Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Political Topic #3525709723409823408124908601

phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 6:14:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Liberty for people to treat the environment how they want benefits no one in the long run. It depends.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 6:14:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

Any debate on this topic will be completely incoherent, since the resolution requires both debaters to use objective moral justification....and there is no such thing.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 6:18:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:14:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

Any debate on this topic will be completely incoherent, since the resolution requires both debaters to use objective moral justification....and there is no such thing.

Depends what you mean by valuable.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 6:43:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

That isn't Political Topic #3525709723409823408124908601, not even close, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

I win.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 6:48:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:10:32 PM, FREEDO wrote:
1. What is liberty?
2. What is importance?
3. What is law?

Then I can give an answer.

It's all up to you to define. I just posed the topic, you guys debate.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 6:49:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:14:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

Any debate on this topic will be completely incoherent, since the resolution requires both debaters to use objective moral justification....and there is no such thing.

I expected better from you.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 6:55:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:14:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

Any debate on this topic will be completely incoherent, since the resolution requires both debaters to use objective moral justification....and there is no such thing.

Damn it, Ike! Are we back on this yet again?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 7:02:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

If the liberty gained/protected by the law is worth more than the liberty lost/surrendered to the law, then no, the law is more valuable. Otherwise, yes.

This isn't some fundamental philosophical conundrum. It's a simple cost vs. benefit situation.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:55:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/25/2012 6:14:56 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

Any debate on this topic will be completely incoherent, since the resolution requires both debaters to use objective moral justification....and there is no such thing.

Damn it, Ike! Are we back on this yet again?

But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 7:55:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.

Morality can't transcend agency. I've always agreed on that. Morality is not objective. However, it is relative in a sorts. Moral values only exist in correlation to the agents perspective of reality. That doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism. Humans share much of the same properties and characteristics, well not all but the majority. We share the same general perspective of reality and are able to debate values based on this.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 8:10:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 7:55:29 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.

Morality can't transcend agency. I've always agreed on that. Morality is not objective. However, it is relative in a sorts. Moral values only exist in correlation to the agents perspective of reality. That doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism. Humans share much of the same properties and characteristics, well not all but the majority. We share the same general perspective of reality and are able to debate values based on this.

Are you saying that morality is intersubjective? Then we agree. If not then I'm not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 8:26:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 8:10:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:55:29 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.

Morality can't transcend agency. I've always agreed on that. Morality is not objective. However, it is relative in a sorts. Moral values only exist in correlation to the agents perspective of reality. That doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism. Humans share much of the same properties and characteristics, well not all but the majority. We share the same general perspective of reality and are able to debate values based on this.

Are you saying that morality is intersubjective? Then we agree. If not then I'm not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism

He's positing that the above debate wold then be held within the purview of those shared, intersubjective moral standards. His whole post was describing that ultimately the majority of humans share many moral standards.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 8:31:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 8:26:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:10:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:55:29 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.

Morality can't transcend agency. I've always agreed on that. Morality is not objective. However, it is relative in a sorts. Moral values only exist in correlation to the agents perspective of reality. That doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism. Humans share much of the same properties and characteristics, well not all but the majority. We share the same general perspective of reality and are able to debate values based on this.

Are you saying that morality is intersubjective? Then we agree. If not then I'm not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism

He's positing that the above debate wold then be held within the purview of those shared, intersubjective moral standards. His whole post was describing that ultimately the majority of humans share many moral standards.

If it was a different debate resolution, then that would be correct. However, the resolution concerns a moral standard itself, so has already pulled the rug under any coherent basis on which to argue. You can debate a topic if both debaters have a mutual value and then measure their propositions against it. However, if the resolution already involves a value then it can't be debated in any sensible manner.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 8:35:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 8:31:31 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:26:12 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:10:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:55:29 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.

