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

RFD: Tej v. Hayd (limited use of torture)

YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I. Resolution and Administrative Stuff

A. Resolution:

The US should allow the limited use of torture
http://www.debate.org...

B. Administrative Stuff

I was asked by Tej to vote on this debate. In the interest of full disclosure, I recall having discussed at some time prior to this debate my views on torture with both debaters. At the time I was not aware that they were debating the issue. Moreover, my views, while not relevant in any respect to the outcome of this debate, are incongruent with both debaters.

II. Burdens

The issue presented by this resolution is whether the US should allow for the limited use of torture. PRO must show that there is at least one circumstance in which torture should be allowed, whereas CON must show that torture should not be allowed in limited use, meaning, simply, that torture should not be allowed at all, in order to win this debate.

As per usual, burdens are equal/equivalent/congruent. No debater has a greater burden than the other, and burdens have nothing to do with any notion of "the status quo." The reason burdens are equal is because this facilitates fairness to both debaters, and requires a judges' impartiality. Doing otherwise would be to impute bias on one debater at the expense of the other, depending on the judges' subjective interpretation of the status quo, which would be absurdity.

III. Arguments

PRO argues that torture should only be used where, first, "the resultant harm must outweigh harm caused by torture," and second, "there must be a sense of urgency to this harm." PRO suggests that torture is effective in retrieving accurate information, and should be used when alternative means are not available to preserve lives.

CON argues that torture has been performed to obtain confessions or information, punish, or coerce, and argues that the harm torture causes necessarily outweighs any good that may come from its being performed because torture is immoral, violates individual autonomy, leads to authoritarianism, and gives extremist groups recruiting tools. CON further argues that PRO failed to show how torture is effective, and cites many instances which directly undermine the specific examples that PRO cited in support. CON asserts that without efficacy (which torture is not, because of the unlikelihood that torture will "facilitate release of truthful information from long term memory...on the contrary, these techniques cause severe, repeated and prolonged stress, which compromises brain tissue supporting both memory and decision making"), no good can come from it, meaning that the harms it causes, which are substantial, always weigh heavier.

IV. Clash

PRO simply responds to, but does not rebut, CON's point about torture violating individual autonomy. While PRO claimed that CON's argument was a slippery slope, he had to show that such a violation does not "cascade into violent dystopia" in order to rebut with any degree of efficacy. This did not take place. However, PRO does argue that some violations of autonomy are justifiable to prevent net harms, which gets to the core purpose of what governments do.

PRO incorrectly indicates that CON offers no real evidence that torture is a recruiting tool, which failed to rebut because it failed to show how CON's point was lacking in sufficient support. CON's claim was: "Human Rights First has compiled over 30 examples of ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and numerous others using this technique to make them a more effective fighting force." PRO did not address it.

On efficacy, PRO incorrectly refers to various "drops." CON did not "drop" the reference to, for example, John McCain. In any case, warrants (which support arguments as evidence), as those examples were, cannot be "dropped." Only arguments can be "dropped" and the only way an argument is "dropped" is if it is totally ignored, which CON did not do. The argument was not "dropped" in any sense; it was rebutted, and now at issue is whether PRO rebutted the rebuttal, or merely replied. In response to the point on "efficacy" PRO relies on extensive anecdotal evidence, which does clash with but does not per se undermine CON's research which was the result of systemic, rather than anecdotal evidence, and is therefore more persuasive, especially where some of PRO's anecdotal points were previously undercut.

CON responds by correlating use of torture to authoritarianism and other forms of abuse of human rights, but this is not especially persuasive despite his reliance on anecdotal evidence. Interestingly, despite PRO's weak rebuttal to the CON's argument that use of torture will bring about cascades into authoritarianism, CON returns fire that "If this notion is true, we should expect to see the countries that allow torture are still liberal ones." CON's point is weak, however, by confusing necessity with sufficiency, and simply saying that "As we can see, Pro"s notion is false in its face as the most liberal societies actually do not allow torture." (If CON had have shown that countries which were liberal became totalitarianism at least contemporaneously with beginning use of torture, this would have been stronger.) Thereafter, PRO says that "Hayd doesn't establish a clear link between authoritarianism and torture at all. He just gives examples of totalitarian states that used torture. This doesn't mean they became totalitarian states because they used torture to save lives."

