Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Accepting all Challenges!

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 3:44:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
4000 characters.
2 debating rounds.
Any challenger. Any topic*.

I'll also do ethics debates on normative issues, meta-ethical issues, and casuistry issues. This is a simple way to get a load of debates done that are of quick and good quality.

Any takers?

* That is reasonable. I'll take any side on a topic that is a) defensible for both sides and b) is not geography-specific.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 3:57:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 3:44:03 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
4000 characters.
2 debating rounds.
Any challenger. Any topic*.

I'll also do ethics debates on normative issues, meta-ethical issues, and casuistry issues. This is a simple way to get a load of debates done that are of quick and good quality.

Any takers?


* That is reasonable. I'll take any side on a topic that is a) defensible for both sides and b) is not geography-specific.

In about a week I'm doing a team video debate with a friend over the topic "Government is a main driver for inequality" (or a resolution similar to that) on edeb8. We'd love to have you on the team taking the neg!
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 3:11:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.debate.org...

My opponent forfeited, and now I'm somewhat curious to see a counterargument to my opening. I'm thinking there may be a semantics flaw to it, but I can't put my finger on it.

My standard boiler plate applies, no scoring, etc. 2 rounds should be enough to figure out if my hunch is correct. I'll send the challenge if you are interested.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 3:53:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 3:11:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

My opponent forfeited, and now I'm somewhat curious to see a counterargument to my opening. I'm thinking there may be a semantics flaw to it, but I can't put my finger on it.

My standard boiler plate applies, no scoring, etc. 2 rounds should be enough to figure out if my hunch is correct. I'll send the challenge if you are interested.

I'm note 100% sure if it's possible to be countered, because I think the way you've defined terms has made a trivial fact sound profound.

Let's replace "Capitalism" with "Free-Market policy" and "Socialism" with "Command-Market policy". The former is replaced because of connotations capitalism has, as well as that capitalism usually implies a mixed economy, while socialism is replaced because it is a political theory as well, and has bad connotations.

Now it becomes obvious the two things aren't mutually exclusive, as every society has that mix. Yet it does not sound as profound. So either a) It is still a profound thought, and my change of language is distorting your claim, or b) my change of language is acceptable, and your claim is true (albeit clearly so).

That said, if it were something along the lines of "This House Believes economic capitalism is compatible with political socialism", or "This House believes free market/socialist policy x ought be adapted". However, anything between socialist and capitalist is a mixed economy, and that has been so well established that I don't think it's plausible to dispute you.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:23:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 3:53:05 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 1/11/2014 3:11:12 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

My opponent forfeited, and now I'm somewhat curious to see a counterargument to my opening. I'm thinking there may be a semantics flaw to it, but I can't put my finger on it.

My standard boiler plate applies, no scoring, etc. 2 rounds should be enough to figure out if my hunch is correct. I'll send the challenge if you are interested.

I'm note 100% sure if it's possible to be countered, because I think the way you've defined terms has made a trivial fact sound profound.

Let's replace "Capitalism" with "Free-Market policy" and "Socialism" with "Command-Market policy". The former is replaced because of connotations capitalism has, as well as that capitalism usually implies a mixed economy, while socialism is replaced because it is a political theory as well, and has bad connotations.

Now it becomes obvious the two things aren't mutually exclusive, as every society has that mix. Yet it does not sound as profound. So either a) It is still a profound thought, and my change of language is distorting your claim, or b) my change of language is acceptable, and your claim is true (albeit clearly so).

That said, if it were something along the lines of "This House Believes economic capitalism is compatible with political socialism", or "This House believes free market/socialist policy x ought be adapted". However, anything between socialist and capitalist is a mixed economy, and that has been so well established that I don't think it's plausible to dispute you.

This clarified it a lot, thanks. I think the underlined was the key semantics challenge.

I'm not sure if this is "profound"... I'd say that you're giving me far too much credit lol, and that IMHO it would seem to be generally elementary. In America, the problem is the rabid anti-Communism sentiments that manifested after WWII (I'm sure they were there beforehand too, but nothing like McCarthyism and Nixon), which led to this extreme black/white dichotomy of "Capitalism vs Socialism". Indeed the guy on the other side of the debate actually intended that exact phrase to be the topic for the resolution, and then I thought up the resolution for debate.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:27:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Perhaps a "truer" resolution would be "Pure Capitalism and Pure Socialism are Mutually Exclusive" which would be a true statement, if only "pure capitalism" and "pure socialism" were possible to begin with. Don't tell the purists that, though, lol. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:33:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Nevermind, I think I figured out the semantics problem.

I framed "capitalism" as basically "majority free market-economy operations".

It would follow that "socialism" should be "majority command-economy operations", even though I didn't frame it that way, because the dictionary didn't explicitly frame it that way.

If such were the case, then capitalism and socialism would indeed be mutually exclusive.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:35:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:33:55 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

If such were the case, then capitalism and socialism would indeed be mutually exclusive.

Well, outside of a pure 50/50 split, but that's more a theoretical construct than any possible reality, I would think.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:56:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:35:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Nevertheless, I like seeing this point made. Too often, Capitalism and Socialism are seen as pseudo-religious political poles rather than interdependent socio-economic tools. Instead of asking whether the healthcare marking is weighted too heavily in favor of the free market, the conversation is Obamacare is socialism and therefore sinister.
proglib
Posts: 391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:07:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:56:59 AM, Oromagi wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:35:03 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Nevertheless, I like seeing this point made. Too often, Capitalism and Socialism are seen as pseudo-religious political poles rather than interdependent socio-economic tools. Instead of asking whether the healthcare marking is weighted too heavily in favor of the free market, the conversation is Obamacare is socialism and therefore sinister.

Interesting OP, and interesting discussion.

This is one of my interests, as well. I tend to think that there is a lot to be said for the market as a way of exchanging goods and services, and that if at all possible consenting adults should be allowed to relate to each other as they see fit.

However, I am also a small "r" republican, and was raised in the Christian tradition, and I live in the real world and see that government has played often played role in regulating the economy, among other things.

Thanks for raising the issue and discussing it intelligently.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.* And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." Barry Goldwater
*Except in a democracy it might lose you an election.

http://unitedwegovern.org...