Morality can't transcend agency. I've always agreed on that. Morality is not objective. However, it is relative in a sorts. Moral values only exist in correlation to the agents perspective of reality. That doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism. Humans share much of the same properties and characteristics, well not all but the majority. We share the same general perspective of reality and are able to debate values based on this.

Are you saying that morality is intersubjective? Then we agree. If not then I'm not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism

He's positing that the above debate wold then be held within the purview of those shared, intersubjective moral standards. His whole post was describing that ultimately the majority of humans share many moral standards.

If it was a different debate resolution, then that would be correct. However, the resolution concerns a moral standard itself, so has already pulled the rug under any coherent basis on which to argue. You can debate a topic if both debaters have a mutual value and then measure their propositions against it. However, if the resolution already involves a value then it can't be debated in any sensible manner.

Nah, bruh. Lincoln-Douglass debate is all about resolutions like this, and the Pro and Con are always framed from values and criteria from those values.

This can be applied here. The two sides, or rather, debators, would have to posit their own value of value, or rather, standard of value. The standards could be debated under a common standard. Because those standards do exist. If that seems meta, it may be. However, incoherent? No. Resolutional/topical? Absotutolutely.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 8:38:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 8:35:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Nah, bruh. Lincoln-Douglass debate is all about resolutions like this, and the Pro and Con are always framed from values and criteria from those values.

This can be applied here. The two sides, or rather, debators, would have to posit their own value of value, or rather, standard of value. The standards could be debated under a common standard. Because those standards do exist. If that seems meta, it may be. However, incoherent? No. Resolutional/topical? Absotutolutely.

Okay then, what possible predicate of agreement would permit the two debaters to coherently debate this topic, without undermining the contention necessary for debate?....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 8:43:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 8:38:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:35:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Nah, bruh. Lincoln-Douglass debate is all about resolutions like this, and the Pro and Con are always framed from values and criteria from those values.

This can be applied here. The two sides, or rather, debators, would have to posit their own value of value, or rather, standard of value. The standards could be debated under a common standard. Because those standards do exist. If that seems meta, it may be. However, incoherent? No. Resolutional/topical? Absotutolutely.

Okay then, what possible predicate of agreement would permit the two debaters to coherently debate this topic, without undermining the contention necessary for debate?....

Okay, first example that pop into my head.

Pro argues with the value of productivity with the criterion that a society is productive when members are allowed to prosper, and liberty fits the criterion better than law.

Con argues with the value of security, with the criterion that people are secure when aggressors are restricted, and law fits the criterion better than liberty.

Pro could then say that liberty meets Con's criterion, or Con can say law meets Pro's. Or, they could get into an argument about which value should be preferred.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
THEBOMB
Posts: 2,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 9:02:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 8:43:52 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:38:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:35:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Nah, bruh. Lincoln-Douglass debate is all about resolutions like this, and the Pro and Con are always framed from values and criteria from those values.

This can be applied here. The two sides, or rather, debators, would have to posit their own value of value, or rather, standard of value. The standards could be debated under a common standard. Because those standards do exist. If that seems meta, it may be. However, incoherent? No. Resolutional/topical? Absotutolutely.

Okay then, what possible predicate of agreement would permit the two debaters to coherently debate this topic, without undermining the contention necessary for debate?....

Okay, first example that pop into my head.

Pro argues with the value of productivity with the criterion that a society is productive when members are allowed to prosper, and liberty fits the criterion better than law.

Con argues with the value of security, with the criterion that people are secure when aggressors are restricted, and law fits the criterion better than liberty.

Pro could then say that liberty meets Con's criterion, or Con can say law meets Pro's. Or, they could get into an argument about which value should be preferred.

Wouldn't Pro be valuing Liberty with the criterion being productivity (liberty is better to value because society flourishes) while Con values laws with the criterion being security (laws are better to value because society is safe and thus can flourish). Just curious, I never really could do LD debating.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 9:14:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 9:02:49 PM, THEBOMB wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:43:52 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:38:46 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 8:35:59 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:

Nah, bruh. Lincoln-Douglass debate is all about resolutions like this, and the Pro and Con are always framed from values and criteria from those values.