CON proceeds to reiterate his evidence that terrorists use torture as a prop. tool, reiterates the pervasive potential for torture's abuse (e.g. "the amount of times that there is a number of innocent people that is greater than the people would have to be tortured is many"). CON counters by saying that the impact is speculative, assumes overuse and publicity rather than confidentiality.

CON responds with very strong, comprehensive evidence that torture is not effective on balance (e.g. "Senate Torture Report and the results of CIA torture. Of all the detainees the CIA had, "the overwhelming majority was innocent or had no meaningful intelligence," and "The study shows that this tactic produces false confessions 69% of the time, so we are forced to accept that most tortures will produce false information 69% of the time."), as weighed against two instances where it may have been that PRO cited.

Critically, in response to this point, PRO responds that the cases to which the reports CON relies on cite are "students were made to sign a false confession, there was no duress placed on them," suggesting that while some forms of torture may be ineffective, others are more so.

V. Outcome

PRO showed that CON's point about terrorist recruitment was speculative and weak, and that there was only a weak link between authoritarianism and torture's use. But, to prove that any use of torture should be allowed as may balance torture's utilitarian scale in favor of its use, PRO must have shown that torture was effective, which meant that he would have had to counter CON's comprehensive evidence regarding efficacy with more than anecdotal incidents of possible success. PRO needed, to win, proof that, torture was at least "more likely effective than not under some circumstances" to counter CON's point, which he did not have. As a judge, I am left to wonder what forms are effective, and what forms are not, and in particular, in relation to the studies CON cites as contrasted with the methods PRO proposes, which would tip this argument in PRO's favor. Yet, however limited PRO's proposed use, and despite PRO's wining on every other point, efficacy to produce some good sufficient to outweigh harms caused by torture was necessary to PRO's case, by PRO's own standard. Without it, PRO cannot win, and he lacked it because CON showed the opposite.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:28:44 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
VI. Comments

Overall this was a very good debate, and both of you are improving considerably in your writing ability.

What I would suggest for Tej is to, when faced with comprehensive research studies, produce counter-studies, or other evidence that sufficiently counters, such as attacking what impact the study has to the overall argument. For example, consideration of what SPECIFIC kinds of torture you favored in the limited circumstances you favored it, rather than "torture" (a concept as broad as art, literature, or music) in its general sense, would have helped you.

What I would suggest to Hayd is to speculate less, and stick to the strongest arguments rather than scattershot speculation which, frankly, many of your arguments were. Your point about torture's inefficacy was why you won this debate, and you would have more clearly won it if you had not included, for example, your argument that ultimately was not seen through that conflated correlation with causation while utilizing a slippery slope argument that confused necessity and sufficiency. Stick to the least speculative and most defensible turf, as a rule.

Also, while many--very bad and dishonest--debaters, no matter their artificially inflated elo scores, claim that their opponents "drop" arguments, as a rule this is bad form and should be avoided. Saying that your "opponent dropped" your argument is wasted time, because you're not undermining the argument; you're just describing something that may or may not have happened.

There are many debaters that abuse that term to make themselves appear to be more clever than they are, or their opponents more incompetent than they are. A good judge will see through this very cheap, underhanded tactic (e.g. where debater 1 claims debater 2 dropped arguments X, Y and X, and debater 2 did no such thing). It's dishonest and bad from, so don't do it again even if you see ostensibly "good" debaters doing it. Good debaters do not do that; they simply explain why they won rather than wasting time on hollow tactics.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:30:34 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I agree except for

At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:
(If CON had have shown that countries which were liberal became totalitarianism at least contemporaneously with beginning use of torture, this would have been stronger.)

I showed this with Brazil. I claimed that Brazil was a democracy (which is really wasn't), and tej never argued otherwise. This then shows that Brazil was liberal and because totalitarianist with the beginning of torture (especially since the law was introduced as limited torture)
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:31:26 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
Thanks for voting YYW
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:34:00 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:

One question; my position is basically articulated by this rhetorical question: "So, the question we have to answer in this debate is simple: if there's a huge risks of lives being lost, and there's some chance that torture would prevent this, should the use of torture be allowed?" Essentially, however small the chance that torture could work, if there's nothing else to be done, the government has to do every possible thing to help its citizens.

