Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling: Philosophy Forums

An error occoured at http://forums.philosophyforums.com/comments.php?rewritten=1&id=8183&page=5 on 2008-08-21 06:15:44. Please relay this data to support. Error #2: 'mysqli_num_rows() expects parameter 1 to be mysqli_result, boolean given' in /home/pgk/public_html/forums/databases/mysqli.php on line 42. Debug info:
emp`,`filefield`,`validatedemail`,`unpaid`,`effectivetime`,`wysihtml`,`movedid`,`unrevised`,`feedurl`,`feedcache`,`feedcachetime`,`sugcatid`,`tags`,`xmlsource`,`ordercomments`,`lastpadupdate`,`invisibleto`,`profileurl`,`lastprofileurl`,`timesrenewed`,`timedeleted`,`sponsorend`,`url`,`recipurl`,`recipwith`,`recipverified`,`pagerank`,`padfile`,`lastmonthlycheck`,`address`,`city`,`state`,`country`,`latitude`,`longtude`,`zip`,`longitude` FROM wsnforum_links WHERE id=8183

Query 48: SELECT `memberid`,`starttime`,`time` FROM wsnforum_sessions WHERE time < 1219298444 AND memberid > 0

Query 50: SELECT `id`,`name`,`parent`,`validated`,`description`,`time`,`parentnames`,`parentids`,`numlinks`,`hide`,`lastlinktime`,`custom`,`lastedit`,`moderators`,`headerinfo`,`related`,`numsub`,`type`,`permissions`,`subscribers`,`subscriber`,`mixtypes`,`isalbum`,`orderlinks`,`totalcomments`,`ulsearchmax`,`ulsearchquery`,`ulsearchadult`,`alias`,`catcols`,`linkcols`,`sponsorlinks`,`views`,`customwrap`,`deleted`,`reqlinks`,`reqcoms`,`reqlinksdelay`,`priority`,`levelsdeep`,`lastposterid`,`lastpostername`,`lastcommenttime`,`lastthreadid`,`lastthreadtitle`,`linkshere`,`unvalidatedlinks`,`unvalidatedcomments`,`actaslink`,`countposts`,`subcatshtml`,`opwords`,`dmozpath`,`linksperpage`,`wysihtml`,`numonline`,`sponsorship`,`lastprofileurl`,`lastthreadurl`,`lastposturl`,`defaultnoaccess`,`specialurl` FROM wsnforum_categories WHERE validated=1 AND deleted=0 AND hide=0 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 0,

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Number of rows is You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Query 51: SELECT `id`,`title`,`description`,`rating`,`votes`,`validated`,`catid`,`sumofvotes`,`email`,`time`,`hits`,`numcomments`,`hide`,`ownerid`,`voterips`,`voterids`,`lastedit`,`type`,`notify`,`pendingedit`,`suspended`,`alias`,`expire`,`ip`,`inalbum`,`typeorder`,`hitsoutips`,`lastcomment`,`related`,`inhidden`,`viewers`,`threadviewers`,`hitsouttemp`,`origtype`,`importance`,`parentids`,`timesemailed`,`message`,`lastposterid`,`lastpostername`,`sticky`,`threadclosed`,`ownername`,`threadposters`,`deleted`,`downloads`,`funds`,`deletionreason`,`movedto`,`pollid`,`deletedby`,`suspect`,`timesdead`,`posticon`,`timevalidated`,`savedby`,`hitsin`,`hitsinips`,`hitsintemp`,`filefield`,`validatedemail`,`unpaid`,`effectivetime`,`wysihtml`,`movedid`,`unrevised`,`feedurl`,`feedcache`,`feedcachetime`,`sugcatid`,`tags`,`xmlsource`,`ordercomments`,`lastpadupdate`,`invisibleto`,`profileurl`,`lastprofileurl`,`timesrenewed`,`timedeleted`,`sponsorend`,`url`,`recipurl`,`recipwith`,`recipverified`,`pagerank`,`padfile`,`lastmonthlycheck`,`address`,`city`,`state`,`country`,`latitude`,`longtude`,`zip`,`longitude` FROM wsnforum_links WHERE validated=1 AND deleted=0 AND inhidden=0 AND hide=0 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 0,

