The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Aesir]

I think minorities can be oppressed if they blatantly try to oppress others without any justification (sadly our government doesn't realize this, our government and education is bad blah blah blah), in fact, it is impossible not to oppress minorities like this, by law or for the law, we have to do this, have done it, and are presently doing this. Don't see where the problem lies.

So oppressing minorities is okay? You're going to last long here.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

What I mean is that the government has laws and controls things, there are things considered unconstitutional and illegal, we suppress these things. It's not a difficult concept.

It is almost as if you didn't read past the first six words then stopped, yet if you would have continued, you would know I'm saying something pretty simple, in fact, being a minority doesn't really have anything to do with it. I'm all for playful jabs, but do not be ironic when using them.

 

[Claire Diviner]

What I mean is that the government has laws and controls things, there are things considered unconstitutional and illegal, we suppress these things. It's not a difficult concept.

It would probably be less confusing if you gave examples. Bonus points for linking sources.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Huh? I'm not referencing things we don't know about, things are illegal and unconstitutional, must I get references to show that there are such things in existence? My entire point is that the gay-marriage ban is such a thing. Perhaps I'll stop here, because I am being misunderstood.

 

[Claire Diviner]

So then, your definition of "minorities" doesn't pertain to just race then? Seeing as that seems to be the case, then yes, I can agree, although the only minority group I can think of are homosexuals, and maybe transsexuals.

 

[Sucumbio]

If there was a campaign to get people to stop eating there to send their organisation under or to get them to stop funding bad causes, then maybe I would not eat there, because then me not eating would actually make some form of contribution.

you mean like this?

or does it have to be organized by an approved body of politicians and such...

 

[Aesir]

What I mean is that the government has laws and controls things, there are things considered unconstitutional and illegal, we suppress these things. It's not a difficult concept.

It is almost as if you didn't read past the first six words then stopped, yet if you would have continued, you would know I'm saying something pretty simple, in fact, being a minority doesn't really have anything to do with it. I'm all for playful jabs, but do not be ironic when using them.

No I read the whole thing, 3 times because I wanted to make sure I understood what you were saying. If you were being sarcastic, you should know sarcasm doesn't translate very well over the internet except for a few examples.

To me and I'm sure to others as well it looked like you were saying oppressing minorities is okay ect..

If that's not what you meant than I apologize and only ask you clarify your statements otherwise you're not gonna have a fun time in the DH.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

No sarcasm, I basically meant what I said, I'm guessing the fact that I worded something quite obvious in such a way that we don't typically view it, which was my entire point. My apologies on the misunderstanding.

 

[Aesir]

Yeah I think you were using Minority in a obscure way. It's fine.

 

[Zero Beat]

Has there been a healthy discussion about Art and what constitutes it? If so, I would really appreciate a PM with a link to it. I haven't been around the forums for a while so I'm out of the loop.

 

[Dre89]

Na there hasn't (at least not since I've been here) but I'm down for an art debate.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

From what I've heard from the topic, philosophy of art has to be the lowest and most pointless form of discussion.

 

[rvkevin]

Yea, I'm not really sure what there is to argue about art other than semantics...

 

[Battlecow]

Had that argument many times before

booooooooooooring

 

[DoH]

Can we get a DWYP going again? That was fun

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Is is there any interest in a debate about mandatory sterilization in the name of eugenics?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Is is there any interest in a debate about mandatory sterilization in the name of eugenics?

I honestly wouldn't mind such a debate, though I suppose it would also be controversial, considering the Nazis were the most infamous of such things.

 

[rvkevin]

Is anyone here familiar with Putnam's Twin Earth thought experiment?

 

[GoldShadow]

Can we get a DWYP going again? That was fun

This might be a good idea.


Also, how about that whole presidential election thing?

 

[GwJ]

What's DWYP?

As for the election:

I don't trust Obama. I don't trust Romney. But I trust Romney less than Obama, therefore I will vote Obama. Also, Obama has a pleasant smile.

 

[rvkevin]

What's DWYP?

I forget what it stands for but its like a tournament with people debating 1 v. 1 or not a tournament and just people debating 1 v. 1.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That would be fun, though I doubt I'd perform well.

 

[GwJ]

Debating as a tournament?

Just sounds like a battle of who has the best rhetoric to me.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That's why the middle man, someone outside and perhaps impartial to the topic (insofar as one can be, I guess), to kind of pick out the sophistry and look for some adequate content. It won't be perfect, and will be difficult and messy, but definitely manageable. If the middle man is being unjust, those outside of the debate can impeach him through a democratic vote. XD

 

[Claire Diviner]

What's DWYP?

It stands for "Debate with your Power". As others have said, think of it as a debate tournament.

 

[GoldShadow]

That's why the middle man, someone outside and perhaps impartial to the topic (insofar as one can be, I guess), to kind of pick out the sophistry and look for some adequate content. It won't be perfect, and will be difficult and messy, but definitely manageable.

Pretty much this. That's what the judges are for.

Does anybody have ideas or preferences as far as a theme goes? The last DWYP (which, for those not in the know, or those looking to review old DWYPs, can be found in the Debate With Your Power subforum, also accessible from the Debate Hall) was Devil's Advocate, ie you argued in favor of a position you didn't actually support. I was thinking perhaps we shouldn't have a theme at all, and just try to keep things simple, but we'll see.