How would you factor this?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:34:41 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:30:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
I agree except for

At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:
(If CON had have shown that countries which were liberal became totalitarianism at least contemporaneously with beginning use of torture, this would have been stronger.)

I showed this with Brazil. I claimed that Brazil was a democracy (which is really wasn't), and tej never argued otherwise. This then shows that Brazil was liberal and because totalitarianist with the beginning of torture (especially since the law was introduced as limited torture)

You didn't establish that Brazil was liberal, didn't establish that it had become a totalitarian country, and didn't establish the contemporaneousness or closeness in proximity between the shift to totalitarianism and beginning use of torture. It was a very weak argument, and this was just one reason why it was weak. Also, the argument correlation with causation while utilizing a slippery slope argument that confused necessity and sufficiency.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:37:12 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:34:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:30:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
I agree except for

At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:
(If CON had have shown that countries which were liberal became totalitarianism at least contemporaneously with beginning use of torture, this would have been stronger.)

I showed this with Brazil. I claimed that Brazil was a democracy (which is really wasn't), and tej never argued otherwise. This then shows that Brazil was liberal and because totalitarianist with the beginning of torture (especially since the law was introduced as limited torture)

You didn't establish that Brazil was liberal, didn't establish that it had become a totalitarian country, and didn't establish the contemporaneousness or closeness in proximity between the shift to totalitarianism and beginning use of torture. It was a very weak argument, and this was just one reason why it was weak. Also, the argument correlation with causation while utilizing a slippery slope argument that confused necessity and sufficiency.

I agree it was confusing correlation and causation and necessity and sufficiency (whatever that means), but I estabilshed Brazil was liberal (established from a source it was a democracy), I established it had because an authoritarian country, and I established it happned in the span of a few years (might have been 4.)
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:43:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:34:00 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:

One question; my position is basically articulated by this rhetorical question: "So, the question we have to answer in this debate is simple: if there's a huge risks of lives being lost, and there's some chance that torture would prevent this, should the use of torture be allowed?" Essentially, however small the chance that torture could work, if there's nothing else to be done, the government has to do every possible thing to help its citizens.

How would you factor this?

Note that my own views have nothing to do with the outcome of the debate, and the only thing that mattered with respect to the debate's outcome was what you guys did in the debate itself.

However, on a personal level, I support torture when any innocent live is at risk of substantial bodily harm (even one, and it doesn't even have to be a mortal risk--just being "at risk" of substantial bodily harm), against any individual associated with and believed with reasonable certainty to have information the knowing of which could mitigate such a threat, and refuses to surrender such information, to the extent necessary to obtain such information.

So, if you have at least one innocent person (e.g. kidnapped kid), at risk of substantial bodily harm (e.g. kidnapper has threatened to hurt or kill kidnapped kid unless he gets a ransom), and you have someone associated with and reasonably certain to have information that could mitigate the risk (e.g. a fellow kidnapper) that refuses to surrender such information (i.e. is not cooperative), I'd be willing to torture him to the extent that he refused to cooperate. Maybe we start with slapping him around, then move up to water boarding, then move up to stress positions, then move up to some more gruesome tactics I won't describe for you. But it would be done a graduated, though easily accelerated scale of pain.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:48:28 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:37:12 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:34:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:30:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
I agree except for

At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:
(If CON had have shown that countries which were liberal became totalitarianism at least contemporaneously with beginning use of torture, this would have been stronger.)

I showed this with Brazil. I claimed that Brazil was a democracy (which is really wasn't), and tej never argued otherwise. This then shows that Brazil was liberal and because totalitarianist with the beginning of torture (especially since the law was introduced as limited torture)

You didn't establish that Brazil was liberal, didn't establish that it had become a totalitarian country, and didn't establish the contemporaneousness or closeness in proximity between the shift to totalitarianism and beginning use of torture. It was a very weak argument, and this was just one reason why it was weak. Also, the argument correlation with causation while utilizing a slippery slope argument that confused necessity and sufficiency.

I agree it was confusing correlation and causation and necessity and sufficiency (whatever that means), but I estabilshed Brazil was liberal (established from a source it was a democracy), I established it had because an authoritarian country, and I established it happned in the span of a few years (might have been 4.)