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Number of rows is You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Query 52: SELECT `id`,`name`,`time`,`usergroup`,`password`,`ip`,`totalhits`,`totalhitsin`,`email`,`validated`,`template`,`language`,`lastattempt`,`allowemail`,`signature`,`avatarname`,`stylesheet`,`allowuseremail`,`albumid`,`failedattempts`,`totalbytes`,`funds`,`notifyoflinks`,`lastvisit`,`timezone`,`rating`,`pmfolders`,`notifyofpms`,`acceptpms`,`cookieduration`,`banned`,`topics`,`posts`,`location`,`homepage`,`occupation`,`bio`,`aim`,`icq`,`msn`,`yahoo`,`inactive`,`timeonline`,`totalpms`,`buddies`,`ignored`,`isonline`,`acceptims`,`adminpermissions`,`referrer`,`groupreverttime`,`grouprevertto`,`moderationpm`,`secondarygroups`,`linksperpage`,`commentsperpage`,`shouts`,`customtitle`,`shoutban`,`topicbans`,`forumbans`,`visibility`,`birthdate`,`lastsession`,`interests`,`posteditor`,`forumaccess`,`pmpopup`,`pmnotify`,`modnotes`,`guestnotes`,`salt`,`lastmodnote`,`field5`,`newpms`,`imflag`,`orderalbums`,`lastguestnote`,`autosubscribe`,`linksalbumid`,`galleryalbumid`,`essaysalbumid`,`links`,`comments`,`images`,`articles`,`notifymethod`,`showavatars`,`showsigs`,`warninglevel`,`chatcolor`,`autosubscribepost`,`traderrating`,`validatedemail`,`invitessent`,`calsub`,`macros`,`blogrss`,`blogcache`,`watched`,`guestnotify`,`keychecktime`,`notifykeywords`,`positivepct`,`notifytrader`,`newemail`,`inactiveemail` FROM wsnforum_members WHERE validated = 1 ORDER BY id ASC LIMIT 0,

You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '' at line 1

Philosophy Forums » Debates » Debate Discussion » Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling » Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling

Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 08/11/04 - 08:16 PM:	#101
Are we going to have collective team posts, or each person post there own?

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 08/13/04 - 02:58 AM:	#102
I say collective team posts. That's the only way to ensure that this is actually a team effort, and not simply 2 people arguing the same position with no collaboration.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 08/13/04 - 04:57 PM:	#103
that sounds complicated.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/14/04 - 12:59 AM:	#104
flatliner wrote: that sounds complicated. It does but its probably the best way to ensure a fair group debate. I'm thinking something like each person has to send their post to the other member for edit and then post. And possibly allow more time between posts. Robert Guy who is keen to get started

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 08/15/04 - 02:26 PM:	#105
This is what I suggest. Each team should post collaborative posts. There should be no delineations between arguments of each individual, so that each teammate is accountable for each word written. Other than that, I don't know of any ways in which the debate would differ from the one on one debates.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 08/15/04 - 05:39 PM:	#106
Topic: "Democracy is the ideal form of government" Socrastein/Jay v. TSZ/Roobarb Postivie .............. Negative Collective posts done in standard form. Is there anything else we need to decide, or can we go ahead and get this started?

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 08/15/04 - 07:04 PM:	#107
Sounds good to me.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 08/15/04 - 07:07 PM:	#108
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Topic: "Democracy is the ideal form of government" Socrastein/Jay v. TSZ/Roobarb Postivie .............. Negative Collective posts done in standard form. Is there anything else we need to decide, or can we go ahead and get this started? Oh yeah, is it going to be voted. I vote for yes

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 08/15/04 - 07:12 PM:	#109
If Jay and Roob want it, that's fine. But I don't.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 08/15/04 - 07:58 PM:	#110
I say no vote because one team may end up losing because uninformed people end up doing the majority of the voting. Kind of like in the US. I'd rather just present arguments about who I think won.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 08/15/04 - 08:15 PM:	#111
flatliner wrote: I say no vote because one team may end up losing because uninformed people end up doing the majority of the voting. Kind of like in the US. I'd rather just present arguments about who I think won. How informed one is doesn't matter, all they need to do is read the debate.

flatliner
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1766

Posted 08/15/04 - 08:18 PM:	#112
Yeah, but they might not understood what a win would be. That is, they might not get the points.
What is this, a school for ants?! http://www.specialdefects.com/v1/embed/heart_preloader.html

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/15/04 - 08:45 PM:	#113
If you want to go a voting option, maybe a panel could be selected of "informed" forumers. That way the voting is more likely to avoid voting for "their" side. Robert Guy who doesn't mind how its decided, but would like a clear indication of who presented the better arguement

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 08/15/04 - 10:36 PM:	#114
As a general rule, I'd prefer that there be no voting unless there is a prize of some sort given to the winner. There's really not much point otherwise. And if it were to be unbiased, the discussion would have to wait until after the conclusion of the debate, which may decrease the likelihood that posters will follow the debate at all. If you insist on having a vote, that's fine, but I really don't see what it would accomplish. I think, in general, you can get a good idea of the "winners" by checking out the discussion thread.

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/16/04 - 02:03 PM:	#115
Interlocutor wrote: As a general rule, I'd prefer that there be no voting unless there is a prize of some sort given to the winner. There's really not much point otherwise. And if it were to be unbiased, the discussion would have to wait until after the conclusion of the debate, which may decrease the likelihood that posters will follow the debate at all. If you insist on having a vote, that's fine, but I really don't see what it would accomplish. I think, in general, you can get a good idea of the "winners" by checking out the discussion thread. O.k. Thats fine by me! Robert Guy who is busy today

Socrastein
Looking to understand

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Location: A desolate sea of bollocks
Total Topics: 43
Total Posts: 2180

Posted 08/17/04 - 04:28 AM:	#116
Jay and I are in the brainstorming process, throwing ideas around and reading sources on the subject. In a few days we're going to likely get together and write our opening post. I suggest you two do the same, and in a few days when we have both submitted our arguments to Interlocutor we can get this debate rolling. Also, I'd like to clear something up on the issue of democracy itself. We need a concise definition so we don't go in with different ideas of what we're debating. I propose that we regard democracy to be the rule of the common/less-fortunate. I mean this in opposition to the elite, or the rich, or the powerful, or the wise, or what have you. I think simply calling democracy the rule of the "many" can be misleading, for if we were to take the possible case of a society in which power was contrived from one's level of wealth, and 80% of the population happened to be very rich, that wouldn't make it a democracy by simply virtue of the majority rule, but it would make it oligarchy, because the well-off financially are ruling. So I say, in a very general way, that the "poor" (Poor in wealth, poor in property, poor in honor, poor in wisdom, poor in power, etc.) rule in a democracy. The foundation of power is equality, as opposed to inequality, of money/land/power/what have you. I am pulling these disctinctions straight from Aristotle's Politics, where he articulated these issues quite well. I know you TSZ don't like Aristotle, so if you or Roobarb have a problem with how I've defined democracy or how I've explained it, then let me know. A consensus on what we are arguing for and against is very important, naturally.
"The time has come for people of reason to say enough is enough. Religious faith discourages independent thought, it's devisive, and it's dangerous." -Richard Dawkins

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 08/17/04 - 05:03 PM:	#117
Socrastein wrote: I propose that we regard democracy to be the rule of the common/less-fortunate. I mean this in opposition to the elite, or the rich, or the powerful, or the wise, or what have you. I think simply calling democracy the rule of the "many" can be misleading, for if we were to take the possible case of a society in which power was contrived from one's level of wealth, and 80% of the population happened to be very rich, that wouldn't make it a democracy by simply virtue of the majority rule, but it would make it oligarchy, because the well-off financially are ruling. So I say, in a very general way, that the "poor" (Poor in wealth, poor in property, poor in honor, poor in wisdom, poor in power, etc.) rule in a democracy. The foundation of power is equality, as opposed to inequality, of money/land/power/what have you. I am pulling these disctinctions straight from Aristotle's Politics, where he articulated these issues quite well. I know you TSZ don't like Aristotle, so if you or Roobarb have a problem with how I've defined democracy or how I've explained it, then let me know. A consensus on what we are arguing for and against is very important, naturally. I thought we were arguing about Democracy, not pseudo-political communism. I must have missed the part where the proletariat revolution had to precede the democracy. I won't use the definition, but if roobarb and jay want to use it I would happily step down and allow someone else to take my spot in the debate. "Rule by the people" is the defintion I would forward, as that's a close translation of the word. If you want to say this means the dumb/poor/weak rule then go ahead, but It is abusive to have that as a starting definition, as it moves away from the orgin of the word and toward an certain idealized democracy that greatly restricts the word. Democracy is good because it allows the "weak/poor/dumb" to rule" v. "Democracy is when the weak/poor/dumb rule". The power is given to everyone, the majority is the one that decides the rules, laws, taxes, ect. If this majority happens to be the poor then so be it, but to define it as to make the majority have to be the poor seems absurd.

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 08/17/04 - 05:52 PM:	#118
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: The power is given to everyone, the majority is the one that decides the rules, laws, taxes, ect. If this majority happens to be the poor then so be it, but to define it as to make the majority have to be the poor seems absurd. So our definition of democracy then is a goverment where the majority of the people rule correct?

