What is a proper debate?
The Undersigned
question what is a proper debate. I call for ideas on this from all
members, and I submit the following structure as an example of the
terms of the debate. I suggest the following eight points could be a
helpful procedure and invite everyone to comment on this.
1. Appointment of someone to facilitate the debate in the order and
along the lines of these eight points;
2. Agreeing on a way to assess which side has won the debate (if any);
3. Formulating what is to be debated in the form of a yes/no question,
in order to polarize the debate into two sides
(lack of agreement on this should cause the facilitator to choose a
question);
4. A set period for each side to come up with arguments;
5. A set period for each side to come up with counter-arguments, i.e.
seeking to refuting the other side's arguments;
6. After this, each side should sum up their arguments and
counter-arguments in a single post that should not exceed a certain
length (say 700 words).
7. The debate should be assessed in the way parties agreed to under
point 2.
8. The facilitator will make the call whether or not a specific side
has won the debate.
There are plenty of other things that could be agreed to in advance,
such as that it will be an open debate where anyone can join in at any
time. Also, it makes sense for each argument to be presented as a
separate topic.
Apart from agreeing to a specific procedures and structure of the
debate, we should also look at the behavior of participants, what is
fair and how is this to be assessed. In particular, what are the terms
that members must abide by, not only as members of this specific group,
but also because Google prescribes certain terms for all members of all
groups.
Let's have a closer look at the Google terms, as at:
http://groups-beta.google.com/googlegroups/terms_of_service.html
Under 6. Appropriate Conduct, it says that:
Members agree that when using the Service, they will not:
- defame, abuse, harass, stalk, threaten or otherwise violate the legal
rights (such as rights of privacy and publicity) of others;
- post any inappropriate, defamatory, infringing, obscene, or unlawful
Content; and
- impersonate another person.
Here's my personal view on things, which I put forward as terms to be
imposed on members, where this was not already covered by Google terms
that members agreed to when joining this group.
I do object against usernames that are defamatory or that are meant to
distort or ridicule the views of others.
However, I have no problem with people using multiple email addresses,
multiple names or multiple usernames. I object against calls for people
to reveal personal detail. In fact, I urge members NOT to give personal
details, especially where members are under age.
Where revealing your personal details could endanger young persons
associated with you, you have a duty NOT to reveal such details. Where
in doubt, moderators should and will consider removal of messages that
could reveal such details.
Members can and - where appropriate should - post messages without
revealing personal details. They should be able to do so without their
integrity being questioned or being accused of dishonesty by other
members.
I therefore hereby issue a warning to jrichard and call upon everyone
to:
* stop demanding that members give personal details;
* stop offending such members by calling them dishonest, by questioning
their integrity or by other personal attacks;
* seek to participate in the debate along the lines I proposed above,
or - where appropriate - come up with alternatives.
Finally, I support banning of members from this group who persist with
behavior that violates this group's terms. An owner or moderator should
always monitor messages, whether the group is moderated or not. Where
appropriate, action should be taken, in line with the above-mentioned
Google terms:
Under 5. Content, it says that:
A Group Owner shall be responsible for the maintenance and monitoring
of the Content in the Group.
I am willing to act as both moderator and facilitator, but
alternatively - if there are objections against that - I'm happy to
participate as ordinary member in any debate here.
I call upon everyone to give things some thought and help making
something good out of this group. I appreciate your efforts to do so.
The Undersigned
jrichard
First, let me thank the Undersigned for taking the time for laying out
a good start for some things to consider. I was beginning to think this
person had fled, since my earlier requests went unanswered and no posts
appeared for quite some time.
However, I have several additional things to say on some of these
matters.
On personal information and accounts, I have no problem with people
concealing their identities or even using different identities in
different groups. (However, I would point out once again that without
identity or reputation at stake, defaming a anonymous poster is a legal
impossibility). What I do have a problem with is shilling, and when
people use one identity to bolster another as if the two were separate
people, that's simply beyond the realm of acceptable debate behavior.
Google has recognized the problem but has chosen to err on the side of
protecting the privacy of the users and allowing moderators of the
forums themselves to police the behavior of the participants.
Deborah posted from Sam's email account. Which means that Deborah
either has access to Sam's email and uses it, or that Sam and Deborah
are in fact the same person. Either way, the manner in which they
interact, as if they are two independent minds coming to independent
conclusions to form a majority, is highly unethical if not outright
dishonest.
I do not think it unfair for me to inquire into the relationship
between the two accounts, since both have harassed me in the past in
support of each other. The post from Deborah through Sam's email is
simply not something I can cast aside (nor was this the first
questionable occurrence involving the apparent integrity of the two
accounts in question). I have been in contact with other members who
have been fed up with the behavior of these two posters, and most of
them have simply encouraged me to leave the forums they post in, since
their behavior seems to drive away those who enjoy open and engaging
discourse.And I understand their frustration. I do not like being
deceived and I want Sam and Deborah to assure me that their behavior is
not unethical and give an explanation that allows me to trust them.