You just tossed it out that Brazil was one kind of government and then another. You didn't do anything that could make a reasonable judge believe that the change actually happened, which is why you didn't "establish" it... you just basically said it. If you're going to claim that a country has become totalitarian, you've really got to give specific facts to support that, which you did not do. The one example, though, does not support your claim that this is a broader trend; meaning, that use of torture brings about "cascades into totalitarianism." Essentially, this is the same method of reasoning Tej was using to support his claim that torture was effective. It's anecdotal at best, and not enough to carry the point, in light of Tej's rebuttals.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:49:53 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:43:37 AM, YYW wrote:

My question was more regarding how to judge.

Say the side PRO and CON both have impacts left. PRO's impact is ***much*** worse than CON's. But CON's probability is much more than PRO's. For example, PRO's impact is nuclear war, with historical examples of negating the resolution causing nuclear war, but those examples are very isolated. CON's impact is, say, cost, and there's a 100% chance that it would cost that much. Which side wins?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:54:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
What will be interesting is to see how other judges screw judging this up.

This debate was much closer than the previous debate you two had on whether the US should abolish capital punishment, which Hayd won by an overwhelming margin. To this day, I continue to be amazed at how stupid whiteflame's RFD was.

I bring that up to suggest that, as a point of comparison, you have both improved considerably, but Tej moreso, than in the previous debate. Both have some areas for improvement, though.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:58:33 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:49:53 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:43:37 AM, YYW wrote:

My question was more regarding how to judge.

Say the side PRO and CON both have impacts left. PRO's impact is ***much*** worse than CON's. But CON's probability is much more than PRO's. For example, PRO's impact is nuclear war, with historical examples of negating the resolution causing nuclear war, but those examples are very isolated. CON's impact is, say, cost, and there's a 100% chance that it would cost that much. Which side wins?

Your impact was not nuclear war, btw. It was a hypothetical set of harms of which nuclear war may have been one. If you had shown efficacy, that would have given your impact, then your impact would have carried because then it's a debate over harm to a whole bunch of people versus harm to only one or a few people who are going to be tortured. But, you didn't get that far, because you didn't link your harming the few people to avoiding the harm to the whole bunch of people in the hypothetical set of harms and circumstances.

So, it's not really about weighing impacts, if we don't get to impacts, because we're only weighing impacts if we get there. If we got there, though, you would have won.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 3:59:14 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:58:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:49:53 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:43:37 AM, YYW wrote:

My question was more regarding how to judge.

Say the side PRO and CON both have impacts left. PRO's impact is ***much*** worse than CON's. But CON's probability is much more than PRO's. For example, PRO's impact is nuclear war, with historical examples of negating the resolution causing nuclear war, but those examples are very isolated. CON's impact is, say, cost, and there's a 100% chance that it would cost that much. Which side wins?

Your impact was not nuclear war, btw.

I know. But *if* this situation occurs, how does one vote?
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:00:47 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:59:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:58:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:49:53 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:43:37 AM, YYW wrote:

My question was more regarding how to judge.

Say the side PRO and CON both have impacts left. PRO's impact is ***much*** worse than CON's. But CON's probability is much more than PRO's. For example, PRO's impact is nuclear war, with historical examples of negating the resolution causing nuclear war, but those examples are very isolated. CON's impact is, say, cost, and there's a 100% chance that it would cost that much. Which side wins?

Your impact was not nuclear war, btw.

I know. But *if* this situation occurs, how does one vote?

As I said, it's a "harm to the many v. harm to the few" situation. Obviously harm to the few wins, but only to the extent that you can establish that we're in a "harm to the many v. harm to the few" scenario, which didn't happen.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:01:48 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:00:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:59:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:58:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:49:53 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:43:37 AM, YYW wrote:

My question was more regarding how to judge.

Say the side PRO and CON both have impacts left. PRO's impact is ***much*** worse than CON's. But CON's probability is much more than PRO's. For example, PRO's impact is nuclear war, with historical examples of negating the resolution causing nuclear war, but those examples are very isolated. CON's impact is, say, cost, and there's a 100% chance that it would cost that much. Which side wins?

Your impact was not nuclear war, btw.

I know. But *if* this situation occurs, how does one vote?

