Thoughts on these topics?

Author: Tejretics ,

Posts

Total: 23
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 356
1
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
1
4
8
Just curious. Not asking for your personal opinions on these issues, asking for whether you think these are balanced and interesting debates.

Set 1:

  • Governments should actively prevent gentrification.
  • The NSA should alert software manufacturers of all zero-day vulnerabilities it finds in order for them to patch these defects.
  • In cinema, creating new lead characters for minorities (e.g., Black Panther, Hancock) is better than recasting existing roles played by members of social majorities with minority actors (e.g., Ghostbusters, The Little Mermaid). 
  • The United States should break up Amazon.com, Inc.
  • Newly established governments in postconflict societies should adopt truth and reconciliation commissions. 
  • Payday lending should be illegal.
  • It would be preferable to the status quo if national legislatures reserved seats for politicians under the age of 30.
  • Countries should ban the practice of “bride importing.”
  • A world where people took in their elderly parents would be preferable to one where they supported them to live separately. 
  • China’s attempts to become a dominant global power are regrettable.
  • Charities and humanitarian organizations should not use graphic images of suffering in their ad campaigns.
  • The glorification of soldiers as heroes does more harm than good.
Set 2:

  • South Africa should forcibly break up exclusive Afrikaaner enclaves.
  • Protections of international law conventions and treaties should not apply to combatants from terrorist organizations (e.g., prohibitions on torture, prisoner of war status, guarantee of post-conflict release).
  • Governments should implement substantial measures to impose long-termism in corporate investment culture (e.g., minimum holding periods for shares, yearly rather than quarterly financial reporting, long-term executive compensation plans).
  • Megacities should be granted autonomous control over their economic and social policy (e.g. immigration, health, criminal justice) with national taxation policy remaining under the control of the federal government.
  • The United States should actively disengage from Syria.
  • Developing countries should privatize their state-owned enterprises.
  • The World Health Organization should adopt a convention which bans the sell of drugs with high resistance tendencies (e.g., antibiotics) to countries which do not comply with WHO guidelines regarding their medical and agricultural use.
  • Governments should significantly increase their use of big data-based predictive models in decisionmaking to replace human judgments (e.g., criminal justice policy, allocation of healthcare resources, housing development).
  • Governments should require that all financial institutions back up all deposits with an equivalent value of government-backed safe assets.
  • On balance, humanity will likely be worse off 100 years from now.

Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
Set #1

I can be a bit nitpicky on how debates are set up.  I like set #1 and haven't noticed any significant issues.  I don't notice any loaded questions.

I would be personally interested in taking up some of these debates.  They all seem relevant to discussions I've had offsite, and on point.  I imagine you can peak someone's interest, and people might enjoy them.


Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
Set #2

I find this list fascinating.


Developing countries should privatize their state-owned enterprises.
I suppose this is a bit more philosophical.  Specifically, what countries aren't developing?  To this end, I might suppose a republican form of government to be generally superior, and would speak in such a light if possible, or one could take an advocative approach to the complex world we live in.
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 9,644
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
There isn't a single bad debate topic in general, 
Christen
Christen's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 332
1
4
7
Christen's avatar
Christen
1
4
7
What I think would be interesting is a debate on whether or not the education system is as bad as many youtubers are making it out to be.
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,156
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
Tf... you listed like 100 debate topics... someone is going to find at least one of them a debate topic worthy of debating... i think debating is stupid overall... but it doesn't stop you from debating. So why ask? Just debate, people like me will read, and pick the winner. That will give you the hard on you're looking for... i'm not hating, i'm just acknowledging it feels good to win.

Maybe that should be the debate topic of all topics... humans feel less insignificant when they are winning... but the most powerful humans are those that feel significant even if they are losing. 

Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,156
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
--> @Christen
It's bad bc humans are involved. Period. Out of my years of education... i've had maybe only a handful of teachers tell it like it is without lying about possibilities. The truth is... very few will make it in most subjects. Unless it is a specified subject, you are rolling the dice with education. Now... thinking outside of what you are comfortable with is good... but only if you can detach from indoctrination. One should always be looking for a way to manipulate and win... bc this world favors the sociopaths... nice guys finish last is such a brilliant phrase... bc there aren't many nice people in this world. Evil rules so those trying to be good need to learn how to manipulate and win... it's sad and sucks, but you have to feed this corrupt world with gluttony.   
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @Outplayz
I've been contemplating something that might be considered off the wall in terms of how we normally approach the problems in education.  It would be something if we had a system that promotes elders with a career of work experience in the real world entering into the education system in some capacity, not necessarily as the foundational educators, but certainly more prevalent and influential from an earlier point than what we have now.
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,322
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
--> @Outplayz
The material isn't currently being debated on this website.  It would take forever for Tejretics to eventually debate these on their own, but everyone can see them.  If you see one you like there's nothing stopping you from starting a debate and maybe learning something, or taking some criticism.  I think they're good food for thought, don't you?  
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,156
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
--> @Snoopy
I think education is most effective when it's something someone wants. Right now, damn the person and what they want bc the system wants this persons money. So, you will have to take frivolous classes that mean nothing to you. Very few teachers will tell you a gender studies degree will get you no where... they will tell you, "you can write a book or become X and "make a lot of money"' Sure, they can justify that bc it's possible... but they won't tell you 98% of you will end up in a sales job or some other random job. They justify it bc "i'm helping by keeping their minds open to that possibility" ... but this world isn't an upside-down triangle... there are only so many that can "make it" in something non-specified. But as long as money is king... this doesn't matter, people's future doesn't matter... X teacher just wants to hold onto their job... you be damned. 
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,156
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
--> @Snoopy
 I think they're good food for thought, don't you?  
They are good for thought and why i still read them... but i don't think any issue is black and white... and if it is, it's silly to debate it in general. You are telling the other person their ideas are smart enough to debate... something like slavery is good or bad... It's bad, i don't need to justify that to anyone. And if it's not black and white, i don't like it when i have to pick a winner, bc usually in that case, i think the truth is in both sides' arguments. 

I just don't like the structure of I'm right and you're wrong. Reality is a lot more complicated then that. 
whiteflame
whiteflame's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 2,066
4
5
10
whiteflame's avatar
whiteflame
4
5
10
--> @Tejretics
Set 1

  • Good, though favors Con. I think it's difficult to present a meaningful case that doesn't have huge openings on this.
  • More balanced, though it's an easy case for Pro to defend, favors them a little. 
  • Intriguing and balanced.
  • Like the first, good but favors Con.
  • I'd say this one's rough for Pro.
  • Balanced.
  • Slightly favors Con, still good.
  • Balanced.
  • Balanced.
  • Balanced.
  • Favors Con, though not massively.
  • Balanced.
Set 2:

  • Know too little about this to say anything
  • Balanced.
  • Balanced.
  • Balanced.
  • Balanced.
  • Balanced.
  • I love this one, but it favors Con. Not by a lot, but by enough to be a problem.
  • Balanced.
  • Pro would have some trouble here. It's not bad, but they will have issues.
  • Balanced.

TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,912
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
--> @Tejretics
If it wasn't clear very rarely apart from foundational discussions there aren't two right answers. Instead the issue lies in what people value the most. If they both value the same things then there can't be two winners. If both have different values then I can see both of them winning. The problem I found is that different value debaters doesn't give a clear winner only people who share the same values.

The same values that really matters when assessing who won is that if they both share the same measurement to consider a winner. If they do the other values do not matter and there will be a winner if the debate actually finishes. 

Debates are about who wins and losses given the arguments. Since it is a popularity contest the winner won because he was able to gain the most votes or in the real world had the most cheers. Given this debates are not helpful in being informative specifically or a way to have ideas heard in an environment were you are able to interact with data without external influence. Sure you can't remove all external influence but people cheering is definitely a problem when trying to understand what people are saying or when seeing a similar votes to one side deciding who won which does impact your view on the debate.

thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,072
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
--> @Tejretics
Set 1:


Gentrification: Unbalanced. Pro has to establish that gentrification is bad, which is questionable to say the least (in reality almost all changes have winners and losers, so good luck balancing that) and it's impossible to conceive of a plan to stop gentrification that wouldn't have drastic unintended consequences. 