Because there are apparently a lot of posters who no longer want
anything to do with them, and I am trying desperately not to join their
ranks.
Aside from the identity crisis, my real concern about the rules of
debate stem from the traditions of logic that have been repeatedly
ignored. I have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence of a null
position (which is illogical). If one party asserts a positive position
("Vouchers better reflect our rights that public school") and the other
party disagrees, the burden of proof is always on the positive
assertion, not the null assertion.
Repeatedly asking someone to simply prove the position of "you're
wrong" when "I am right" is as of yet undefined is improper, illogical
and inconsistent with the traditions of debate.
The other concern is the number of unchallenged logical fallacies that
pass for arguments. I have pointed out several instances of Argumentum
ad Populum, only to receive more of the same. Sweeping statements,
overgeneralized conclusions and straw men abound in these posts (for
example, every time I ask for the clarification of a specific right and
someone claims I am denying all rights, that is the grossest of straw
men).
Perhaps we should all review the most common debate fallacies and try
to avoid them. Here's a list:
http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
All of this really leads me to ask what the role of the moderator is.
If the moderator is the judge of argument and the arbitrator of the
rules of logic, then this person needs to step in and point out when a
participant is being unfair or illogical. If this person is unable or
unwilling to do so, perhaps we should find someone with the knowledge
of debate parameters and tactics to moderate.
As it is, this "debate" has been just as irrelevant as past attempts to
communicate. Until the parties involved are willing to dig down into
the assumptions behind their views and construct logical arguments in
support of their assertions, we seem to stuck in a spiral of irrelevant
rhetoric ("Vouchers better support our rights." "What do have as
evidence?" "I don't need evidence, it's a strong argument" Ad nauseum).
So I would request that the moderators moderate. Or don't, and this is
another opportunity for me to waste words with a pair of participants
whose poor debate behavior does not allow open discussion or any rules
of evidence to be presented or examined.
This is why these forums keep dying down to a handful of participants.
It hasn't been worth the time to argue or discuss topics when there's
no hope of actually addressing the points of debate.
So, Undersigned, if you wish to moderate, I welcome your role. But
please, we need someone to start calling fouls on some pretty basic
refusals to mount the rational and logical arguments needed for a
proper debate.
Sam Carana
Deborah posted from Sam's email account. Which means that Deborah
either has access to Sam's email and uses it, or that Sam and Deborah
are in fact the same person. Either way, the manner in which they
interact, as if they are two independent minds coming to independent
conclusions to form a majority, is highly unethical if not outright
dishonest.
I do not like being deceived
I have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence of a null
position (which is illogical).
If one party asserts a positive position ("Vouchers better reflect our rights that public school") and the other party disagrees, the burden of proof is always on the positive
assertion, not the null assertion.
The other concern is the number of unchallenged logical fallacies that
pass for arguments. I have pointed out several instances of Argumentum
ad Populum, only to receive more of the same. Sweeping statements,
overgeneralized conclusions and straw men abound in these posts (for
example, every time I ask for the clarification of a specific right and
someone claims I am denying all rights, that is the grossest of straw
men).
All of this really leads me to ask what the role of the moderator is.
If the moderator is the judge of argument and the arbitrator of the
rules of logic, then this person needs to step in and point out when a
participant is being unfair or illogical.
If this person is unable or unwilling to do so, perhaps we should find someone with the knowledge of debate parameters and tactics to moderate.
As it is, this "debate" has been just as irrelevant as past attempts to communicate. Until the parties involved are willing to dig down into the assumptions behind their views and construct logical arguments in support of their assertions, we seem to stuck in a spiral of irrelevant rhetoric ("Vouchers better support our rights." "What do have as
evidence?" "I don't need evidence, it's a strong argument" Ad nauseum).
So I would request that the moderators moderate. Or don't, and this is another opportunity for me to waste words with a pair of participants whose poor debate behavior does not allow open discussion or any rules of evidence to be presented or examined.
This is why these forums keep dying down to a handful of participants. It hasn't been worth the time to argue or discuss topics when there's no hope of actually addressing the points of debate.
So, Undersigned, if you wish to moderate, I welcome your role. But please, we need someone to start calling fouls on some pretty basic refusals to mount the rational and logical arguments needed for a proper debate.
jrichard
either has access to Sam's email and uses it, or that Sam and Deborah
are in fact the same person. Either way, the manner in which they
interact, as if they are two independent minds coming to independent
conclusions to form a majority, is highly unethical if not outright
<I protest against the continuing offensive langage and call for
jrichard to be removed from this group.>
No insult, just a call for clarification. Surely you can understand why
a participant in a debate would be concerned about shill arguments?
<<I do not like being deceived>>
<Further insults....>
Actually, my not liking being deceived is simply a statement of
preference.
<<I have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence of a null
position (which is illogical).>>
<Evidence? This person hasn't even come up with argument yet.>
This tactic is getting pretty old, as well. My position in the voucher
debate has been the null of yours: "Vouchers have no better or worse
reflection on our rights, because they have nothing to do with any of
our rights." The burden of proof is now on you or Deborah to show what
rights apply to vouchers and how they better "reflect" them than other
models of education.
