NationStates Jolt Archive

The Progressive NS Think-Tank Sign-Up:
President Shrub
Vetalia
The Nazz

-------------------------------

Hello, I would like to start a political think-tank here (for debate and research) and anyone is welcome to join. The official NS elections are not going to happen again for quite some time and they may not always discuss the issues that many would like to be discussed, or, like any government, have a poor empirical and rational basis for the beliefs (especially being that their election was primarily a popularity contest, with weak manifestos). As such, I've decided to form this research group, which will discuss one (or possibly two) issues a week, using information for our arguments, not feelings, fallacies, and foolishness.

When I say, "progressive," don't assume that means the liberal definition of the term. A progressive is merely one who advocates progress, which is what we seek to accomplish by having issue-driven debates, rather than event-driven debates. And though I characterize myself as a liberal, I don't fall under straight partisan lines.

For example, my non-Liberal beliefs are:
There should be little or no gun-control.
"Small government," is a good ideal.
Religious beliefs are good for society and the individual.
Social welfare is bad for the economy.
Abortions should not be government-funded or limitless.

Other than that, I'm rather liberal, such as supporting gay marriage and a universal healthcare system. On taxes, I believe in the centrist compromise of a "flat, but progressive" tax, which is simplistic, but still favors the poor and middleclass. And I have a scientific basis for all of my claims, even to some extent advocating technocracy. I'm also rather open-minded, as I once supported gun-control as well as limitless, government-funded abortions. My stance on Israel has also changed.

One of the major reasons I've also decided to develop this group is because I've been somewhat dissatisfied with the majority of political discussions, feeling that such intellectual debates need to be limited to, frankly, intellectuals. Three or more pages of rabidly-partisan individuals making 1 to 2 sentence statements is not an intellectual discussion.

We'll plan what issues we're going to discuss tomorrow, as well as how often. For now, feel free to sign up. Anyone, including NS MPs, may join the weekly debate\research team. But once sign-ups are closed, no one will be able to join unless the group deems that it's conducive to intellectual discussion. Once we've come to a relative concensus on a number of issues, we'll publish a report and submit it to the NS Parliament for review.

Sincerely,
President Shrub

I would like to join the discussion. A think-tank style of discussion would be great for consolidating ideas so they can be submitted to the Parilaiment in the best form possible.

Oh, and a few general guidelines. It is not required, but it's preferred that:
You've memorized the most common logical fallacies (ad-hominem, begging the question, slippery slope, etc).
Have a decent educational background (high school and some college)
Have access to and use a library
Are capable of doing online research through Google.
Have access to an online scholarly library (such as Questia)
Can type legibly.
Have a basic understanding of what makes statistics reliable.

I would like to join the discussion. A think-tank style of discussion would be great for consolidating ideas so they can be submitted to the Parilaiment in the best form possible.
Exactly! :)

I'm in, though my participation may be limited due to time constraints.

Oh, and a few general guidelines. It is not required, but it's preferred that:

You've memorized the most common logical fallacies (ad-hominem, begging the question, slippery slope, etc).
Have a decent educational background (high school and some college)
Have access to and use a library
Are capable of doing online research through Google.
Have access to an online scholarly library (such as Questia)
Can type legibly.


Exactly! :)

Yes, I have all of that. (For easy access, I also have the fallacies site bookmarked). I'm able to do research fairly often and can get to the library without difficulty so there won't be any problems with those guidelines. Time constraints are mostly nonexistent.

I won't have any problems typing legibly, either. :)

Bump.

I would very much like to be able to be involved in these disscussions. Where can I sign up for them?

I'd like to join, though I can't promise I'll be on most of the time.
And I still need to create my country profile. But I am a college sophmore and former debater [neg.]

Oh and I'm a rabid liberal [ honestly]:p

Oh, and a few general guidelines. It is not required, but it's preferred that:
You've memorized the most common logical fallacies (ad-hominem, begging the question, slippery slope, etc).
Have a decent educational background (high school and some college)
Have access to and use a library
Are capable of doing online research through Google.
Have access to an online scholarly library (such as Questia)
Can type legibly.
Have a basic understanding of what makes statistics reliable.

Hmm...

-I try not to use fallacies, but I don't have them memorized per se. I didn't even know an official list existed.
-Well I'm intelligent, have a High School degree and am off to college this fall, so check for education.
-I have library access, and I volunteer at one so I am quite good at using one as well.
-I am able to use Google. Frankly I'm scared to meet the guy who can't.
-Online scholarly library? Nope, but I can always find one if needed I guess. Tis where google comes in.
-I got the legibility thing down.
-I took an AP course that spent time dealing with what makes studies/research reliable. I never brushed on statistics however, though I can probably handle it.

