Debate Topics, Challenges and Scheduling: Philosophy Forums

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

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/17/04 - 10:31 PM:	#126
Oh, and while we're on the semantics issues, what do we want to understand the most "ideal" as? The most practible or suitable given all social circumstances that have thus far been achieved? Or are we going to be talking about the most "ideal" form of goverment theoretically speaking?

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 - 11:30 PM:	#127
The foundation of power is equality, as opposed to inequality, of money/land/power/what have you. TSZ, this is the most important statement of my post. Power is in your hands because you're a member of society, not because you're a rich member, or an honorable member, or a wise member, or a member with a prestiguous family name. Sorry if I confused you, but know that this is what I was getting at. I differentiated between rich and poor because it seems that if you have a bunch of rich people ruling over the poor, you can hardly call that anything less than an oligarchy, now can you? As for interlocutors definition. It's very possible that I simply do not understand it, but nevertheless I am confused as to one aspect of it - is it not possible through that definition for one man to rule over all? Could not the members of society consent to a single monarch to rule over them? If you recall Hobbes' Leviathan, the sovereign monarch only came into power at the consent of the people of society. They all got together and agreed that they needed someone to rule and protect them absolutely, and once they all consented to relenquish their power to him, an absolute monarchy was born. Would that make this a democracy somehow, because the people have consented to the monarch? If I'm gravely misunderstanding, please put my concerns to rest.
_____________________ "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

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3327

Posted 08/18/04 - 08:40 AM:	#128
Socrastein We probably want to avoid a debate on definitions before the debate itself, and I think a reasonable definition of democracy can be presented and that shouldn't be too hard, but your definition is certainly not a good one. "Rule by the people" is the most sensible defintion, "rule by the poor" is just as unfair as "rule by the rich," and I don't see why you would want to define democracy as that. You made it sound like that to ensure the rich don't have all the power, they have none of it.
_____________________ "The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Socrastein
Looking to understand

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

Posted 08/18/04 - 01:39 PM:	#129
Something has come up quite suddenly, I may possibly not be on these forums for a very extended period of time. I am sorry to say I cannot possibly participate in this debate.
_____________________ "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

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/18/04 - 01:48 PM:	#130
AKG wrote: You made it sound like that to ensure the rich don't have all the power, they have none of it. How naive... I wonder how many poor people you know are in senate?

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3327

Posted 08/18/04 - 03:52 PM:	#131
Jay wrote: How naive... I wonder how many poor people you know are in senate? I think you misinterpreted what I said. I said that Socrastein's suggestion, to give rich people no power to ensure that they don't have all of it, is a bad suggestion. I can how you might have misread what I wrote though.
_____________________ "The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 454
Total Posts: 11592

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 08/19/04 - 12:04 AM:	#132
Would anyone be interested in debating in favor of the possiblility of zombies, for a short 4 or 5 rounder? I'd take the 'no' position. Alternatively, I'd be willing to debate the 'no' side of "Is only the present real?" (I'd argue for eternalism, need a presentist to debate against me.)
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

AKG
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 15, 2004
Location: Berkeley, CA
Total Topics: 87
Total Posts: 3327

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 08/19/04 - 09:10 AM:	#133
Paul wrote: Would anyone be interested in debating in favor of the possiblility of zombies, for a short 4 or 5 rounder? I'd take the 'no' position. I'll take the "yes" position.
_____________________ "The only reason we die... is because we accept it as an inevitability." -- Stewie "To enslave nuance to dogma is folly." -- Lord Hillyer

roobarb
Professor

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

Posted 08/19/04 - 06:46 PM:	#134
So what is the status of the debate now? Robert Guy who isn't sure whats going on

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/19/04 - 09:23 PM:	#135
AKG wrote: I think you misinterpreted what I said. I said that Socrastein's suggestion, to give rich people no power to ensure that they don't have all of it, is a bad suggestion. I can how you might have misread what I wrote though. My apologies.

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/19/04 - 09:24 PM:	#136
roobarb wrote: So what is the status of the debate now? Robert Guy who isn't sure whats going on Canceled it would seem.

Paul
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Mar 10, 2002
Location: California
Total Topics: 454
Total Posts: 11592

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/19/04 - 11:01 PM:	#137
Proposed rules: Number of Rounds- 5 Time Allotment Between Posts- 48 hours (but not rigid) Post Length- No more than 1,500 words. No less than 200 words. Beginning posts must be at least 500 words. Who Goes First- I think it'd work better for the non-expert reader if the pro-zombie person goes first, so AKG. And no quoting of posts allowed, same as in the last debate. If that's ok, lets make the opening posts be due Monday (I need a little time)... unless, of course, Interlocutor would like to step in and disqualify us as being unfit to debate.
_____________________ "If a statement is made, it is to be confronted with the totality of existing statements. If it agrees with them, it is joined to them; if it does not agree, it is called 'untrue' and rejected; or the existing complex of statements of science is modified so that the new statement can be incorporated." - Otto Neurath

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 08/20/04 - 08:53 AM:	#138
Jay wrote: Please share your thoughts on my concern. Thus the problems of a democracy. Even with soc's definition we would still have majority rule would we not? There is no reason to let the debate die just because soc left...We only need one more person, or I could bow out for a Jay v. Roobarb debate.

