Debates I Would Participate in and Would Like to See

Author: coal ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 4
  • coal
    coal avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 963
    2
    3
    5
    coal avatar
    coal
    I'd like to see debates that are grounded in fact but which do not rely on sources. 

    Debates on what is morally right, ethically acceptable, or ought to be legally permitted or restricted -- read: normative debates -- are the ones I'd be most interested in having, as well.  The one caveat: all facts must be asserted in good faith (meaning, you can't make stuff up, but honest mistakes aren't penalized), and no sources.

    The problem I see with most debates now is over-reliance on block quotes.  When a debater is relying on block quotes, they're usually an untalented debater and a poor communicator almost without exception.  So, rather than getting to the point they instead want to piece together a franken-case of mismatched and likely internally inconsistent parts of previously dissected writings from who knows where. 

    Block quotes are like pull-ups, for the "debater" who never made it past the debate-equivilent of toilet training.  You're clever enough that you're not wetting yourself every single time you step up to have a debate, but you're not able to go without making a mess every now and then of someone else's ideas.  Then, once you go through a case of block quotes, the judge (who is often as scatter-brained and inept as the untalented debater who never made it past the communicative equivalent of toilet training) doesn't know how to weigh arguments because there weren't arguments made... just a bunch of sound and fury.  

    Rebutting block quotes also takes too much time and character space.  For a modestly competent debater to have to parse through the conventional block-quoted franken-case is a waste of time and energy, because the best that the un-toilet trained debater is going to be able to do in the third or fourth round is claim that their opponent "dropped" any one of their internally inconsistent points.  So, then having wet himself the unhousebroken debater goes on to win a debate, judged by a fool as inept as he, without even realizing that he's wet himself before he even stood up to speak. 

    That.  Nonsense.  Won't.  Do.

    So, no sources.  No block quotes.  Just simple language.... by which I mean... something approximating an actual debate, rather than the illusion of a debate pieced together by fools no brighter than dark ships passing in the night.

    Here are some potential topics:

    1.  The president should have to publicly disclose all business interests and publish tax returns.
    2.  An estate tax on assets taxed in life is morally wrong.
    3.  Homosexuality is morally acceptable.
    4.  Spanking as a form of parentally imposed discipline is morally acceptable in at least some circumstances.
    5.  The state can have no more rights than those of the individual.
    6.  Individual autonomy should take priority to the collective good.
    7.  Rousseau's conception of human nature is misguided.
    8.  Rousseau was a horrible person.
    9.  The so called "patriarchy" is a delusion of the postmodern left.
    10.  Gendered pronouns do not discriminate. 
    11.  The progressive left's emphasis on identity politics has resulted in a net detriment to liberalism. 
    12.  The evangelical right's emphasis on identity politics has resulted in a net detriment to conservatism. 
    13.  No just government can criminalize homosexuality, or speech of any kind with regard to homosexuality.  

    The list is obviously not exclusive, but those would be great topics. 

    PM me if you are interested. 



  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    If someone else has said something in the best way possible, you're an arrogant fool to word it differently so as to avoid quoting unless it's an official paper you need to produce to pass a course and attain a qualification or whatever at the end of.

    Quoting and sourcing are absolutely key aspects of good debating and to suggest otherwise is to be nothing but envious of those who are better at reading as opposed to writing and not allowing them to compete with you in a contest where they can balance-out said difference of skill via efficient quoting and referencing.

  • coal
    coal avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 963
    2
    3
    5
    coal avatar
    coal
    --> @RationalMadman
    There really isn't a "best way possible" to say anything; only subjectively different ways of saying the same idea.  But, I'm not opposed to "all" quoting.  Rather, I'm only opposed to BLOCK quoting.  

    Quotes are fine.  Block quotes are not.  
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,651
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    --> @coal
    If you're referring to subjectivity being involved in judging, that's true for literally everything that has a judge-based win-condition.

    While there are objectively TERRIBLE plays/pieces/examples in any sport or art-form where judgement decides the winner, there are not objectively BRILLIANT anything at all. To some Picasso was a mediocre overrated joke, to others a revolutionary god-tier artist. This is indeed subjective.