NSA: Balanced, seems like it leans Pro but I don't really know anything. 

Cinema: Dumb topic

Amazon: Balanced if argued in front of the right audience, but I think in a debate context Con would win most of the time

Truth and reconciliation: Not sure

Payday lending: Balanced

Bride importing: Balanced 

Parents: Balanced

China: Balanced, with maybe a bit of a Pro bias 

Charities: Unbalanced, I think Con would win this easily

Soldiers: Balanced

Set two:

South Africa: Horrible topic. This is akin to arguing in 1935 that the German government should break up Jewish enclaves. 

International law: Balanced

Long termism: Probably leans Con because of the law of unintended consequences

Megacities: Balanced

Syria: Balanced

Privatization: Balanced

WHO: Balanced

Big data/criminal law: Leans Con very strongly

Deposits: Leans Con very strongly. There is a reason that fractional reserve banking exists

Humanity: Leans Con. Would be a good debate for the right audience but seems easy for Con to point out the past 300 years or so and all the fearmongering that happened throughout that period and contrast it with what actually happened
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,464
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
Just curious. Not asking for your personal opinions on these issues, asking for whether you think these are balanced and interesting debates.

Set 1:

  • Governments should actively prevent gentrification.
Based on what? 'Should' is vague as hell and all 'should' debates allow voters with a corrupt agenda to vote against any one user as they merely need to say they felt the other debated better for their side of 'should matter more than that set of what should matter'.

  • The NSA should alert software manufacturers of all zero-day vulnerabilities it finds in order for them to patch these defects.
It already does, not sure if this is somehow a public unknown thing. It actually forces the patches to happen, ASAP. Con will never ever win this even from a pure-anarchy perspective as that's just plain stupid and immoral since anarchy becomes tyranny by strength in all versions of it.

  • In cinema, creating new lead characters for minorities (e.g., Black Panther, Hancock) is better than recasting existing roles played by members of social majorities with minority actors (e.g., Ghostbusters, The Little Mermaid).
'better' has 100% the same flaws as a 'should' debate. Fully read the flaw with this in my first reply.
  • The United States should break up Amazon.com, Inc.
'should' too vague, read first reply.
  • Newly established governments in postconflict societies should adopt truth and reconciliation commissions. 
'should', see first reply,
  • Payday lending should be illegal.
'should'
  • It would be preferable to the status quo if national legislatures reserved seats for politicians under the age of 30.
Impossible for Pro to win, the status quo will undeniably suffer if the younger group become more powerful and the younger group who benefit would not be the status quo. Politics, especially in the US, revolves entirely around middle aged adults and whatever they feel benefits their agenda the best.

  • Countries should ban the practice of “bride importing.”
If held in an environment with a Muslim audience and judge panel, Pro can't win. In all other audiences and moral codes, Pro can't lose.

'should' is flawed as always but my predictions are fairly accurate barring particular grudges a judge may hold towards one debater.
  • A world where people took in their elderly parents would be preferable to one where they supported them to live separately.
'better' = 'should' absolutely flawed in the vagueness. See my first reply.
  • China’s attempts to become a dominant global power are regrettable.
To China, not at all. To all other nations that are not allied to China, absolutely. To nations that are allied to China, probably not and this clearly isn't going to be a likely candidate for who it's regrettable to.

Entirely about perspective. This is why I loathe most debates and resolutions, it's entirely about to whom it 'should' be done or is 'better' or is 'regrettable' for.
  • Charities and humanitarian organizations should not use graphic images of suffering in their ad campaigns.
'should'... 
  • The glorification of soldiers as heroes does more harm than good.
You can't quantify harm vs good, ever. It's always about 'should'-type 'is this form of harm overall worse than this form of good'. This comes down to entirely which side of the equation you're on. If you harm the enemy while benefiting, that's a good thing for you. If you are harmed in sharing with an enemy, that's a bad thing for you unless the sharing is really equal and you still can win by other means... Still it's entirely arbitrary whether or not it's worth in your eyes or not.
Set 2:

  • South Africa should forcibly break up exclusive Afrikaaner enclaves.
okay I am sick of explaining why all resolutions with 'should' 'better' or 'regrettable' are stupid and flawed.
  • Protections of international law conventions and treaties should not apply to combatants from terrorist organizations (e.g., prohibitions on torture, prisoner of war status, guarantee of post-conflict release).
  • Governments should implement substantial measures to impose long-termism in corporate investment culture (e.g., minimum holding periods for shares, yearly rather than quarterly financial reporting, long-term executive compensation plans).
  • Megacities should be granted autonomous control over their economic and social policy (e.g. immigration, health, criminal justice) with national taxation policy remaining under the control of the federal government.
  • The United States should actively disengage from Syria.
  • Developing countries should privatize their state-owned enterprises.
  • The World Health Organization should adopt a convention which bans the sell of drugs with high resistance tendencies (e.g., antibiotics) to countries which do not comply with WHO guidelines regarding their medical and agricultural use.
  • Governments should significantly increase their use of big data-based predictive models in decisionmaking to replace human judgments (e.g., criminal justice policy, allocation of healthcare resources, housing development).
  • Governments should require that all financial institutions back up all deposits with an equivalent value of government-backed safe assets.
  • On balance, humanity will likely be worse off 100 years from now.



Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 356
1
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
1
4
8
--> @RationalMadman
It already does, not sure if this is somehow a public unknown thing. It actually forces the patches to happen, ASAP
No, it runs them through something called the “Vulnerabilities Equities Process,” and patches some and stockpiles others. That is, it searches for defects, and decides whether to notify a manufacturer about them or to keep it secret so that it can be exploited in a cyberattack or as a surveillance tool elsewhere. For example, EternalBlue—the exploit responsible for the WannaCry cyberattack—was initially developed by the NSA using a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows. The topic says the NSA should stop stockpiling any vulnerabilities and should patch all of them. 

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,464
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Tejretics
Good luck stopping them, debating won't change shit 
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Tejretics
China’s attempts to become a dominant global power are regrettable.
Regrettable to whom? 
Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 356
1
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
1
4
8
--> @bsh1
“Regrettable” meaning “undesirable.” So it’s up to the debaters to decide a weighing mechanism to decide what “regrettable” means—the same way they would to define the word “should” in a resolution. 

I did a debate on this resolution and both teams ended up agreeing on a utilitarian metric.


bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Tejretics
Yeah, but I think that topic might encourage debaters to talk past each other. Suppose Pro attempts to prove that China's attempts to become a dominant global power are regrettable from the United States's perspective, while Con argues that they are not regrettable from a global perspective. Neither side ends up engaging with each other's specific advocacy.

Tejretics
Tejretics's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 356
1
4
8
Tejretics's avatar
Tejretics
1
4
8
--> @bsh1
Consider the topic “the US should substantially increase the number of H1B visas it issues.” That could also result in debaters talking past each other—Pro could do the entire debate talking about the interests of immigrants and argue a utilitarian framework, and Con could do the entire debate talking about the interests of the US. The way to resolve that clash would be to debate whether the US should only care about its interests.

But more specifically, it would be ridiculous for Pro in a topic that doesn’t even mention the US to talk exclusively about the US and have a weighing mechanism of “regrettable means regrettable to the US.” I imagine Con would tear down Pro’s framework in two seconds in the situation you mentioned, given that the topic says absolutely nothing about American interests. In fact, IRL, this topic was set at an international competition, not an American one. But sure, you could replace “regrettable” with “does more harm than good” or “on balance, undesirable.” 

RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 355
Posts: 11,464
10
10
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
10
11
--> @Tejretics
You can also replace it with 'if Ramshutu votes, you're fucked' if you're me.
bsh1
bsh1's avatar
Debates: 14
Posts: 2,589
5
5
8
bsh1's avatar
bsh1
5
5
8
--> @Tejretics
I think you make a good argument. I still doesn't sit well with me--there's no perspectival limiter--but I take your point.