A problem with the last DWYP, which just petered out and never finished, was a lack of structure. This time, I'm thinking we have a format and a fixed number of posts, ie opening statements, rebuttals, etc (similar to actual debate competitions). But again, the name of the game is simplicity. Nothing so rigid or thorough that it will discourage people from participating. The alternative is the format that the old DWYP used (before I was modded), which was to open a debate to its two participants, let them duke it out and go back and forth for 2-3 days, then close the thread and judge it. However, I'm partial to a slightly more structured format with less of a time constraint. Let me know what you guys think.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, I know one thing, I don't want to do devil's advocate. Personally, I'd have a difficulty doing that and it would ruin a lot of the fun for me.

As for structure, we can try to construct some sort of argument system in which we'd have a topic of debate, much like real debates are, and someone would speak first, giving a select number of contentions or points either FOR or AGAINST the notion (i.e. Religion is a force of good in the world, Our involvement in Iraq is bad, God is real, Abortion should be legal, Marijuana should not be legal, Capital Punishment does more harm than good, etc.). The following poster may then in his rebuttal address each point and set up his own points. This kind of gives it structure but doesn't really change the process too much so it isn't scary (basically gives a little more aim in the discussion).

We can even have it so we all vote on the notion beforehand, either being for, against, or undecided, and then again afterwards, to note any differences.

 

[Aesir]

Pretty much this. That's what the judges are for.

Does anybody have ideas or preferences as far as a theme goes? The last DWYP (which, for those not in the know, or those looking to review old DWYPs, can be found in the Debate With Your Power subforum, also accessible from the Debate Hall) was Devil's Advocate, ie you argued in favor of a position you didn't actually support. I was thinking perhaps we shouldn't have a theme at all, and just try to keep things simple, but we'll see.

A problem with the last DWYP, which just petered out and never finished, was a lack of structure. This time, I'm thinking we have a format and a fixed number of posts, ie opening statements, rebuttals, etc (similar to actual debate competitions). But again, the name of the game is simplicity. Nothing so rigid or thorough that it will discourage people from participating. The alternative is the format that the old DWYP used (before I was modded), which was to open a debate to its two participants, let them duke it out and go back and forth for 2-3 days, then close the thread and judge it. However, I'm partial to a slightly more structured format with less of a time constraint. Let me know what you guys think.

can't you limit the amount of posts in a thread? IE this thread can only have 8 posts then it's autolocked?

 

[Aesir]

Economy sucks because our wages suck.

Discuss.

 

[rvkevin]

Economy sucks because our wages suck.

Discuss.

If what you mean by wages that there is not enough demand to drive production, then you're correct. It frustrates me to no end when I hear economics being discussed as if laying off several thousand government employees would somehow increase demand.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Sad to say, but it would seem that the only saving grace for our economy would be another World War. I mean, if you think about it, World War II rose the U.S. out of the Great Depression; old, unused factories were revived, and companies with factories already in service changed their products to weapons and gear made to help the war effort, effectively creating jobs, and creating newer things to invest in. Sure, there are other options that can bring the economy back from the depths of oblivion, but hell if I know what those are.

 

[Aesir]

If what you mean by wages that there is not enough demand to drive production, then you're correct. It frustrates me to no end when I hear economics being discussed as if laying off several thousand government employees would somehow increase demand.

I guess so, I'm really just saying that with the rise of inflation, and with so much of the wealth concentrated on the top it's no surprise that the economy is stagnating right now. The basic bargain is broken thats why.

Robert Reich Explains it pretty well here:

For most of the last century, the basic bargain at the heart of the American economy was that employers paid their workers enough to buy what American employers were selling.

Source: Restore The Basic Bargain

 

[rvkevin]

I guess so, I'm really just saying that with the rise of inflation, and with so much of the wealth concentrated on the top it's no surprise that the economy is stagnating right now. The basic bargain is broken thats why.

There's another aspect to it too. The costs of necessary goods have also risen. Things like oil and how transportation costs relate to increased food prices mean that more of budget goes to the same products that people have always been purchasing. This is essentially a decrease in overall demand because wages have remained stagnant. Also, I'm not sure if the reports on wages adjusted for inflation or not; if they didn't, then that would also reduce demand. There are just too many forces that are reducing demand at this point and too few in the right direction.

Edit: On second thought, things like oil prices may not be as bad as I thought. If it is more expensive to produce oil due to technological, labor, etc. constraints, then some of the extra costs will be going to those workers. However, this doesn't seem to be the case if the oil companies are making record profits.

 

[Aesir]

Still the reason demand is so low is because wages are at record lows.

 

[Aesir]

Bumping this so everyone remembers we're still alive.

WHo wants to have a debate about the awefulness of the industrial food system?

 

[GoldShadow]

Ah, that would be an interesting debate. In recent years I've become a huge critic of the current system of food production, as well as the US regulatory bodies that are supposed to police it (namely the FDA).

 

[Aesir]

and the USDA, they're no saint in this either.

 

[BSP]

Did this thread disappear for a little bit? I swear, I looked for it one day, and I couldn't find it anywhere.

 

[GoldShadow]

Nope, it's been right here as far as I know.

 

[Aesir]

it did, hence why I posted something.