One on One Thread Debate Topics, Participants, "House Rules", and more

[GhostWriter16]

The idea of arguing a viewpoint opposite to your own is a celebrated ancient Greek practice, first started by Socrates. I think doing this here would be awesome and very enlightening for everyone involved. A little empathy never hurt anyone.

You argue for total, pure, free market capitalism, and I'll argue in favor of socialism

 

[schlaufuchs]

I might participate if this was in the tavern. I would not touch this if it went into the chamberpot.

 

[JollyRoger]

I would be willing to do this, only in the Tavern and only with with the understanding that some amount of nefarity is allowed by the debaters (knowing the risk of leaving a bad impression on the peanut gallery). I am also willing to go in some different configuartion that one-on-one. I would be willing to take on up to one-against-five or do a two-on-two while getting teamed up with someone like Mobby.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

You argue for total, pure, free market capitalism, and I'll argue in favor of socialism

That's the idea. Sit back and be amazed, my son.

 

[GhostWriter16]

That's the idea. Sit back and be amazed, my son.

I thought you'd be as opposed to the idea as I am.

I'll be the first to admit, the chances of me beating you in a debate, even with you arguing a position that you normally disagree with, is pretty much nil. In fact, that would probably be true even if I were actually arguing at full strength for a view I did agree with. You're way smarter than I am.

However, on the off chance someone thinks my arguments are better than yours, I don't want to argue for a position that isn't mine, because I have an issue with trying to persuade people of something I myself don't agree with. What if I succeeded? I'd actually feel bad about myself. I wouldn't WANT to succeed in that environment. I'd actually WANT to lose and thus hopefully get people to switch to the position I DO support.

I couldn't do it

 

[JollyRoger]

So all this time, you are a lefty trying to make righties look bad?

 

[_random_]

Read some of Cheezy's early work here. He used to be a neocon. He knows how the arguments work.

 

[JollyRoger]

I remember when Cheezy was the resident young rightie. Quality at that spot has gone way down since then.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Read some of Cheezy's early work here. He used to be a neocon. He knows how the arguments work.

I believe it. And he'd probably still beat me.

I'll take anyone on foreign policy if they'll take the interventionist position (More or less ANY interventionist position that supports pretty much any kind of war that's less universally agreed upon than the Second World War.)

I'll also debate anyone who is in favor of the Patriot Act and show them why its an awful idea

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I thought you'd be as opposed to the idea as I am.

I'll be the first to admit, the chances of me beating you in a debate, even with you arguing a position that you normally disagree with, is pretty much nil. In fact, that would probably be true even if I were actually arguing at full strength for a view I did agree with. You're way smarter than I am.

However, on the off chance someone thinks my arguments are better than yours, I don't want to argue for a position that isn't mine, because I have an issue with trying to persuade people of something I myself don't agree with. What if I succeeded? I'd actually feel bad about myself. I wouldn't WANT to succeed in that environment. I'd actually WANT to lose and thus hopefully get people to switch to the position I DO support.

I couldn't do it

What you mean is, you are afraid of arguing a position so well that you agree with it, and discover that your carefully constructed world view is cognitively dissonant. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." - John 8:32.

Read some of Cheezy's early work here. He used to be a neocon. He knows how the arguments work

More than that, I've devoted more time to studying ideologies I disagree with than I did when I believed in some of them.

I remember when Cheezy was the resident young rightie. Quality at that spot has gone way down since then.

Lets not lose our camera and our pants over all that though.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I'll take anyone on foreign policy if they'll take the interventionist position (More or less ANY interventionist position that supports pretty much any kind of war that's less universally agreed upon than the Second World War.)

This I wouldn't mind doing actually. It's looking as though I'm going to major in International Relations here at Iowa (although sadly I didn't nab a single international relations class this semester) so some debating on that topic might prove fruitful/fun. Also I don't mind interventionism.

 

[GhostWriter16]

What you mean is, you are afraid of arguing a position so well that you agree with it, and discover that your carefully constructed world view is cognitively dissonant. "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." - John 8:32.

Not really. I don't want to convince anyone else that a view I don't agree with is accurate. I have no problem with considering socialistic arguments but I'm not trying to persuade someone that they are right when they aren't in my opinon.

 

[JollyRoger]

You might end up persuading yourself.

 

[Skwink]

I want to see Form and Mob settle it once and for all in a steal cage match

Also, it's cool to see Dom go back to the old CivRev Lincoln avatar.

 

[Camikaze]

Not really. I don't want to convince anyone else that a view I don't agree with is accurate. I have no problem with considering socialistic arguments but I'm not trying to persuade someone that they are right when they aren't in my opinon.

So you see these threads as simply serving as a platform to persuade others?

 

[GhostWriter16]

This I wouldn't mind doing actually. It's looking as though I'm going to major in International Relations here at Iowa (although sadly I didn't nab a single international relations class this semester) so some debating on that topic might prove fruitful/fun. Also I don't mind interventionism.

Alright, let's do it. I'll debate any war or situation that actually qualifies as "Interventionism" (War for self-defense, such as the Second World War or War of 1812 wouldn't really apply.) I'll let you pick within those guidelines.

So you see these threads as simply serving as a platform to persuade others?

Not at all. I'd also like to hear the other person's side, in a civilized and "Formated" manner (Rather than the typical mudslinging it normally is) in order to learn. But I don't want to actually argue a position that isn't mine (Personally) because I don't want to persuade the audience (Which IS an important part of it, although not the only part) of a position I really don't agree with.

Although, what it is for me isn't necessarily what it is for anyone else. I don't mind if someone else uses my basic format and decides to "Flip flop it" and debate opposite sides. I'm just not personally interested. I enjoy debating politics. I don't generally enjoy arguing against my own positions.

 

[Joecoolyo]

Alright, let's do it. I'll debate any war or situation that actually qualifies as "Interventionism" (War for self-defense, such as the Second World War or War of 1812 wouldn't really apply.) I'll let you pick within those guidelines.

I'm not going to do it immediately, not with these headaches I won't. I'm just throwing it out there that I wouldn't mind doing one eventually.

 

[MobBoss]

I would be willing to do this, only in the Tavern and only with with the understanding that some amount of nefarity is allowed by the debaters (knowing the risk of leaving a bad impression on the peanut gallery). I am also willing to go in some different configuartion that one-on-one. I would be willing to take on up to one-against-five or do a two-on-two while getting teamed up with someone like Mobby.

Dude, you and me teamed up would be just unfair for all the rest.

But I do agree with you and the other opinions in regards to doing it in the Tavern. I want some real debate with a bit o' fire....not some overly moderated pablum.

I want to see Form and Mob settle it once and for all in a steal cage match

Thats already been settled long ago in the Tavern. I'd have him thinking he was being personally attacked when he wasnt in the first 3 posts.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

All this debating testosterone leaves me aching to see who will triumph and as a consequence, nail the prom queen.

 

[Flying Pig]

Here's a hint: You don't see formal debates on TV during presidential election years, and you rarely see it in this forum.

Advice on Debating with Others

This clearly belongs in the Chamber, or better yet an even more restrictive forum.

I quite like those as a set of house rules - they might keep things a bit more civilised.