As I said, it's a "harm to the many v. harm to the few" situation. Obviously harm to the few wins.

Really? I always viewed it as if harm to the many wins...
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:04:43 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:01:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:00:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:59:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:58:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:49:53 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:43:37 AM, YYW wrote:

My question was more regarding how to judge.

Say the side PRO and CON both have impacts left. PRO's impact is ***much*** worse than CON's. But CON's probability is much more than PRO's. For example, PRO's impact is nuclear war, with historical examples of negating the resolution causing nuclear war, but those examples are very isolated. CON's impact is, say, cost, and there's a 100% chance that it would cost that much. Which side wins?

Your impact was not nuclear war, btw.

I know. But *if* this situation occurs, how does one vote?

As I said, it's a "harm to the many v. harm to the few" situation. Obviously harm to the few wins.

Really? I always viewed it as if harm to the many wins...

Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. nuclear armageddon), meaning it's the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:05:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:43 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:01:48 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:00:47 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:59:14 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:58:33 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:49:53 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:43:37 AM, YYW wrote:

My question was more regarding how to judge.

Say the side PRO and CON both have impacts left. PRO's impact is ***much*** worse than CON's. But CON's probability is much more than PRO's. For example, PRO's impact is nuclear war, with historical examples of negating the resolution causing nuclear war, but those examples are very isolated. CON's impact is, say, cost, and there's a 100% chance that it would cost that much. Which side wins?

Your impact was not nuclear war, btw.

I know. But *if* this situation occurs, how does one vote?

As I said, it's a "harm to the many v. harm to the few" situation. Obviously harm to the few wins.

Really? I always viewed it as if harm to the many wins...

Corrected:

Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. it is NOT nuclear armageddon), meaning [torturing the few to save the many is] the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.
Tsar of DDO
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:06:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:04:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. nuclear armageddon), meaning it's the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.

Yeah, that's what I meant too.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:07:37 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:06:55 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:04:43 AM, YYW wrote:
Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. nuclear armageddon), meaning it's the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.

Yeah, that's what I meant too.

See post 17 for further clarification. I realized after I wrote that that it didn't make sense.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:10:49 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
I'll add that I'd give both of you a "B" to "B+" in a freshman college writing class, if you guys turned that in, meaning that you are above the average college freshman's writing ability, which is fairly considerable in light of the fact that both of you are like 15 or something.

This is one of the better debates on DDO I've seen in a long time.
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:16:56 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 3:48:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:37:12 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:34:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:30:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
I agree except for

At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:
(If CON had have shown that countries which were liberal became totalitarianism at least contemporaneously with beginning use of torture, this would have been stronger.)

I showed this with Brazil. I claimed that Brazil was a democracy (which is really wasn't), and tej never argued otherwise. This then shows that Brazil was liberal and because totalitarianist with the beginning of torture (especially since the law was introduced as limited torture)

You didn't establish that Brazil was liberal, didn't establish that it had become a totalitarian country, and didn't establish the contemporaneousness or closeness in proximity between the shift to totalitarianism and beginning use of torture. It was a very weak argument, and this was just one reason why it was weak. Also, the argument correlation with causation while utilizing a slippery slope argument that confused necessity and sufficiency.

I agree it was confusing correlation and causation and necessity and sufficiency (whatever that means), but I estabilshed Brazil was liberal (established from a source it was a democracy), I established it had because an authoritarian country, and I established it happned in the span of a few years (might have been 4.)

You just tossed it out that Brazil was one kind of government and then another. You didn't do anything that could make a reasonable judge believe that the change actually happened, which is why you didn't "establish" it... you just basically said it. If you're going to claim that a country has become totalitarian, you've really got to give specific facts to support that, which you did not do.

I used like 4 different sources. I didn't just throw it out there. What do you mean by specific facts? Give examples for his Brazil was authoritarianism? I cited sources of Brazil commuting mass terror on its people through torture

The one example, though, does not support your claim that this is a broader trend; meaning, that use of torture brings about "cascades into totalitarianism." Essentially, this is the same method of reasoning Tej was using to support his claim that torture was effective. It's anecdotal at best, and not enough to carry the point, in light of Tej's rebuttals.

