Philosophical Debates

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Basically, one person would argue one side of an argument and the other person would argue an alternative side. We could have judges or polls depending on what people think is a better idea. So, what do you think?

As for topics, I am open to suggestions. But, more importantly, would anyone be interested? If enough people are interested, I would simply set up people and topics as well as judges if neccessary - though I personallty think polls are a better option. Furthermore, you can argue a side you don't agree with, but I would strongly encourage people to state what side they are on. Basically, I want these debates to be about forming strong arguments and learning - not becoming a sophist.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

What is knowledge?
Define "Art". (One person suggests definitions, other evaluates)
If there are any religious leftists around, we can do the God hypothesis.
Brain in a vat/Computer simulation
Do we all experience colours in the same way?
Could time travel ever be possible?
The infinite regress thing, i.e. Person A makes statement, person B incessantly asks "Why?" Where does this end?
What is love?

There's some suggestions, I'm up for it.

-Alex

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

It seems like a interesting idea, just be careful that some of the argument sides aren't bourgeois thus resulting in restriction/ban for the person taking that side =(

[Hegemonicretribution]

I suggested this a while ago and received little feedback. I am sure that as long as it was made clear from the outset that we required a decent devil's advocate and not merely the idiocy/dogma offered by those that frequent the OI forum that it would be acceptable.

Of course people may well be quoted out of context at a later date, but I don't mind having an attempt at "defending" the more qestionable sides of a debate. Straw men are one thing, but if we are to develop our skills then we will need decent defences of undesirable positions.

Count me in, I am willing to have a weekly sticky on questions if we can set up some sort of teams or something?

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Perhaps we could do formalized debates, like opening statements, rebuttals, etc?

Teams might be fun, if enough of us are interested.

-Alex

[McLeft]

Oh this sounds interesting, I'm eager to see how it turns out :)

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 06:04 pm
Perhaps we could do formalized debates, like opening statements, rebuttals, etc?

Teams might be fun, if enough of us are interested.

-Alex
Sounds like a good idea, last time it was suggested this is about as far as it got though. I haven't been too active since about May/June so perhaps someone could get together a list of potential candidates and we could set about inviting them via PM so they have the chance to be included. I have a few names in mind...

[BurnTheOliveTree]

List Of Theists Or Theist Apologists: (I had a quick browse through the Religion Stickies to find theist sentiment. )

Sanjee
rev-stoic (Notably)
bisclavret
C_Rasmussen
Goatse(?)
Sense-A
deadlyseven
Afrikan Erbsman
Communism And Freedom(?)
Tino Rangatiratanga
Mandedani (Agnostic)

If we do Existence Of God as a dummy run, these guys are worth contacting. As for the other side, take your pick, the vast majority are atheist on the board.

Any which way, I think formal debates are the way forward, lest the discussions devolve into flaming and shizz.

-Alex

[Hegemonicretribution]

I don't make it into the theist "appologist" list? :blink: :D Although I am anti-religion and an atheist I have had several arguments against the likes of Redstar on this topic...count me in!

How about a topic for the actual philosophy forum? The religion thing has more or less been done to death?

[Bretty123]

I'm down.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

So far it looks like the following people are interested in participating:

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
BurnTheOliveTree
Hegemonicretribution
Bretty123

If you don't want to be on this list, PM me or post. Same for if you want to be on it.

As for my first topic suggestion, it will be:

Is physical reality objective from an empericist standpoint. More specifically, if we gain knowledge through our senses (empericism), is the nature of our knowledge purely the result of what our senses are telling us or do our senses analyze an objective reality outside our experience.

To give an example:

If I see a flower, does the flower exist because I see it or, alternatively, does the flower exist independently and my senses interpret what it is.

Though for the first topic, I will probably not pick this one. It will probably be something more simple.

[hoopla]

Yeah, sounds like fun, but I think there should be teams (with instantly recallable delegates, of course). I wouldn't be able to put up much of a fight on my own. In that case hegemonic should be moderating, not arguing.

I reckon arguing against empiricism would be fun (Not God, would be boring), not quite sure what Dooga means though.

Or where meaning comes from.

You dogs will feel the might of Merleau-Ponty
http://pressurecooker.phil.cmu.edu/80-253/Merleau-Ponty.jpg
I IZ IN UR FLESH, CREATING MEANING :rolleyes:

[Hegemonicretribution]

I was in a third year Merleau Ponty seminar group the other week (I am a fresher). I stayed and joined in until the end, and despite my doubts I didn't realise it wasn't an introduction to Epistemology until the end...I just thought I hadn't done the prelim reading :P

Bring it on though...I have my thoughts on this organised.

[hoopla]

Yeah, no-one likes him apart from reactionary feminists.

I don't see it myself, you would have thought that your comment would be a virtue - look at all the basic stuff that people have ignored or forgotten or whatever.

I think there should be teams of people arguing each side in the same argument. Maybe too unwieldly- what does anyone else think? We can take turns picking like school football :lol:

(Btw I am not really a philosophy student, so don't expect too much from me)

What are laws? I haven't got a clue.

[hoopla]

Shit, I've been studying philosophy of science for 5 years and I can't remember contributing in seminars. The cruch was last year studying political philosophy: the first thing said was "I don't think there's anything wrong with some people being billionaires". Everyone nodded, and I decided to stay quiet. Oh well.

[Bretty123]

Cop out.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Hey just to keep this on topic...here is a link to a thread I just started for university talk etc Thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58181)

Just so we can keep this about getting debate sides set up.

[Clarksist]

I'm totally in.

[Don't Change Your Name]

There used to be a forum in RevLeft for debating which was deleted soon after it's creation. I thought it was a pity because, for example, infidels.org has a "formal debates" forum, which I think is an interesting idea as long as there's people interested in taking part that know about the issue they want to debate about.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Updated list is:

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor
BurnTheOliveTree
Hegemonicretribution
Bretty123
Hoopla
Clarksist

The first debate will involve BurnTheOliveTree, Bretty123, Hoopla, and Clarksist. It will be in teams of two that will be randomly decided. Judging will be done through a poll after the debate is concluded.

I would request that each person participating in the debate post or PM a topic suggesting. At a later date, I will PM each person asking for a topic suggestion, which is not required. One topic suggestion only. After the topic suggestions are obtained, I will add my own and randomly pick one of the suggestions as well as the teams. An introduction to the debate will be posted by myself and format will be given.

Thanks

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Cool beans. :)

-Alex

[Hegemonicretribution]

PM me when this is up and I will sticky it for you. If we can keep the rest of the conversation via PM it would cool, I will lock this thread for now and sticky it until the first debate is ready.