Interlocutor
Professor

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

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 08/20/04 - 05:55 PM:	#139
This should be interesting. Seems everything's in order. I'll put up the debate when i get your posts. unless, of course, Interlocutor would like to step in and disqualify us as being unfit to debate. I expect one of, if not both of you, will be employing juju magic to win this thing. Perhaps AKG will end the debate by raising a throng of brain-eating zombies that will descend on Paul's apartment...or maybe the things really aren't so dumb at all. Perhaps Paul can train them to do some work on MySql or php. I'd disqualify either of you on the grounds of witchcraft, but I really have no desire to see my walls bleed, just before I die...and rise again as a member of some undead philosopher army, purposed to take over the world by splitting logical hairs and quoting Kant and Wittgenstein...

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 03:30 PM:	#140
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: Thus the problems of a democracy. Even with soc's definition we would still have majority rule would we not? The problem I was addressing was not specifically linked to democracy itself but rather to the label of democracy. And since we were seeking to find a running definition due to your rejecting Soc's, it lead us to my concern which you failed to address. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem of importance anymore. There is no reason to let the debate die just because soc left...We only need one more person, or I could bow out for a Jay v. Roobarb debate. Well I'll sit out since I realize I really should get some work done. What lured me in was the group debate thing. Alas, you two can go on and debate yourselves since I am no longer intreged.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 05:02 PM:	#141
Jay wrote: The problem I was addressing was not specifically linked to democracy itself but rather to the label of democracy. And since we were seeking to find a running definition due to your rejecting Soc's, it lead us to my concern which you failed to address. Nonetheless, it doesn't seem of importance anymore. . This may be after the fact, but I don't think your concern and democracy are divisble.

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 08:18 PM:	#142
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: This may be after the fact, but I don't think your concern and democracy are divisble. Considering that the definition of democracy which you wanted to make use of directly implied a majority and I established how you can have a democracy under a minorty, I think I have divided the issue rather well. But nonetheless, it is after the fact.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 08:21 PM:	#143
Jay wrote: Considering that the definition of democracy which you wanted to make use of directly implied a majority and I established how you can have a democracy under a minorty, I think I have divided the issue rather well. But nonetheless, it is after the fact. In a perfect utopian democracy everyone would vote, but unfortunately that is not the case, and so "rule by the people" takes on a spirit of "rule by the people that exercise there right to participate in government". But if we're going to be strict we would have to allow everyone to vote, including those that are too young to know how to vote. But that is after the fact.

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 08:40 PM:	#144
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: In a perfect utopian democracy everyone would vote, but unfortunately that is not the case, and so "rule by the people" takes on a spirit of "rule by the people that exercise there right to participate in government". But that is after the fact. Even if you want to confine it to the people who are voting, you can still have a minority goverment as is the case in Canada right now. Not everyone is limitted to two party goverments. And the definition "rule by the people" is far too ambiguous to get anywhere and that is most likely why you opted for the "majority" concept. And that's... After the fact!

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 09:02 PM:	#145
Jay wrote: Even if you want to confine it to the people who are voting, you can still have a minority goverment as is the case in Canada right now. Not everyone is limitted to two party goverments. And the definition "rule by the people" is far too ambiguous to get anywhere and that is most likely why you opted for the "majority" concept. And that's... After the fact! LoL, well the flaws of a democracy do not demand that the government be redefined to avoid such flaws. But you know, this is all after the fact.

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 09:05 PM:	#146
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: LoL, well the flaws of a democracy do not demand that the government be redefined to avoid such flaws. But you know, this is all after the fact. Indeed, but here in our igloo's we see it as a virtue and not a flaw. And that was before the fact.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 09:08 PM:	#147
Jay wrote: Indeed, but here in our igloo's we see it as a virtue and not a flaw. And that was before the fact. So iglooians like the idea that there is minority rule? As long as the prevailing laws/rules are based off what gets the most votes then I see no reason that there should be a violation of "rule of the people". And I don't think that majority rules demand an over 50% voter consistency to fit the bill. "Rule by the people" is the underlying ideal found in a democracy, "majority rules" just happens to accompany it in many cases. But who knows, the fact has come and gone by now.

Jay
Tenured Poster

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 09:11 PM:	#148
ThusSpokeZarathustra wrote: So iglooians like the idea that there is minority rule? As long as the prevailing laws/rules are based off what gets the most votes then I see no reason that there should be a violation of "rule of the people". And I don't think that majority rules demand an over 50% voter consistency to fit the bill. "Rule by the people" is the underlying ideal found in a democracy, "majority rules" just happens to accompany it in many cases. But who knows, the fact has come and gone by now. And the match has claimed its victor.

ThusSpokeZarathustra
banned

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

Posted 08/23/04 - 09:17 PM:	#149
Jay wrote: And the match has claimed its victor. But then again I never forwarded the definition of a Democracy to be "majority rule", but rather posited as a possible way for "rule by the people" to work. If anything I pointed out the problems of "the majority" long ago. But who cares anyway.

phenyl_engine_rods
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 27, 2004
Location: Exiled from Canada
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 96

1 of 2 people found this post helpful Posted 08/24/04 - 12:23 AM:	#150
If anyone else wants to take up Paul's side while AKG's got him distracted, I'd be happy to argue for presentism. (I need to start checking this forum more regularly. Damned computer games stealing my precious time.) Also, I'll gladly argue for: Anti-platonism over platonism in mathematics; The consistency of a theistic God with the existence of evil (or the inconsistency of same); or Relationalism (or whatever the word is for Leibniz's position) over absolutism in spacetime.

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

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.