Is achieving net zero [green new deal] a truism because 'everyone' believes it is true?

Author: fauxlaw ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 12
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    I've observed at least three debates stalled in challenging phase [two of them of my instigation], and one completed debate accused post-argument phase of being proposals of "truism," as if truisms cannot be debated because they amount to a proposal that happens to be perceived as true. I have two arguments refuting the accusation:

    1. What debate standard defined by DART says truisms are not valid subjects of debate? The accusation is hurled that a Pro position in a truism debate is an automatic win for Pro. For example: I might propose a debate that the Sun rises in the east. Cowards who do not have sufficient perception to argue the point, even though generally perceived as true. Some will, and have, argued that the proposal is so obviously true, it is not worthy of debate because it is an automatic win for Pro. Nonsense! Perception is the whole point of the debate. I can think of at least three Con arguments, right now, to argue against the proposition. Will I tell you? No. Think for yourselves. 

    2. How many debates would be wiped off the DART if all the debates in one of several types of current status [challenge, argument, voting or finished] had proposals fitting the "truism" claim? Half? More? Hint: the charge of truism does not prevent debate on the subject for anyone who can conceive of arguments against it. The fact is, any truth can be argued. We are not compelled to believe our own arguments; we just need to make convincing arguments. The success of same depends on the validity and strength of the argument and the citation of supporting sources that contradict the proposal. However, debate does not consist of 100 percent sourcing. We are expected to think for ourselves. Why can't we be an original source provider? It behooves providing our own logic for our original thoughts, but what's wrong with that? It just needs to be convincing, yeah?

    I am not restricting this forum topic to net zero, by the way. It is merely an example of my argument against "truisms" as unassailable arguments. 

  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 31
    Forum posts: 8,121
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    one of my debates are 2+2=4, now that is truism
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Haven't seen it. Must be finished and aging? I'll take a look at the arguments. Had it been in challenge phase, I'd have accepted the debate on Con side, just to see if I could pull it off!
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 31
    Forum posts: 8,121
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @fauxlaw
    I tried to argue abstract math

    The debate is around 11 months old
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    Good God! What a travesty. Just in argument, I'd have voted for yours. The Pro argument that you did not use "American Math," [is our math different than other countries?] is completely fallacious: the count of whatever is use of math, therefore, the result of any mathematic function, including, as you asserted, algebra, is use of math. 

    In sourcing, you offered the only source in the debate, and it holds. and yet, only 1 of 11 voters gave you the source points. Absurd.

    I'll dismiss S&G, it's virtually meaningless to me. Should be part of the Conduct, as in conducting proper s & g. It's just 1 point, anyway. In fact, I'd replace it with "kudos" as Ragnar suggested, as being far more meaningful in awarding creativity in debate. In that vein, while Pro's argument indeed took advantage of "truism," your argument was superlative creativity.

    Conduct: By your creative argument, yet holding to the principles of proper debate, I'd have given you that point. I found Pro's style argumentative without purpose, using a privilege of semantics to argue his point. Nonsense.

    I would use the above to a debate moderator to expose the gross errors in voting in this debate, only because they are so obvious, somebody ought to do something about it. 


  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,351
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Dr.Franklin @fauxlaw
    2+2=4 is a written or verbal expression of a mental process that quantifies the amalgamation and comparison of separate and different data sequences.

    We only assume by convention, that 2 and 4 both represent amalgamations of the base quantity of 1 and that + and = are perfectly representative of an agreed standard.

    Things that might at first manifest as being conventionally obvious, can easily be contrived not to be so. 

    2+2 is 2+2 and 4 is 4. and so on.
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    --> @zedvictor4
    Sure. Tell it to Our_Boat_Is_Right, and a couple of moderators, who let feelings overwhelm facts in the debate of a year ago, 2+21=4, won, because 10 of 11 voters, plus a moderator who removed his vote, so we don't know now how he voted, but apparently voted against Boat, because they also let feelings overwhelm facts, such as that Pro was awarded Source points by 10 of 11 voters when no source was cited by Boat, and the argument that the proposition was a "truism," as if that is a forbidden subject when the term "truism" is not in the policies of debate, voting, or code of conduct. 
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 31
    Forum posts: 8,121
    4
    5
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @zedvictor4
    true
  • fauxlaw
    fauxlaw avatar
    Debates: 40
    Forum posts: 949
    3
    5
    10
    fauxlaw avatar
    fauxlaw
    Oops. Misspelled the debate as 2+21=4. Now, there's abstract algebra!. Please read: 2+2=4
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,351
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @fauxlaw
    To be honest, I debate rarely and only for the purposes of airing an opinion, rather than to satisfy a need to compete.

    Voting is subjective and is often more appreciative of structure rather than rationale.

    Therefore, as long as I am happy with the data that I submit, I have no worries about what others think  and no concerns, win or lose.


19 days later

  • sadolite
    sadolite avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 443
    1
    2
    4
    sadolite avatar
    sadolite
    I don't know anyone who believes net 0 is possible. Net 0 is impossible is more of a truism.  

50 days later