This can be applied here. The two sides, or rather, debators, would have to posit their own value of value, or rather, standard of value. The standards could be debated under a common standard. Because those standards do exist. If that seems meta, it may be. However, incoherent? No. Resolutional/topical? Absotutolutely.

Okay then, what possible predicate of agreement would permit the two debaters to coherently debate this topic, without undermining the contention necessary for debate?....

Okay, first example that pop into my head.

Pro argues with the value of productivity with the criterion that a society is productive when members are allowed to prosper, and liberty fits the criterion better than law.

Con argues with the value of security, with the criterion that people are secure when aggressors are restricted, and law fits the criterion better than liberty.

Pro could then say that liberty meets Con's criterion, or Con can say law meets Pro's. Or, they could get into an argument about which value should be preferred.

Wouldn't Pro be valuing Liberty with the criterion being productivity (liberty is better to value because society flourishes) while Con values laws with the criterion being security (laws are better to value because society is safe and thus can flourish). Just curious, I never really could do LD debating.

I suppose you could. I just thought of it my way because I was looking at the resolution as a resolution.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2012 9:40:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Adjusting for "liberty" usually creates the opposite effect.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 2:13:51 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is primarily a clash between two values. Sometimes when the value is shared, the value criteria differ.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 2:18:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 8:10:19 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:55:29 PM, phantom wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.

Morality can't transcend agency. I've always agreed on that. Morality is not objective. However, it is relative in a sorts. Moral values only exist in correlation to the agents perspective of reality. That doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism. Humans share much of the same properties and characteristics, well not all but the majority. We share the same general perspective of reality and are able to debate values based on this.

Are you saying that morality is intersubjective?

I prefer relative but I'm not at all sure of my opinion.

Then we agree.

I thought you were a nihilist. If you agree with intersubejctivism, than why are denying the purposefulness of debating values?

If not then I'm not sure what you mean when you say it doesn't entail subjectivity or nihilism

It entails a relativist view of morality that allows us to debate values.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 8:35:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 2:13:51 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 11/25/2012 7:07:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
But it's true...Usually you debate things when you can appeal to some mutually shared value that allows both debaters to compare their positions. But when the debate topic itself is about comparing values, there's no way to argue unless each debater is appealing to an objective logical authority. Logic does not permit morality. Morality is contrived but necessary nonsense that can only be meaningful and coherent on a very shaky and subjective basis.

Lincoln-Douglas debate is primarily a clash between two values. Sometimes when the value is shared, the value criteria differ.

I said it first. Sorry, WSA, but looks like you've been *removes sunglasses* ninja'd. YEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAH.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 1:26:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

It true that liberty is more important than law, but the purpose of government is to defend our life, liberty, and property. Without rule of law, governments become arbitrary, resulting in the loss of liberty. Without government we must defend our own life, liberty, and property.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 1:30:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 1:26:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

It true that liberty is more important than law, but the purpose of government is to defend our life, liberty, and property. Without rule of law, governments become arbitrary, resulting in the loss of liberty. Without government we must defend our own life, liberty, and property.

Just like without government provided food we'd have to grow our own tomatoes.
: 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.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2012 2:25:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 11/26/2012 1:30:50 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 11/26/2012 1:26:21 PM, DanT wrote:
At 11/25/2012 6:06:35 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Topic: Liberty is more valuable than law.

Commence debate.

It true that liberty is more important than law, but the purpose of government is to defend our life, liberty, and property. Without rule of law, governments become arbitrary, resulting in the loss of liberty. Without government we must defend our own life, liberty, and property.

Just like without government provided food we'd have to grow our own tomatoes.

No, it's not the same thing.Protecting property is not the same as providing property. There is a reason private companies hire security guards. It's more efficient to hire someone to provide full time protection.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle