debate.org... Secondly, I think Roy's argumentation style lends itself well to people who don't read or think very carefully, which describes your average lay voter.

So I'm 100% for a fair debate against Roy, I just think i'll be screwed over if we have open voting.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 12:45:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
So let Roy have the open vote and you have the WWV. Name your rep in your OP and have Roy name his the same. They can work out the third during the debate.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 2:55:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well there's no way for us to stop open voting. What I want is for us to URGE people not to vote by putting a disclaimer: WW judges only at the beginning of the debate. Of course some morons might vote anyway, but this can be pre-empted if we get volunteers to help reinforce the judge's decision.

I don't want to have dual-voting *in spirit* because it undermines the legitimacy of WW voting, which is the most legitimate option available to us.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:17:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Yes in your opinion, but Roy doesn't see it in that way. If you run it with open vote and worst case scenario he wins there and you win in WWV and so your meta-point is made. If you win in both then your meta-point fails (in this example) but the debate is won absolutely. If you lose on both, well then you just got banhammered by your own hammer. If you win in open vote and lose in WWV, well that would be amusing.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:19:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 3:17:15 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
Yes in your opinion, but Roy doesn't see it in that way.
Roy's opinion is wrong.

If you run it with open vote and worst case scenario he wins there and you win in WWV and so your meta-point is made.

Actually the worst case scenario is that both voting paradigms prove unreliable and screw me. I'd prefer "losing" the debate but winning the WWV, but I don't see why I can't just hold out for both.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

If you win in both then your meta-point fails (in this example) but the debate is won absolutely. If you lose on both, well then you just got banhammered by your own hammer. If you win in open vote and lose in WWV, well that would be amusing.

K.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:20:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 3:19:05 PM, Sieben wrote:

Actually the worst case scenario is that both voting paradigms prove unreliable and screw me. I'd prefer "losing" the debate but winning the WWV, but I don't see why I can't just hold out for my preferred option. It is 100% fair so I don't see any reason to budge.

fixd
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Koopin
Posts: 12,090
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:25:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 2:55:40 PM, Sieben wrote:
Well there's no way for us to stop open voting. What I want is for us to URGE people not to vote by putting a disclaimer: WW judges only at the beginning of the debate. Of course some morons might vote anyway, but this can be pre-empted if we get volunteers to help reinforce the judge's decision.

I don't want to have dual-voting *in spirit* because it undermines the legitimacy of WW voting, which is the most legitimate option available to us.

I'll volunteer to counter any vote that is not the judges.
kfc
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 3:54:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 3:25:06 PM, Koopin wrote:

I'll volunteer to counter any vote that is not the judges.

Roy is not going to debate if there is a conspiracy to vote bomb against open voting.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 11:12:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sieben puts together childish insults and incomprehensibility into an awesome package. It's hard to figure out what he's saying, but you know he doesn't like anyone who disagrees.

The proposed wildwest voting system puts the whole debate outcome into the hands of, most likely, one judge. That seems to me to be usually less fair than open voting. However, if some people try it and find it works well, I could be convinced.

As to whether I win debates unfairly, that's easy to determine. People who care can read them and judge for themselves. Hey, they can actually vote on it.

I want to debate ancap sometime, but it's like debating fine points of the Bible. Just learning the lingo is a major effort. I haven't done the homework yet. Years ago, it was the Trotskyites who were masters of theory and eager to debate. Same deal.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 11:31:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 11:12:05 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Sieben puts together childish insults and incomprehensibility into an awesome package. It's hard to figure out what he's saying, but you know he doesn't like anyone who disagrees.

Its funny that you think its hard to figure out what I'm saying. It kind of supports my "Roy is incompetent" hypothesis.

The proposed wildwest voting system puts the whole debate outcome into the hands of, most likely, one judge. That seems to me to be usually less fair than open voting.

Assuming both of our chosen judges are incorrigibly biased, yes. But its still a judge that has been chosen by people we both trust. This is equally favorable for both of us. Your complaint is that its high stakes for that one vote. High stakes =/= unfair.

However, if some people try it and find it works well, I could be convinced.

Of course. Because you would look really bad to keep refusing it if it were shown to work. But this is an empty challenge from you because I probably WON'T be able to test it. If I do, it will be a few weeks. When I do actually test it you can also just complain that it didn't work well enough. There is also a chance it will legitimately fail even if it has an 80% success rate.

So I'd say the overall chances of empirically convincing you of WWV are like 20%. Pass. This is a "get out of jail" card that you can just keep playing without consequence.

I'm just going to flat out refuse to debate you unless we have WWV. I don't care if you're convinced of it or not. You yourself said that you didn't want to sit around debating about the debate. Capitulate or move on. You seem content to debate trolls.

As to whether I win debates unfairly, that's easy to determine. People who care can read them and judge for themselves. Hey, they can actually vote on it.

No no no no. You win debates against trolls just fine. I do not dispute that you legitimately win most of your debates. I anticipate that it will be difficult for me to pull off a popular win against you because your style is so abusive. For me to win against "hur hur good government is good we need more of it" I have to make more sophisticated arguments that are either beyond the attention spans or create cognitive dissonance among randos.

I want to debate ancap sometime, but it's like debating fine points of the Bible. Just learning the lingo is a major effort.

What are some examples if lingo you think are really esoteric to ancap? I know PDA, DRO... but those are for ancaps who need an ad hoc lexicon to substitute for their lack of organizational theory.

I haven't done the homework yet. Years ago, it was the Trotskyites who were masters of theory and eager to debate. Same deal.

I'm sure you know what necessary and sufficient conditions are. So I'll just skip schooling you on them and point out that this is a dead end attempt to talk trash because all we can say is "Yes/No we're not like Trotsykites". Good job w the stonewall.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 11:57:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 11:12:05 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Sieben puts together childish insults and incomprehensibility into an awesome package. It's hard to figure out what he's saying, but you know he doesn't like anyone who disagrees.

The proposed wildwest voting system puts the whole debate outcome into the hands of, most likely, one judge. That seems to me to be usually less fair than open voting. However, if some people try it and find it works well, I could be convinced.

As to whether I win debates unfairly, that's easy to determine. People who care can read them and judge for themselves. Hey, they can actually vote on it.

I want to debate ancap sometime, but it's like debating fine points of the Bible. Just learning the lingo is a major effort. I haven't done the homework yet. Years ago, it was the Trotskyites who were masters of theory and eager to debate. Same deal.

Robert Murphy's chaos theory is a good book to start off with.

I read it, and still didn't agree with it. I haven't read Murray Rothbard's book yet though.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 1:10:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 11:12:05 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I want to debate ancap sometime, but it's like debating fine points of the Bible. Just learning the lingo is a major effort. I haven't done the homework yet. Years ago, it was the Trotskyites who were masters of theory and eager to debate. Same deal.

Wow, I've seen the light now. Conservatism all the way. Big government with work because it will. At first I thought my theory was valid, but now I realize it's invalidated by some vague historical parallels to Trotskyism that I'm just hearing about for the first time. If only I were smart enough to correctly figure out the answers to political, moral, and economic questions without any theory whatsoever I would have abandoned anarcho-capitalism a long time ago.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 1:39:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 11:57:28 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/29/2011 11:12:05 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Sieben puts together childish insults and incomprehensibility into an awesome package. It's hard to figure out what he's saying, but you know he doesn't like anyone who disagrees.

The proposed wildwest voting system puts the whole debate outcome into the hands of, most likely, one judge. That seems to me to be usually less fair than open voting. However, if some people try it and find it works well, I could be convinced.

As to whether I win debates unfairly, that's easy to determine. People who care can read them and judge for themselves. Hey, they can actually vote on it.

I want to debate ancap sometime, but it's like debating fine points of the Bible. Just learning the lingo is a major effort. I haven't done the homework yet. Years ago, it was the Trotskyites who were masters of theory and eager to debate. Same deal.

Robert Murphy's chaos theory is a good book to start off with.

I read it, and still didn't agree with it. I haven't read Murray Rothbard's book yet though.

Chaos Theory is a little too short and simple, which makes it a good intro, but not a very thorough defense of ancap. Try "Democracy: The God that Failed," or "The Private Production of Defense," both by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 9:34:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 11:12:05 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

The proposed wildwest voting system puts the whole debate outcome into the hands of, most likely, one judge. That seems to me to be usually less fair than open voting. However, if some people try it and find it works well, I could be convinced.

The idea here is that it will be a judge who is selected by both parties and thus has a high chance of being a qualified and unbiased representative, much more so than a random selection of individuals.

I want to debate ancap sometime, but it's like debating fine points of the Bible. Just learning the lingo is a major effort. I haven't done the homework yet. Years ago, it was the Trotskyites who were masters of theory and eager to debate. Same deal.

The lingo and such is gibberish and can be largely ignored, assuming you are not talking above economic theory. The central point is quite simple, what is the predicted function of a society where the selective pressure set to the free market vs a state selective pressure. You could debate on one issue in particular, for example can justice be achieved in such a society.