I agree
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:27:10 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:16:56 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:48:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:37:12 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:34:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:30:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
I agree except for

At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:
(If CON had have shown that countries which were liberal became totalitarianism at least contemporaneously with beginning use of torture, this would have been stronger.)

I showed this with Brazil. I claimed that Brazil was a democracy (which is really wasn't), and tej never argued otherwise. This then shows that Brazil was liberal and because totalitarianist with the beginning of torture (especially since the law was introduced as limited torture)

You didn't establish that Brazil was liberal, didn't establish that it had become a totalitarian country, and didn't establish the contemporaneousness or closeness in proximity between the shift to totalitarianism and beginning use of torture. It was a very weak argument, and this was just one reason why it was weak. Also, the argument correlation with causation while utilizing a slippery slope argument that confused necessity and sufficiency.

I agree it was confusing correlation and causation and necessity and sufficiency (whatever that means), but I estabilshed Brazil was liberal (established from a source it was a democracy), I established it had because an authoritarian country, and I established it happned in the span of a few years (might have been 4.)

You just tossed it out that Brazil was one kind of government and then another. You didn't do anything that could make a reasonable judge believe that the change actually happened, which is why you didn't "establish" it... you just basically said it. If you're going to claim that a country has become totalitarian, you've really got to give specific facts to support that, which you did not do.

I used like 4 different sources. I didn't just throw it out there. What do you mean by specific facts? Give examples for his Brazil was authoritarianism? I cited sources of Brazil commuting mass terror on its people through torture

This is what you said:

"For example, after the military took over the government of Brazil in 1964, they maintained democratic normality until 1968 when the Institutional Act No. 5 was passed that made torture by the state allowed [2]. Note that the Act only allowed isolated circumstances of torture [3]. The law ended up being used routinely by the state to terrorize its citizens [1]. It is also important to note that the government passed it under utilitarian premises; justifying it with maintaining control, thus preventing riot and revolution: saving lives more lives in the end [4]."

The word "Brazil" appears in the whole debate a mere 4 times. You said that the military took over, that torture was allowable under the law but only in isolated circumstances, and that government "routinely" terrorized citizens. You offered no details, just a conclusory statement.

On the government: You didn't say that Brazil didn't torture at all before, only that it became legal after the military took power; how the government worked before versus after other than who was in charge; etc.

On the "torture": You didn't say what that "routine terror" looked like, how it happened, the frequency with which it happened, against whom it happened, the process under which it took place, the individuals against whom it was used, the purposes for which it was used, the methodology by which it was carried out, the duration of time for when it was carried out, whether it was only carried out judicially or also carried out extrajudicially, etc.

You certainly didn't have to do all of that (and your sources may have had those details) but I don't judge the debate based on sources; only what you actually say to persuade a reasonable judge.

The one example, though, does not support your claim that this is a broader trend; meaning, that use of torture brings about "cascades into totalitarianism." Essentially, this is the same method of reasoning Tej was using to support his claim that torture was effective. It's anecdotal at best, and not enough to carry the point, in light of Tej's rebuttals.

I agree

Glad to hear it lol
Tsar of DDO
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 4:29:55 AM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:27:10 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:16:56 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:48:28 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:37:12 AM, Hayd wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:34:41 AM, YYW wrote:
At 5/9/2016 3:30:34 AM, Hayd wrote:
I agree except for

At 5/9/2016 3:20:13 AM, YYW wrote:
(If CON had have shown that countries which were liberal became totalitarianism at least contemporaneously with beginning use of torture, this would have been stronger.)

I showed this with Brazil. I claimed that Brazil was a democracy (which is really wasn't), and tej never argued otherwise. This then shows that Brazil was liberal and because totalitarianist with the beginning of torture (especially since the law was introduced as limited torture)

You didn't establish that Brazil was liberal, didn't establish that it had become a totalitarian country, and didn't establish the contemporaneousness or closeness in proximity between the shift to totalitarianism and beginning use of torture. It was a very weak argument, and this was just one reason why it was weak. Also, the argument correlation with causation while utilizing a slippery slope argument that confused necessity and sufficiency.

I agree it was confusing correlation and causation and necessity and sufficiency (whatever that means), but I estabilshed Brazil was liberal (established from a source it was a democracy), I established it had because an authoritarian country, and I established it happned in the span of a few years (might have been 4.)