What do you think? Frankly it sounds like fun, this little scholarly group. I'd be honoured if you'd have me.

Yes, I have all of that. (For easy access, I also have the fallacies site bookmarked). I'm able to do research fairly often and can get to the library without difficulty so there won't be any problems with those guidelines. Time constraints are mostly nonexistent.

I won't have any problems typing legibly, either. :)

Link to fallacies site please.

--------------

After reviewing the initial post by President Shrub I now wish to express a intrest in joining the Think Tank.

I' just wanna tag this to watch

-Online scholarly library? Nope, but I can always find one if needed I guess. Tis where google comes in.

Depending on where you go to university, you'll probably have access to an online library with far greater reach than google could ever hope for, including the wonderful world of Lexis/Nexis. I recommed you check it out when you get there.

Can I join and be the resident conservative? I'm online all day so you don't have to worry about time restraints, and if you have read any of my posts lately I have extremely turned down the rhetoric in my posts and turned up the intellectual side on my positions. Also, I have changed many of my previously held beliefs and become more open-minded about some things, which is why I am going to have to take the political compass again, the one in my sig is missleading now-a-days.

So I would really appriciate it if I were allowed to join!

NAS

very good idea. if i weren't so tired i'm sure i'd elaborate further, and if i wasn't an MP i'd be delighted to join

Sign me up. I'm not on NS constantly, but usually a few hours a week.

I would love to join, if you'll have me.

I must warn you though. I am not familiar with American debate, as I am from Canada. As a result, many catchphrases used in American debate like fallacy ad hominem will be unfamiliar to me. I'm quite familiar with the other two you've mentioned, but there might be a couple I've never heard of. Believe it or not, we do things quite differently up here.

capital idea, sign me in if you have room

edit: also i must warn that i have no idea what some american euphomisms (SP?) and collouquialisms are so i may ask for translations from time to tiem..also i am conservative and dense so you may have to translate twice... :p :)

I would love to join, if you'll have me.

I must warn you though. I am not familiar with American debate, as I am from Canada. As a result, many catchphrases used in American debate like fallacy ad hominem will be unfamiliar to me. I'm quite familiar with the other two you've mentioned, but there might be a couple I've never heard of. Believe it or not, we do things quite differently up here.

"Ad hominem" is not an Americanism. The words are Latin, which makes sense when you consider that rhetoric and argument were explored first by the Greeks, and then by the Romans. The rules of logic, reason, and argument come largely from them.

I for one have no interest in memorizing each one, but I keep this link handy in my bookmarks, so I can look them up whenever I need to... mostly so I know I'm using the terms properly. Sometimes there is a fine line between a false dichotomy and a straw man. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Anyway, I'd enjoy being a part of informed debate, which this site seems to be short of.

"Ad hominem" is not an Americanism. The words are Latin, which makes sense when you consider that rhetoric and argument were explored first by the Greeks, and then by the Romans. The rules of logic, reason, and argument come largely from them.

I for one have no interest in memorizing each one, but I keep this link handy in my bookmarks, so I can look them up whenever I need to... mostly so I know I'm using the terms properly. Sometimes there is a fine line between a false dichotomy and a straw man. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html

Oh I'm not saying Americans invented it. I'm saying that American debating relies far more heavily on dismissing arguments through phrases like that one rather than just explaining why they're wrong through logic or analogy. It can be quicker if everyone understands all the phrases, but I find it's often easier just to use an example that parallels an argument to show why it fails.

Link to fallacies site please.

--------------

After reviewing the initial post by President Shrub I now wish to express a intrest in joining the Think Tank.

Here it is: (Steven's Guide to the Logical Fallacies)

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Oh I'm not saying Americans invented it. I'm saying that American debating relies far more heavily on dismissing arguments through phrases like that one rather than just explaining why they're wrong through logic or analogy. It can be quicker if everyone understands all the phrases, but I find it's often easier just to use an example that parallels an argument to show why it fails.

I agree...i dont know what most of thoese catchphrases are either

Oh, and a few general guidelines. It is not required, but it's preferred that:
You've memorized the most common logical fallacies (ad-hominem, begging the question, slippery slope, etc).
Have a decent educational background (high school and some college)
Have access to and use a library
Are capable of doing online research through Google.
Have access to an online scholarly library (such as Questia)
Can type legibly.
Have a basic understanding of what makes statistics reliable.

- Well, I didn't know there was a list of logical fallacies, but I can research that...
- Uhh... I'm only going to be a sophomore in high school, but for my age I would consider my education quite full.
- Check. Maybe I'll read more if I have to be there for research anyway.
- Check. Who isn't?
- Not sure what your definition scholarly would be, but I probably could find one.
- Check. Observe legible typing in this very post.
- Check. Basic understanding present, and coming up on a statistics chapter in my math book.