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 08/17/04 - 05:59 PM:	#119
Jay wrote: So our definition of democracy then is a goverment where the majority of the people rule correct? I assume you meant "your" No, that is too simplistic and potentially misleading.

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 08/17/04 - 06:03 PM:	#120
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: I assume you meant "your" No, that is too simplistic and potentially misleading. Alas, I am confused as I assumed that is what you meant in your entire post. Hence with my usage of the word our I was acknowledging it and trying to move foward. However, if this poses a problem, perhaps we ought to ask Interlocutor for a definition or adopt the one from the previous debate so that the semantics of the debate are settled now and we can move on and look foward to a fruitful debate.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 13, 2003
Location: University of Missouri-Columbia
Total Topics: 26
Total Posts: 1049

Posted 08/17/04 - 06:08 PM:	#121
Jay wrote: Alas, I am confused as I assumed that is what you meant in your entire post. Hence with my usage of the word our I was acknowledging it and trying to move foward. However, if this poses a problem, perhaps we ought to ask Interlocutor for a definition or adopt the one from the previous debate so that the semantics of the debate are settled now and we can move on and look foward to a fruitful debate. That defintion is fine, but it is potentially misleading. It allows or even implies that there is a set majority, where as in actuality the majority will differ from opinion to opninion. There is no "the majority". Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but i demand that we avoid definition problems during the debate. And I see this definition as potentially abusive.

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/17/04 - 07:38 PM:	#122
My definition of democracy is a political system where the ruling body is elected by a majority of the people. I'm fine changing this viewpoint as long as the masses or majority are not differentiated between.

Interlocutor
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 23, 2002
Total Topics: 41
Total Posts: 879

Posted 08/17/04 - 08:19 PM:	#123
That's representative democracy. If you want to argue about that, you must stipulate it. Otherwise, the definition I offered at the beginning of the original debate on this topic, that "democracy" is understood to be the form of government in which supreme power of rulership is derived directly from the consent of the ruled, could suffice. It is broad enough to cover all forms of democracy, and precise enough to ensure that it cannot be construed to cover any other form of government.

roobarb
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: Australia
Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 711

Posted 08/17/04 - 08:39 PM:	#124
Interlocutor wrote: That's representative democracy. If you want to argue about that, you must stipulate it. Otherwise, the definition I offered at the beginning of the original debate on this topic, that "democracy" is understood to be the form of government in which supreme power of rulership is derived directly from the consent of the ruled, could suffice. It is broad enough to cover all forms of democracy, and precise enough to ensure that it cannot be construed to cover any other form of government. I can go with that! Covers all bases. Robert Guy who is happy to have a stable starting platform

Jay
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 04, 2003
Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 1578

Posted 08/17/04 - 09:19 PM:	#125
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: That defintion is fine, but it is potentially misleading. It allows or even implies that there is a set majority, where as in actuality the majority will differ from opinion to opninion. There is no "the majority". Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but i demand that we avoid definition problems during the debate. And I see this definition as potentially abusive. Now that I think of it, limitting our definition of democracy according to the rule of "a" majority can offer sever conflicts to our position. You see in a potential society like Canada, where only 60% of the population shows up on voting day, we can no longer claim it is a majority of the public which is ruling. The 60% is split up between various parties, and although each member of that 60% is guaranteed a representative slot in the govermental body, they cannot be ensured a status as ruler of the goverment since the majorty of that 60%, say the liberal party, are the people who call the shots. In such a scenario they would be the order of the country and would not have to acknowledge the people who represent our position as the minority of that voter turn out. The only way in such a system for everyone to be granted a representative position would be when there was no majority. The funny thing here is we notice, the further away we move from the majority ruling concept, the more people are actually involved in the ruling process and the more democratic the goverment becomes. Excluding the rare occasion where minority goverments are in place however, we can see, as in Canada, that roughly 31% of the population (assuming of course a 60% voters participation) is ruling over the Country and yet, we claim that such a representative form of goverment is a democracy because everyone is giving their consent (either directly by voting, or indirectly by not opting to vote against the political powers in place). I'm not sure if this difficulty with regards to our definition will surface during our debates, but nonetheless this is presenting a concern to me, and I think Soc as well. This is partly why we wanted to define democracy as a Aristotle did since it avoids this troubling majority talk. We can perhaps also try to move along the lines of a representative consensus as our base for a democratic form of goverment. Or slightly modify Interlocutors definition to presume that those people who do not participate in the voting process nonetheless are giving their indirect consent to their form of goverment. Please share your thoughts on my concern. Jay

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.