You just tossed it out that Brazil was one kind of government and then another. You didn't do anything that could make a reasonable judge believe that the change actually happened, which is why you didn't "establish" it... you just basically said it. If you're going to claim that a country has become totalitarian, you've really got to give specific facts to support that, which you did not do.

I used like 4 different sources. I didn't just throw it out there. What do you mean by specific facts? Give examples for his Brazil was authoritarianism? I cited sources of Brazil commuting mass terror on its people through torture

This is what you said:

"For example, after the military took over the government of Brazil in 1964, they maintained democratic normality until 1968 when the Institutional Act No. 5 was passed that made torture by the state allowed [2]. Note that the Act only allowed isolated circumstances of torture [3]. The law ended up being used routinely by the state to terrorize its citizens [1]. It is also important to note that the government passed it under utilitarian premises; justifying it with maintaining control, thus preventing riot and revolution: saving lives more lives in the end [4]."

The word "Brazil" appears in the whole debate a mere 4 times. You said that the military took over, that torture was allowable under the law but only in isolated circumstances, and that government "routinely" terrorized citizens. You offered no details, just a conclusory statement.

On the government: You didn't say that Brazil didn't torture at all before, only that it became legal after the military took power; how the government worked before versus after other than who was in charge; etc.

On the "torture": You didn't say what that "routine terror" looked like, how it happened, the frequency with which it happened, against whom it happened, the process under which it took place, the individuals against whom it was used, the purposes for which it was used, the methodology by which it was carried out, the duration of time for when it was carried out, whether it was only carried out judicially or also carried out extrajudicially, etc.

You certainly didn't have to do all of that (and your sources may have had those details) but I don't judge the debate based on sources; only what you actually say to persuade a reasonable judge.

Ah, ok

The one example, though, does not support your claim that this is a broader trend; meaning, that use of torture brings about "cascades into totalitarianism." Essentially, this is the same method of reasoning Tej was using to support his claim that torture was effective. It's anecdotal at best, and not enough to carry the point, in light of Tej's rebuttals.

I agree

Glad to hear it lol
tejretics
Posts: 6,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 12:53:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I re-iterate: thanks for the vote and RFD, YYW. Much appreciated.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/9/2016 6:36:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 5/9/2016 12:53:52 PM, tejretics wrote:
I re-iterate: thanks for the vote and RFD, YYW. Much appreciated.

Sure thing.
Tsar of DDO
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 6:56:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/9/2016 4:05:56 AM, YYW wrote:
Corrected:

Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. it is NOT nuclear armageddon), meaning [torturing the few to save the many is] the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.

Isn't this still exactly what Tej was saying?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 9:11:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:56:33 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:05:56 AM, YYW wrote:
Corrected:

Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. it is NOT nuclear armageddon), meaning [torturing the few to save the many is] the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.

Isn't this still exactly what Tej was saying?

No.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 9:12:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 6:56:33 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:05:56 AM, YYW wrote:
Corrected:

Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. it is NOT nuclear armageddon), meaning [torturing the few to save the many is] the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.

Isn't this still exactly what Tej was saying?

And your vote was wrong, btw.
Tsar of DDO
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 9:19:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 9:12:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:56:33 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:05:56 AM, YYW wrote:
Corrected:

Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. it is NOT nuclear armageddon), meaning [torturing the few to save the many is] the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.

Isn't this still exactly what Tej was saying?

And your vote was wrong, btw.

I'm happy to discuss it.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2016 9:30:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/13/2016 9:19:09 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/13/2016 9:12:23 PM, YYW wrote:
At 5/13/2016 6:56:33 PM, TUF wrote:
At 5/9/2016 4:05:56 AM, YYW wrote:
Corrected:

Harm to the few (i.e. torturing the few) wins in the sense that it avoids the greater harm, because it's the lesser harm (i.e. it is NOT nuclear armageddon), meaning [torturing the few to save the many is] the more substantial impact. Basically, if you can torture to avoid nuclear war, then obviously you torture if we're weighing harms because hurting temporarily a few people is less worse than global nuclear winter.

Isn't this still exactly what Tej was saying?

And your vote was wrong, btw.

I'm happy to discuss it.

In the hangout perhaps tonight
Tsar of DDO