So, can I join? I probably wouldn't be the most active member, but I like intellectual projects.

Oh I'm not saying Americans invented it. I'm saying that American debating relies far more heavily on dismissing arguments through phrases like that one rather than just explaining why they're wrong through logic or analogy. It can be quicker if everyone understands all the phrases, but I find it's often easier just to use an example that parallels an argument to show why it fails.
Err... logical fallacies are a part of logic. Dismissing an argument as a fallacy and then demonstrating why it's fallacy is the simplest and most effective way to cut through the nonsense and move the debate along.

If the Canadian style is as you say, then it seems unnecessarily windy to me. It also assumes the opponent has no knowledge of logic, which seems a bit condescending to me... particularly in an online format, where if one has a question, one can quickly and easily look it up.

Anyway, I watched three presidential debates last year, and I never heard a single candidate name a fallacy, though both clearly employed them. I can't say that I've ever heard a fallacy mentioned by name in any television debate show, though I'm not a frequent viewer of any of them (I'm with Jon Stewart on this one.... "You're hurting America.") I have to wonder where you get this conclusion that fallacies are a specifically American institution, particularly since logic and rhetoric had a long and rich tradition well before they arrived here.

I agree...i dont know what most of thoese catchphrases are either
Ye gods. "Catchphrases." Like it's some kind of hip slang, or something?

Yo, peeps, I be readin all dat wack jive you writin, and y'all are trippin on some mad hasty generalizations, boyyyeee! Peace out.

I guess you can un-sign me, because I have lost all faith that this project can live up to expectations. Good luck.

I'd certainly like to be a part of this, if that is alright. I think I meet the quotient, but don't feel it neccessary to float my credentials on this forum as many wannabe intellectuals do.

Err... logical fallacies are a part of logic. Dismissing an argument as a fallacy and then demonstrating why it's fallacy is the simplest and most effective way to cut through the nonsense and move the debate along.

If the Canadian style is as you say, then it seems unnecessarily windy to me. It also assumes the opponent has no knowledge of logic, which seems a bit condescending to me... particularly in an online format, where if one has a question, one can quickly and easily look it up.

Anyway, I watched three presidential debates last year, and I never heard a single candidate name a fallacy, though both clearly employed them. I can't say that I've ever heard a fallacy mentioned by name in any television debate show, though I'm not a frequent viewer of any of them (I'm with Jon Stewart on this one.... "You're hurting America.") I have to wonder where you get this conclusion that fallacies are a specifically American institution, particularly since logic and rhetoric had a long and rich tradition well before they arrived here.

I'm referring to America's high school debate program, which stresses the use of phrases like ad hominem and slippery slope often to the exclusion of actual refutation. The point of a debate is to be able to convince the average person that you're right, not to cater specifically to those who have any specific knowledge, which is precisely why presidential candidates never use phrases like those: they want everyone to be able to understand their message. I'm not saying the phrases are incorrect, rather that it's important that everyone be on the same page about them.

The difference between American debating and debating in many other places in the world (Canada, England, Australia and Cyprus come to mind immediately because I've had contact with their debating styles) is in the degree they attempt to cater to the average person. American debating tournaments are judged by debate coaches, whereas most tournaments in other countries are judged by random people representing a cross-section of society. This means that American debates tend to get a lot more technical in a very short period of time. I'm merely saying the two are different and that I'd like to participate if you guys have the patience to occaisionally explain things that seem obvious. If you don't because it would compromise efficiency, as if often the case with think-tanks, I will understand completely.

I'm referring to America's high school debate program, which stresses the use of phrases like ad hominem and slippery slope often to the exclusion of actual refutation. The point of a debate is to be able to convince the average person that you're right, not to cater specifically to those who have any specific knowledge, which is precisely why presidential candidates never use phrases like those: they want everyone to be able to understand their message. I'm not saying the phrases are incorrect, rather that it's important that everyone be on the same page about them..

I know and agree, because I tried it. American debating flat out sucked. I would spend time researching, working on the papers, and creating an incredibly good case, and proceed to lose just because the other team was better at speaking and throwing around nonexistent "fallacies". The entire American debate system is one giant Style over Substance fallacy.

I want to join, but what do I have to do?

I'm a newborn on NS, but I'll sign up. It seems like a great idea and it's something that I'll finally enjoy with my free time. :rolleyes:

I am very interested in becoming a member of this forum. It will finally give me a chance to put to use what I have learned in the logic and ethics courses that I took so long ago.....