Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You obviously didn't understand what I meant. Whether it be you or "your position" that "wins" is pointless, What I mean is that I don't see any point in participating in a debate beased on someone or some "position" ultimately winning. I think it's a stupid premise for a flourishing debate, and because of that, nothing will actually be gained from it.
If you were in a court of law and you had been accused of a crime that you did not commit, would you consider who wins the debate between the prosecution and the defense pointless? If you had an illness and doctors had opposing views on the cause and the cure, would you consider who won the debate pointless?
I have a hard time accepting the proposition, in a society predicated on competition and winners and losers, that one actually believes that debates should inherently not have winners and losers. That sounds like the school of thought that there should be no “Pass/fail” in school. No answer is any better than the other.
Maybe your issue is with the term. I simply choose the term that would signify the most valid and tenable argument. The most valid and tenable argument will be the “Kabukikbuka” or whatever term you would like to use, since you do not like "winner". My point is simply that not all arguments are logically and factually equal and there needs to be a way of using a term to signify that.
Are you attempting to frame what it means to lose such a debate? I guess if there is no aknowlegement of a superior argument.....people have no reason to change their opinons.....regardless of how untenable they are. That seems like what you are trying to set up here by disparaging the concept of winners and losers in this debate.
Last edited by Indentured Servant; 04-25-2010 at 01:48 PM..
We're still waiting for you to make "1 dam good post" and earn some rep points. You've been stuck on 212 for a long time. Let's see your "1 dam good post", and no doubt there will be some dam good replies. None of which will be good enough, of course, to forestall your self-declared victory.
Again....its obvious to me that people do not want to have this structured intellectual debate. There is nothing but obfuscation going on here. Its like gambling. You cannot lose if you don't play. None of you are confident in your position....and fear the implication of what it means to be on the losing end. Really....the way people have responded to the challenge is more demonstrative than having actual debates.
I am glad you modified your criteria so that I can enter the debate. I wish to consider this carefully and make a good case, and since I have professional responsibilities, albeit part-time, I don't want you to think I have been intimidated and that I disappeared. I'm not sure how long these posts can be, as I plan to write in a Word document and copy and paste it here. We'll see.
I am glad you modified your criteria so that I can enter the debate. I wish to consider this carefully and make a good case, and since I have professional responsibilities, albeit part-time, I don't want you to think I have been intimidated and that I disappeared. I'm not sure how long these posts can be, as I plan to write in a Word document and copy and paste it here. We'll see.
Quote:"I would like to extend an invitation to a debate on the subject of race and the black condition and the role white society has played in the condition of today."
I don't think this needs to be debated. It's historical fact that black slaves were brought to the US mostly by whites. What's more rarely emphasized is the huge role that blacks took (and still do today) in the institution of slavery, i.e. enslaving and selling their own kind.
Again....its obvious to me that people do not want to have this structured intellectual debate. .
Why did it take you so long to catch on. There is a difference between "structured" and "according to your whim".
OK---you say it is structured. Who is the referee? Who, of all the people on earth (nearly 7 billion of them) possesses the authority to declare you the loser after you have been severely pummeled by the most rudimentary of rejoinders? What are the criteria to be used in judging the scoring of points? You say it is 'structured'---display the rules, the framework, the parameters.
So far, the rule seems to be, first you select the opponent, and then you demand that the selectee make a statement for you to pick apart with no appeal to any arbiter to rule on the validity of your rebuttal, either in terms of form (of which none has been described) or factual truth.
Here's what we've got so far. The Traverse City Beach Bums of the independent Frontier League gloat that they can win the World Series, but they don't have to play the New York Yankees, they get to play whomever they wish, and they pick the Calhoun County High School Sandcrabs as their opponent, and there are no umpires. If the Beach Bums say they won, they won. But it's "structured"---they play by the official rules of baseball. Play Ball.
