Debate: Debate

Use this forum to suggest topics, and to find others to debate with.

Debate: Debate

Postby rununder » Mon Jun 24, 2013 5:44 pm

The following is a proposition and proposal for debate between rununder, Pavlovianmodel145, and Tabula Rasa.

The topic will be: how to debate.


This will be a 3-way debate in which each debater proposes distinct formats on the best forms and mediums of debate. The analyses will be all encompassing regarding debate. The debater which proposes the all around best proposals and points regarding "how to debate" will win the debate.

The judgment of this debate will be public voting. Each debater will have access to the debate thread for 4 weeks. During this month long open thread, each debater will post openly and freely. Not only is the goal to establish the best way to debate future topics, for other people, but to also tear down your opponents, or to better improve their ideas. Points will be respected according to their style, innovation, practicality, and overall philosophical values. For example, one debater could spell out the best way to debate. But another poster could tear this argument down. And the third debater could accept the original points, but expand on them better and demonstrate their utility better, thereby winning the debate instead of the original debater. So there are many routes to 'winning'.

After 4 weeks have passed since the beginning of the debate, the thread will be closed, and anonymous voting will begin. The winner will be decided with the most amount of votes, and voting will be left open indefinitely, as well as a corresponding results thread which further discusses the original ideas. The results thread will be opened after the 4 weeks have passed since the debate debate thread.

Voters under a 500 post count will not count toward the overall votes, since only established forum members deserve to pass judgment here.


This debate can begin upon the agreements of Pavlovianmodel147 and Tubular Rasa, in which we can open the debate debate thread and begin posting there over the next 4 weeks.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: Debate: Debate

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Jun 25, 2013 1:35 pm

rununder wrote:Voters under a 500 post count will not count toward the overall votes, since only established forum members deserve to pass judgment here.


This debate can begin upon the agreements of Pavlovianmodel147 and Tubular Rasa, in which we can open the debate debate thread and begin posting there over the next 4 weeks.


I conditionally agree to the Rules, and I am in.

My condition is as follows: Votes must be announced publicly, via post. You are proposing a voting Rule that this Forum has no functionality to enforce, there is simply no way to have an anonymous (poll-style) vote in thread that prohibits individuals with less than 500 posts from voting.

Your best strategy would be to inundate me with quantity, as I'm sure you planned to do. I doubt I will devote more than 3-5 posts (though they will be lengthy) in presenting/defending my position.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7137
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Debate: Debate

Postby rununder » Tue Jun 25, 2013 3:15 pm

There will be no conditions other than those debated during the debate.

Signs of beginning debate, such as adding or subtracting conditions to the parameters of the debate, will count as beginning the debate. So pavlovianmodel148 has begun.

All that is required to officially begin is Tubular rasa.


The amount of your participation is purely your own choice, responsibility, and volition. A 4 week time span should not provide you with excuses as to a lack of participation, as a concession of your quality or quantity.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: Debate: Debate

Postby PavlovianModel146 » Tue Jun 25, 2013 8:35 pm

rununder wrote:There will be no conditions other than those debated during the debate.

Signs of beginning debate, such as adding or subtracting conditions to the parameters of the debate, will count as beginning the debate. So pavlovianmodel148 has begun.

All that is required to officially begin is Tubular rasa.


First of all, you can't declare a post I made prior to your declaration the retroactive beginning of the Debate, because that's just fucking nonsense.

Second of all, nor will this post constitute the beginning of my participation in the Debate, or will it constitute a continuation of what you stated to be my introduction to this Debate.

Third of all, you referred to the Debate thread as, "The Debate thread," rather than, "This Debate thread," or, "This thread," so your intent was clearly that a different thread was to be created for this Debate. I clearly cannot post an introduction to a Debate in an improper thread and still have it constitute my Introduction, therefore, my previous post could not have been my Introduction. You also specifically stated that this was a, "Proposition and Proposal," which would mean I'd have to explicitly consent to Debating you prior to the Debate actually starting. I did not consent, I offered that I would consent to Debate, if my condition were met.

You also specifically wrote:

This debate can begin upon the agreements of Pavlovianmodel147 and Tubular Rasa, in which we can open the debate debate thread and begin posting there over the next 4 weeks.


Which explicitly states that it would be a separate thread that would need to be opened. It also explicitly stated that I would need to agree, which I have not done. You also said, "Begin posting there," which specifically refers to a different thread.

Finally, if the previous post were my introduction, it would have consisted of no less than five separate and proper paragraphs, complete with an introduction, body, and conclusion.

The amount of your participation is purely your own choice, responsibility, and volition. A 4 week time span should not provide you with excuses as to a lack of participation, as a concession of your quality or quantity.