<<If one party asserts a positive position ("Vouchers better reflect
our rights that public school") and the other party disagrees, the
burden of proof is always on the positive
assertion, not the null assertion.>>
<Confusing argument with the debate question itself.>
Not at all. I simply ask you and Deborah back up your assertion with
evidence and argument of some kind.
<<The other concern is the number of unchallenged logical fallacies
that
pass for arguments. I have pointed out several instances of Argumentum
ad Populum, only to receive more of the same. Sweeping statements,
overgeneralized conclusions and straw men abound in these posts (for
example, every time I ask for the clarification of a specific right and
someone claims I am denying all rights, that is the grossest of straw
men).>>
<Confusing argument and comments.>
Not at all. Deborah asserted several Argumentum ad Populum to bolster
her position. "Everyone I know agrees with me." And you both have
claimed that I hold as a position that we have no rights, when I have
said nothing of the kind.
<<All of this really leads me to ask what the role of the moderator is.
If the moderator is the judge of argument and the arbitrator of the
rules of logic, then this person needs to step in and point out when a
participant is being unfair or illogical.>>
<Indeed, jrichard is unfit to participate in debate and should be
removed from this group.>
Actually, I am rather fit to participate in debate. I've been trained
in it and have done so many times. All I'm asking is that we debate
fairly.
<<If this person is unable or unwilling to do so, perhaps we should
find someone with the knowledge of debate parameters and tactics to
moderate.>>
<Ask yourself, why does jrichard choose not to debate things? Why all
these diversion tactics? It all indicates that jrichard is unwilling
to even consider having a fair debate.>
Oh I consider fair debate. I love fair debate. But what we've been
doing is not debating. It's been repeating bald assertions with no
sourcing, no appeals to evidence or logic, no attempt to answer the
challenges to your assertions.
<<As it is, this "debate" has been just as irrelevant as past attempts
to communicate. Until the parties involved are willing to dig down into
the assumptions behind their views and construct logical arguments in
support of their assertions, we seem to stuck in a spiral of irrelevant
rhetoric ("Vouchers better support our rights." "What do have as
evidence?" "I don't need evidence, it's a strong argument" Ad
nauseum).>>
<Whining and whining about his own spiral of incompetence to come up
with (counter-)arguments.>
No, just wondering when the debate will begin and one of you will begin
to support your position with something.
<<So I would request that the moderators moderate. Or don't, and this
is another opportunity for me to waste words with a pair of
participants whose poor debate behavior does not allow open discussion
or any rules of evidence to be presented or examined.>>
<I should notify the moderator that jrichard has previously been
accused of making defamatory or libelous statements about Wal-mart. I
see a pattern here.>
I would respond that since I have neither defamed nor libeled Wal-Mart
(and Sam has not provided any of the tort proofs necessary to make this
case), Sam continues to make assertions that he cannot or will not back
up. Sam has accused me of many things. That's what he does. But he
never follows through with backing up his accusations with anything
resembling proof or logical argument.
How have I libeled anyone? What have I said that I know to be untrue
that has caused measurable financial harm to that person or entity? I
ask you to prove that I have said something false, that I knew it to be
false, and that my words hurt someone's reputation in a measurable way.
Please back up your accusations or withdraw them.
<<This is why these forums keep dying down to a handful of
participants. It hasn't been worth the time to argue or discuss topics
when there's no hope of actually addressing the points of debate.>>
<Whining and whining. Digressing and complaining. Not coming up with
argument, but instead resorting to personal attacks.>
Sam, I don't know who you are, so I can hardly attack your person. I
have attacked your behavior and your tactics, but only because they
keep getting in the way of the debate.
<<So, Undersigned, if you wish to moderate, I welcome your role. But
please, we need someone to start calling fouls on some pretty basic
refusals to mount the rational and logical arguments needed for a
proper debate.>>
<<Indeed, jrichard has failed to come up with argument.>>
O have taken the null position and asked you to justify the positive
assertion. Please do so.
< As far as I see it, the debate has been won by those in favor of
vouchers, at least by the count of one argument against zero. The
moderator gave jrichard a warning and one post later he start to
insult again. With no prospect of jrichard seeking to seriously
debate anything, there's no alternative but to remove this person from
this group. That would also set a good examplefor other groups that
personal attacks should not be tolerated here and in other places where
members seek to seriously debate issues.>
Sam, I grow increasingly weary of this. I participate in many debates
in many forums, and none are as tedious or as unproductive as this one.
Please start making arguments for your position. Please stop these
distraction tactics and answer the challenges to you claims.
Please acknowledge the most common of logical fallacies and try to
avoid them.
Please assure me that we will have honest and fair behavior from what
appear to be two personalities acting on behalf of a single person (and
please correct me if I am wrong).
Sam Carana
<<Deborah posted from Sam's email account. Which means that Deborah
either has access to Sam's email and uses it, or that Sam and Deborah
are in fact the same person. Either way, the manner in which they
interact, as if they are two independent minds coming to independent
conclusions to form a majority, is highly unethical if not outright
dishonest..>>
<I protest against the continuing offensive langage and call for
jrichard to be removed from this group.>
No insult, just a call for clarification. Surely you can understand why
a participant in a debate would be concerned about shill arguments?
<<I do not like being deceived>>
<Further insults....>
Actually, my not liking being deceived is simply a statement of
preference.
<<I have been repeatedly asked to provide evidence of a null
position (which is illogical).>>
<Evidence? This person hasn't even come up with argument yet.>
This tactic is getting pretty old, as well. My position in the voucher
debate has been the null of yours: "Vouchers have no better or worse
reflection on our rights, because they have nothing to do with any of
our rights." The burden of proof is now on you or Deborah to show what
rights apply to vouchers and how they better "reflect" them than other
models of education.
<<If one party asserts a positive position ("Vouchers better reflect
our rights that public school") and the other party disagrees, the
burden of proof is always on the positive
assertion, not the null assertion.>>
<Confusing argument with the debate question itself.>
Not at all. I simply ask you and Deborah back up your assertion with
evidence and argument of some kind.
I think you're incapable of understanding even the most simple terms of debate. What we were debating was school vouchers. Questioning whether we had rights is a pathetic effort to divert from the fact that you have no argument and hide behind some kind of null-position. Furthermore, the null-position is untenable in regard to our rights - we have our rights, whether you question that or not and there's no further jsutification needed. This is further backed up by popular support. There's just no way you can worm yourself out of it. You have no argument. Taking a null-position is back-pedalling on your earlier statements and is evidence that you - part from lacking a spine - have thrown in the towel. I once more repeat that those in favor of vouchers have won the debate, in the light of the fact that there's nobody here who is against vouchers. Whatever weighting is given to Deborah's argument, it turns out to be the only argument, which subsequently wins the debate.
<<The other concern is the number of unchallenged logical fallacies that
pass for arguments. I have pointed out several instances of Argumentum
ad Populum, only to receive more of the same. Sweeping statements,
overgeneralized conclusions and straw men abound in these posts (for
example, every time I ask for the clarification of a specific right and
someone claims I am denying all rights, that is the grossest of straw
men).>>
<Confusing argument and comments.>
Not at all. Deborah asserted several Argumentum ad Populum to bolster
her position. "Everyone I know agrees with me." And you both have
claimed that I hold as a position that we have no rights, when I have
said nothing of the kind.
<<All of this really leads me to ask what the role of the moderator is.
If the moderator is the judge of argument and the arbitrator of the
rules of logic, then this person needs to step in and point out when a
participant is being unfair or illogical.>>
<Indeed, jrichard is unfit to participate in debate and should be
removed from this group.>
Actually, I am rather fit to participate in debate. I've been trained
in it and have done so many times. All I'm asking is that we debate
fairly.
<<If this person is unable or unwilling to do so, perhaps we should
find someone with the knowledge of debate parameters and tactics to
moderate.>>
<Ask yourself, why does jrichard choose not to debate things? Why all
these diversion tactics? It all indicates that jrichard is unwilling
to even consider having a fair debate.>
Oh I consider fair debate. I love fair debate. But what we've been
doing is not debating. It's been repeating bald assertions with no
sourcing, no appeals to evidence or logic, no attempt to answer the
challenges to your assertions.
<<As it is, this "debate" has been just as irrelevant as past attempts
to communicate. Until the parties involved are willing to dig down into
the assumptions behind their views and construct logical arguments in
support of their assertions, we seem to stuck in a spiral of irrelevant
rhetoric ("Vouchers better support our rights." "What do have as
evidence?" "I don't need evidence, it's a strong argument" Ad
nauseum).>>
<Whining and whining about his own spiral of incompetence to come up
with (counter-)arguments.>
No, just wondering when the debate will begin and one of you will begin
to support your position with something.
<<So I would request that the moderators moderate. Or don't, and this
is another opportunity for me to waste words with a pair of
participants whose poor debate behavior does not allow open discussion
or any rules of evidence to be presented or examined.>>
<I should notify the moderator that jrichard has previously been
accused of making defamatory or libelous statements about Wal-mart. I
see a pattern here.>
I would respond that since I have neither defamed nor libeled Wal-Mart
(and Sam has not provided any of the tort proofs necessary to make this
case), Sam continues to make assertions that he cannot or will not back
up. Sam has accused me of many things. That's what he does. But he
never follows through with backing up his accusations with anything
resembling proof or logical argument.
How have I libeled anyone? What have I said that I know to be untrue
that has caused measurable financial harm to that person or entity? I
ask you to prove that I have said something false, that I knew it to be
false, and that my words hurt someone's reputation in a measurable way.
Please back up your accusations or withdraw them.
<<This is why these forums keep dying down to a handful of
participants. It hasn't been worth the time to argue or discuss topics
when there's no hope of actually addressing the points of debate.>>
<Whining and whining. Digressing and complaining. Not coming up with
argument, but instead resorting to personal attacks.>
Sam, I don't know who you are, so I can hardly attack your person. I
have attacked your behavior and your tactics, but only because they
keep getting in the way of the debate.
<<So, Undersigned, if you wish to moderate, I welcome your role. But
please, we need someone to start calling fouls on some pretty basic
refusals to mount the rational and logical arguments needed for a
proper debate.>>
<<Indeed, jrichard has failed to come up with argument.>>
O have taken the null position and asked you to justify the positive
assertion. Please do so.
< As far as I see it, the debate has been won by those in favor of
vouchers, at least by the count of one argument against zero. The
moderator gave jrichard a warning and one post later he start to
insult again. With no prospect of jrichard seeking to seriously
debate anything, there's no alternative but to remove this person from
this group. That would also set a good examplefor other groups that
personal attacks should not be tolerated here and in other places where
members seek to seriously debate issues.>
Sam, I grow increasingly weary of this. I participate in many debates
in many forums, and none are as tedious or as unproductive as this one.
Please start making arguments for your position. Please stop these
distraction tactics and answer the challenges to you claims.
Please acknowledge the most common of logical fallacies and try to
avoid them.
Please assure me that we will have honest and fair behavior from what
appear to be two personalities acting on behalf of a single person (and
please correct me if I am wrong).
jrichard
Whether it violates the terms of Google's post it forums or not, or
even the bylaws of this particular forum, I consider shill posting to
be unacceptable.
I find it interesting that you didn't deny it, and that you cannot
assure me that you are not artificially propping up your own arguments.
Count me among the people who cannot stand your unethical tactics and
faulty logic. I will continue to challenge your bad behavior in forums
when you mistreat others, but I am done trying to have a rational
discussion with you. It's just not worth any more time or effort.
I would suggest you tread lightly around me or, as someone said to you
about 48 hours ago in another forum, "I would appreciate it if you
would make yourself scarce."
For the record, your assertions about our rights have yet to be
supported. If you were at a debate competition, the moderator would
subtract a great deal of points for your inability to support your
views with evidence or logic. I can find nothing in our core political
or philosophical documents that indicate that vouchers reflect,
represent or refract our any of our rights. Your claims to the contrary
need some sourcing. There's just nothing there that I can find.
Also for the record, I do not favor vouchers because I do not favor the
effects that economists predict they will have on the educational
system, You know this and I have stated it many times.
I do not think vouchers are "good" or "bad." I have also explained why
I object to these vague value labels many times as well.
At any rate, there's just nothing here that is valuable to me. I am not
here to "win" or "declare victory." I am here because I believe in the
marketplace of ideas and that by discussing and debating different
points of view, we can all learn from those who think differently from
us.
But those don't seem to be your goals and you seem completely unwilling
to subscribe to the fundamentals of logic and debate. These activities
are simply not worth my time.
Good luck with whatever it is that you think you're doing here.
I'm sure you'll be hearing from me soon.
More Sense
contributions made in various forums by Sam. Just because one happens
to disagree with someone is no reason for anyone to start calling
names.
I wouldn't mind having a debate, but it appears we have yet to agree
on a statement to debate.
On 5/1/05, jrichard <jrichar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For the record, your assertions about our rights have yet to be
> supported.
about rights?
> I can find nothing in our core political or philosophical documents that indicate
> that vouchers reflect, represent or refract our any of our rights.
our any of our rights?
> Your claims to the contrary need some sourcing. There's just nothing there that I
> can find.
> Also for the record, I do not favor vouchers because I do not favor the
> effects that economists predict they will have on the educational
> system, You know this and I have stated it many times.
vouchers will have bad effects on the educational system? Or, are we
debating whether vouchers will have bad effects on the educational
system? Didn't you have something against good and bad statements?
> I do not think vouchers are "good" or "bad." I have also explained why
> I object to these vague value labels many times as well.
> At any rate, there's just nothing here that is valuable to me. I am not
> here to "win" or "declare victory." I am here because I believe in the
> marketplace of ideas and that by discussing and debating different
> points of view, we can all learn from those who think differently from
> us.
called for this debate, what do you want to debate?
> But those don't seem to be your goals and you seem completely unwilling
> to subscribe to the fundamentals of logic and debate. These activities
> are simply not worth my time.
but you cannot find the time to come up with something we can debate
here.
> Good luck with whatever it is that you think you're doing here.
> I'm sure you'll be hearing from me soon.
I'm puzzled, perhaps the moderator/facilitator can make any sense out of this?
Deborah
Sam Carana
Also for the record, I do not favor vouchers because I do not favor the
effects that economists predict they will have on the educational
system,
Sam
jrichard
It means that I done giving either of you the benefit of the doubt. I
keep trying to convince myself that you simply don't understand how
illogical and unfair you are in these discussions. I've tried to be
patient and sit on small points and assumptions, hoping that once you
understood what it means to justify small assertions that we could
build towards larger and more complex ones.
I now consider my patience wasted and the efforts of the Sam account to
be deliberately obtuse and disingenuous. So the kid gloves are off, and
I am no longer an apologist for either of you, asking others to wait
and see if a rationale discussion can be gained through careful
discourse.
This discussion about vouchers has gone nowhere. Neither of you have
supported even the first point of debate, whether or not we have a
right to them. How can we move on to more complex arguments and topics
if we cannot even hold a debate over whether this right exists? It
should be easy to make an argument either way. The pro side should
present the laws or philosophy that create said right and the con side
should simply explain why those laws or philosophies do not trump other
laws and philosophies in our system.
But there appear to be no laws or philosophies that you guys can find,
so what is there to debate?
I'm done playing these games. Consider me among you detractors (and the
list appears to be growing).
jrichard
Was this an attempot at comedy?
Sam Carana
So the kid gloves are off,
"emough typing errors"?
Was this an attempot at comedy?
Sam
jrichard
<Does that mean you admit your intention to violate Google terms and
the terms of this group?>
I have never, nor ever will, violate the terms of the Google agreement.
And you are one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever met. Or you would
be if I thought you were serious about the things you say.
<<"emough typing errors"?>>
<Was this an attempot at comedy?>
<Are you saying that you smoked pot and therefore we should regard your
insults as jokes? Being under the influence is no excuse for breaching
terms.>
I'm saying that your spelling is consistently bad, and you charging
anyone with mistyping anything is pretty funny (and misspelling
"enough" in the same sentence was just too amusing). I was just
wondering of you intended it as such.
<Stop adding silly remarks, man, and get sertious!>
What is "sertious"?
< First you call for debate, then you turn out to avoid serious
debate.>
Oh, I came to debate. But you came only to assert, so we got nowhere.
< What did you want to debate?>
Well, first I wanted to establish the terms and riles of the debate,
but you didn't have the patience for that. So, when you guys launched
one, I raised my challenged to your assertion, challenges that were
never addressed and an assertion that was never supported.
< Why are you so anxious to avoid taking a position when you one the
other hand call for debate?>
I took several positions. I just wouldn't take the positions you tried
to write for me. And I took the position opposite yours in the rights
assertion, which put the burden of proof on you. Why you refuse to
support your own assertion is something only you can answer.
< Is this some sick debating technique that you follow by the book? If
you want to debate something, then state what you want to debate and
come up with arguments!>
Sam, I'm done debating with you. You either don't know how or won't
follow the conventions of debate. It is an absolute waste of energy
trying to communicate with someone who cannot respond in a proper
fashion. We get nowhere. I thought patience would eventually break
through your stubborn close-mindedness, but you have more stubbornness
than I have patience. So, consider me one of your growing number of
detractors. I don't know why you come into these forums, but you sure
do make a lot of people angry with your inability (or unwillingness) to
engage in civilized discussion.
More Sense
> < Why are you so anxious to avoid taking a position when you one the
> other hand call for debate?>
>
> I took several positions. I just wouldn't take the positions you tried
> to write for me. And I took the position opposite yours in the rights
> assertion, which put the burden of proof on you. Why you refuse to
> support your own assertion is something only you can answer.
you now want to debate rights, instead of school vouchers? What is it?
Deborah
jrichard
*sigh* I really don't know why you have so much trouble understanding
my words.
I took the position opposite yours when you asserted that rights were
at stake in the voucher debate. Read my words above again.
And what I am saying, and I will state this as clearly as I can, is
that while I want to debate a good many things, I do not wish to dbate
any of them with you, for you do not seem to want to stick to the
conventions of debate, and our discussions go nowhere except the land
of frustration.
jrichard
Deborah were the same person or were two people sharing one account,
accused me of personal attack. This same Sam, googled my address and
used the information he found to (erroneously) accuse me of being an
Methodist in another forum this morning.
I suppose such blatant hypocrisy shouldn't surprise me, but it is kind
of funny.
More Sense
> you now want to debate rights, instead of school vouchers? What is it?
>
> *sigh* I really don't know why you have so much trouble understanding
> my words.
>
> I took the position opposite yours when you asserted that rights were
> at stake in the voucher debate. Read my words above again.
>
> And what I am saying, and I will state this as clearly as I can, is
> that while I want to debate a good many things, I do not wish to dbate
> any of them with you, for you do not seem to want to stick to the
> conventions of debate, and our discussions go nowhere except the land
> of frustration.
impossible to even get you to discuss what we are supposed to debate.
I take it that you thus withdraw your "challenge". Next time you feel
tempted to debate something again, make sure that you come up with
something to debate.
Deborah
jrichard
comprises a debate. Defending one's position with more than "I think my
argument is strong, so therefore it is" and "How come people I meet on
street agree with me about things you never said?" would probably be a
good starting point.
Stump
rights that public school") and the other party disagrees, the burden
of proof is always on the positive assertion, not the null assertion."
My first post here and maybe I'm walking into a lions den but I have a
question anyway. So here goes.
How is the disagreement a null assertion? If you are disagreeing with
the above statement aren't you saying "Public school better reflects
our rights than vouchers".
And FWIW, not having read much outside this thread I saw no "offensive
language" in the post by jrichard so not sure why Sam is protesting so
much.
jrichard
the above statement aren't you saying "Public school better reflects
our rights than vouchers". >
No, I actually took the null position: "Our rights are unaffected in
any way by the support of public schools or the private schools through
vouchers." I believe there is no relationship between our rights and
vouchers, which is why I said the burden of proof was on the positive
claim to find some law, philosophical underpinning or logical argument
tieing the two together.
When you put forth an assertion for testing a positive relaitionship,
you must first test whether thers is a relationship at all before you
can test in which direction the relationship lies (positive or
negative).
<And FWIW, not having read much outside this thread I saw no "offensive
language" in the post by jrichard so not sure why Sam is protesting so
much. >
Thank you for saying so. We have an unfortunate history that spans many
forums. Almost all of it due to some derivative to the voucher debate.
And I have been accused by Sam of violating his rights and the terms of
the Google agreement several times (I have never felt any of these
charges were remotely justified).
More Sense
>
> <How is the disagreement a null assertion? If you are disagreeing with
> the above statement aren't you saying "Public school better reflects
> our rights than vouchers". >
>
> No, I actually took the null position: "Our rights are unaffected in
> any way by the support of public schools or the private schools through
> vouchers."
whatever politicians may like about this.
> I believe there is no relationship between our rights and
> vouchers, which is why I said the burden of proof was on the positive
> claim to find some law, philosophical underpinning or logical argument
> tieing the two together.
the positive claim that there was something wrong with vouchers and I
said that vouchers better reflect our rights as an argument against
your assertion. The onus is on you to back up your claim.
> When you put forth an assertion for testing a positive relaitionship,
> you must first test whether thers is a relationship at all before you
> can test in which direction the relationship lies (positive or
> negative).
looks like you keep confusing the debate statement with the arguments
for and against. As far as I understand the terms of debate, it's the
debate statement that is to be debated, not the argument that someone
may bring up in support of a position taken in this debate. Whatever
position one takes in this debate, one is expected to come up with
arguments to back up that position. Not taking a position and instead
seeking to debate someone's argument effectively means that one is
effectively not participating in the debate at all.
BTW, you were saying that our rights were contained in the law, i.e.
if the law changes, our rights would change as well. Well, this is
also wrong!
Instead, we have our rights as a matter of principle and they are
inalienable. Seeking to limit, deny, twist or otherwise alienate our
rights from us by drafting laws in specific ways does not actually
change our rights, because they are inherently inalienable.
I have explained this various times and there's no reason for you to
claim that I didn't answer your questions. You are simply wrong in
this, because you seek to deny the inalienable character of our rights
by suggesting that it was up to politicians. legislators or regulators
to decide what our rights were.
But again, whether we had rights is not up for debate. Our rights do
not hinge on the outcome of a debate with someone set to use unfair
tactics. What we were debating was your view that there was something
wrong with vouchers.
> <And FWIW, not having read much outside this thread I saw no "offensive
> language" in the post by jrichard so not sure why Sam is protesting so
> much. >
>
> Thank you for saying so. We have an unfortunate history that spans many
> forums. Almost all of it due to some derivative to the voucher debate.
>
> And I have been accused by Sam of violating his rights and the terms of
> the Google agreement several times (I have never felt any of these
> charges were remotely justified).
expect some respect for the fact that I have seriously tried to debate
things, stick to the terms of a fair debate, come up with an argument,
while there's lack of argument from all others, except Malcolm I
should add. If we are to have a fair debate, then at least show
respect where it's due.
Deborah
Sam Carana
Stump
any way by the support of public schools or the private schools through
vouchers." I believe there is no relationship between our rights and
vouchers, which is why I said the burden of proof was on the positive
claim to find some law, philosophical underpinning or logical argument
tieing the two together. "
Hmmm...I don't buy it with the very limited information I have but
regardless. Not sure why you're arguing over some minor detail such as
this. As Slartiblartfast says, "I'd rather be happy than right any day"
Arguing over whether it's a null argument or not sure doesn't seem to
be making anyone here happy.
jrichard
more consistent with our rights. I don't think vouchers have any
relationship to our rights and so I asked her which rights she thought
gave us a right to vouchers and what laws or philosophies such rights
were based on.
I don't believe such laws and philosophies exist, but how can I prove
that something doesn't exist? That's why the burden of proof is one the
one claiming that there is a relationship between our rights and the
availability of school vouchers.
Stump
that something doesn't exist? That's why the burden of proof is one the
one claiming that there is a relationship between our rights and the
availability of school vouchers."
Again, I don't know the argument or how it went but not sure what you
mean by no philosophies exist that would make school vouchers a right.
Obviously, there is the philosophy of Sam/Deborah. Whatever their
philosophy is is a philosophy nonetheless. Whether just theirs alone or
part of a larger philosophy.
The Taliban would quite clearly say people have the right to have
religious education. Their philosophy would say that the freedom of
religion and seperation of church and state are wrong.
But I think more specifically the general philosophies of capitalism
and libertarianism both state that people should have the right to have
a say in how their money is spent. If this is your philosophy then
vouchers are a better way of doing this than majority rules public
schools.
So no idea what you mean by no philosophy saying school vouchers "are
better" than public schools. At least in regards to the rights of an
individual.
As far as laws, I can't imagine anyone is saying there is a law in
America that requires school vouchers. Obviously there isn't or we'd
have them. That's akin to saying anal sex is morally wrong because it's
against the law in Alabama.
jrichard
that something doesn't exist? That's why the burden of proof is one the
one claiming that there is a relationship between our rights and the
availability of school vouchers."
<Again, I don't know the argument or how it went but not sure what you
mean by no philosophies exist that would make school vouchers a right.>
Simply that. Deborah seems to believe that we have right to vouchers,
so I've asked her to explain why she thinks this.
<Obviously, there is the philosophy of Sam/Deborah. Whatever their
philosophy is is a philosophy nonetheless. Whether just theirs alone or
part of a larger philosophy.>
Well, that would be fine to, if they could reduce their philosophy down
to it's logical arguments. What I get from Sam/Deborah is just
assertion, which is touted as "strong argument, so we win." I have
repeatedly asked them to define their philosophy or sources for their
claims, but they have not as of yet produced anything resembling
evidence or logical discourse in defense of their bald assertions.
<The Taliban would quite clearly say people have the right to have
religious education. Their philosophy would say that the freedom of
religion and seperation of church and state are wrong.>
And I bet they could tell you why they think that, too.
<But I think more specifically the general philosophies of capitalism
and libertarianism both state that people should have the right to have
a say in how their money is spent. If this is your philosophy then
vouchers are a better way of doing this than majority rules public
schools.>
Well, if monetary efficiency and return is all that is at stake, I
think that is true. Of course, I value the education quality of most
Americans over how much that education costs.
But again, neither your stated view nor mine has anything to do with
our inalienable rights, which was Deborah's only claimed position.
<So no idea what you mean by no philosophy saying school vouchers "are
better" than public schools. At least in regards to the rights of an
individual.>
Well, I've been asking for definitions of "good" and "bad," because I
think we all define these value labels differently. They're just too
vague. Which is why I have avoided taking a "good" or "bad" position in
the absence of a definition of what constitutes "good" in this case or
"bad."
<As far as laws, I can't imagine anyone is saying there is a law in
America that requires school vouchers. Obviously there isn't or we'd
have them. That's akin to saying anal sex is morally wrong because it's
against the law in Alabama.>
Well, I agree. Again, Deborah/Sam asserted that vouchers "better
reflect our rights." Which led me to call for explication of what
rights we're talking about and how those rights are "better reflected"
(and it probably wouldn't hurt to define what "better reflected" means,
which is something else I asked for at one point).
I disagree with the statement "vouchers better reflect our rights,"
because I know of no rights at stake that concern how our government
funds or subsidizes education.
My objections to vouchers have nothing to do with our rights, I simply
don't think rights come into play here.
But I'm willing to revisit this opinion if someone can point me to some
rights that are being violated by public education.
Sam Carana
"I don't believe such laws and philosophies exist, but how can I prove
that something doesn't exist? That's why the burden of proof is one the
one claiming that there is a relationship between our rights and the
availability of school vouchers."
<Again, I don't know the argument or how it went but not sure what you
mean by no philosophies exist that would make school vouchers a right.>
Simply that. Deborah seems to believe that we have right to vouchers,
so I've asked her to explain why she thinks this.
<Obviously, there is the philosophy of Sam/Deborah. Whatever their
philosophy is is a philosophy nonetheless. Whether just theirs alone or
part of a larger philosophy.>
Well, that would be fine to, if they could reduce their philosophy down
to it's logical arguments. What I get from Sam/Deborah is just
assertion, which is touted as "strong argument, so we win." I have
repeatedly asked them to define their philosophy or sources for their
claims, but they have not as of yet produced anything resembling
evidence or logical discourse in defense of their bald assertions.
I disagree with the statement "vouchers better reflect our rights,"
because I know of no rights at stake that concern how our government
funds or subsidizes education.
My objections to vouchers have nothing to do with our rights, I simply
don't think rights come into play here.
But I'm willing to revisit this opinion if someone can point me to some
rights that are being violated by public education.
jrichard
about
school vouchers jrichard claimed that there was something wrong with
vouchers and Deborah replied with the argument that vouchers better
reflect
our rights. >
An unsubstantiated argument that I have repeatedly asked you to
support. What rights? From where?
<snip>
<What Deborah said was that vouchers better reflect our rights. It's a
strong
argument. >
So if it's so strong, please share with us your strong evidence,
logical argument or support of ANY kind that supports it.
The Undersigned
along the lines of these eight points;
in order to polarize the debate into two sides
(lack of agreement on this should cause the facilitator to choose a
question);