Before our debate begins, I would like to set aside these concerns about "losing" and "winning". You stated that you are not schooled in formal debate. Well, neither am I. So neither of us is in a real position to declare ourselves the winner. Each reader will decide in his or her own mind anyway. I am not interested in putting you down or insulting you. Let's just forget about some of these other people's posts which seem to be about one-upsmanship. I am not interested in that. This is a good, worthwhile topic which I want to approach without personal animosity and without playing word games. I have no doubt that you will join me in that same attitude.
Why did it take you so long to catch on. There is a difference between "structured" and "according to your whim".
OK---you say it is structured. Who is the referee? Who, of all the people on earth (nearly 7 billion of them) possesses the authority to declare you the loser after you have been severely pummeled by the most rudimentary of rejoinders? What are the criteria to be used in judging the scoring of points? You say it is 'structured'---display the rules, the framework, the parameters.
So far, the rule seems to be, first you select the opponent, and then you demand that the selectee make a statement for you to pick apart with no appeal to any arbiter to rule on the validity of your rebuttal, either in terms of form (of which none has been described) or factual truth.
Here's what we've got so far. The Traverse City Beach Bums of the independent Frontier League gloat that they can win the World Series, but they don't have to play the New York Yankees, they get to play whomever they wish, and they pick the Calhoun County High School Sandcrabs as their opponent, and there are no umpires. If the Beach Bums say they won, they won. But it's "structured"---they play by the official rules of baseball. Play Ball.
Well….if you were sincere you would go back and read were I said, a couple of times, that I was willing to work out the ground rules with anyone. If you or anyone else were interested in this debate…..all you had to do was offer up rules or compromise rules. That is what I was seeking. I set the topic because I offered up the debate. I choose the person I will debate with, based upon a non arbitrary methodology (regardless of its imperfections) because I did not want 10 different people to be going back and forth with…who would then argue that I am ignoring them. Essentially it would amount to 10 against one and the fact that I would not and could not respond to everyone’s point or counter point would be used against me. The truth is that what you claim to be your issue really is not your issue. You have a problem with the topic and presenter, but mostly the presenter. If you wanted this debate challenge, you would have simply offered compromising or constructive input to make it happen. You did not. However, it is what it is at this point. Someone has stepped up to the plate and that is who I will be debating. Consider yourself to be just a niggling heckler at this point.
okay, so what is the point of this thread? this is the Great Debates forum. this forum was set up by City Data administrators as a place for anyone to debate topics. There are already rules and guidelines in place for this forum. What gives you, Indentured Servant, the "godly" right to swoop in and create what is basically a sub-forum within this forum, complete with your own set of rules and guidelines? you who barely has the post numbers and rep points to meet your own criteria? Yes, as a thread OP, you have certain rights to control your thread, i.e., keeping it on topic and asking a mod to close it if need be, but why do you think you have the right to come done ad impose rules regarding who responds and who is "worth" your time responding to? This should be a forum for open discussion and no one but the mods themselves should be setting guidelines for those discussions.
Plus, anyone who have debated with you in past topic will know that you are far too rigid in your viewpoints to likely take any opposing viewpoints seriously. you're just as likely to deride anyone who you deem has given you an inferior answer. I wonder if that's why you've created this thread, to cherry pick who to listen to and ignore everyone else you don't deem "worthy". Perhaps you should find an opponent and debate this topic via private message, or go off and create your own blog/forum. Otherwise, I'm not seeing many reasons for someone to take you up on your offer, especially given past threads.
IS, instead of being dodgy, why not just lay out your "thesis" plain and simple and see who bites? none of this nonsense about opponents and silly rules you have no real authority to impose. Really, no thread in the GD forum should be started without the thesis/debate topic laid out in the first post. This whole thread is not even a Great Debate, just you trying to lay down rues that make no sense. if the mods were keeping up this forum, this thread would have been locked by now for lack of an actual debate.
Last edited by eevee; 04-25-2010 at 05:00 PM..
Reason: sp
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Give me a few days.