My amount of participation in this proposed Debate is none whatsoever. I withdraw my initial conditional acceptance of your Debate proposal, pursuant to my condition being unmet. I withdraw my offer even if you decide to meet my condition because of this superfluous bullshit in which you have decided to engage (a yes or no would have been sufficient) and will not engage you in further discussion of this or any other matter. Your Rule that a voting Member must have at least 500 posts, yet retain anonymity, is self-contradictory. There is no possible way to ensure both anonymity in voting AND that a voting Member has at least 500 posts as of the time of voting.

You may reply to this post as you see fit, but I would not if I were you, because I shall not respond to anything you post.
"Love is the gravity of the Soul" - Abstract -/-/1988 - 3/11/2013 R.I.P

Image
User avatar
PavlovianModel146
Ringing The Bell
 
Posts: 7137
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:56 am
Location: Ohio

Re: Debate: Debate

Postby rununder » Tue Jun 25, 2013 9:09 pm

You already agreed based upon conditions. And rescinding these conditions and agreements is a sign of concession.

Besides, we are already beginning an informal a debate. But ironically, we are already debating how to debate.

Once Tubular enters, then we're off!

Furthermore, I can count all of your current points and arguments as an introduction to the formal beginning to debate.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am

Re: Debate: Debate

Postby Carleas » Sat Jun 29, 2013 4:25 pm

RU, you can't force someone to debate you. You underestimate Pav if you think he could be baited into a debate by telling him that the debate has begun and that he's losing.

The idea of debating the structure of a debate, such that any discussion of how the debate should be structured can't be distinguished from the debate itself is pleasingly self-referential. But isn't there a difference between discussion and formal debate? A formal debate doesn't begin until the form is decided on and accepted by all parties. You might have better luck in the regular forums starting a "How Should We Begin Discussing This Topic?" thread.
User Control Panel > Board preference > Edit display options > Display signatures: No.
Carleas
Magister Ludi
 
Posts: 5979
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 8:10 pm
Location: Washington DC, USA

Re: Debate: Debate

Postby rununder » Sun Jun 30, 2013 12:34 am

Carleas wrote:RU, you can't force someone to debate you.

Tab wrote:Hey rununder,

You wanna debate something..?

PavlovianModel146 wrote:You want a piece of this?

Chamber of Debate, you can pick the topic and your position, but I retain veto power. I've debated some of the very best here, and have been defeated only narrowly. I've won a few, I think, pity is a beautiful thing. You may have a chance against me, but I tend to doubt it.

Tab and PavlovianModel offered. I'm merely following through.


Carleas wrote:You underestimate Pav if you think he could be baited into a debate by telling him that the debate has begun and that he's losing.

That depends on how the parameters of winning and losing are set. So far, I encourage an open-ended, no time limit vote. That way winning and losing can fluctuate in time. Votes will be based on the more active and knowledgeable end of the philosophical community.

But this doesn't need to be the case. Part of the debate: debate, will be about different methods to determine winners. We could even agree on a different method of winning and losing, over the course of the debate: debate, and set those within the debate.

Maybe myself, Tab, Pav will come up with a much better solution for deciding winners and losers of philosophical debates. That's an unresolved question.


Carleas wrote:The idea of debating the structure of a debate, such that any discussion of how the debate should be structured can't be distinguished from the debate itself is pleasingly self-referential. But isn't there a difference between discussion and formal debate? A formal debate doesn't begin until the form is decided on and accepted by all parties. You might have better luck in the regular forums starting a "How Should We Begin Discussing This Topic?" thread.

There is discussion, argument, informal debate, and formal debate. I prefer to do it all at once, rather than splitting it into parts.

Besides, I'm fulfilling Tab and Pav's request for a debate. We may as well hit a several different birds with one stone.
obe wrote:The ubermensch is a relational object. It is as much an uber, as it is an unter. The uber and the unter over what? It's self, that is what. It can't ever understand itself, hence Descartes is wrong. Leibnitz is indiscernible. Kant is not a synthesis, (and Nietzche has no takeoff point). How do we go from kant to post modernisms? Well of course through a failed phenomenologically reduced/deconstructed world, a world of signs, and postures, a world of bad faith, or irresolute hypocrisy, (the cynics were right), to today: Dan's edge, the very edge, gasping for relatedness, through attempts at escape through a door marked no exist, into the illusion of virtual reality of a faux enetertaining world of silent screens, and robbed souls. This is what the ubermensch is all about. A Buddha/socrates, a simple man, non deceitful, and brutally gentle, pre conditionally wise.
rununder
Thinker
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2013 7:48 am


Return to Challenges



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron