NationStates Jolt Archive

^

define parameters

I am a master-debater

Wwd

On NS it is clearly Cat Tribe.

No one else brings the intellectual rigor to it that he does, providing mountains of cited factual material.

I won the title in 2003. Alas, never found the time to defend it. :(

There are many good debators, but I'd say that among the best are Disraeliland 3, The Cat-Tribe, Soheran, and Neu Leonstein.

I am a master-debater

It had to be said. :)

i chose other because Melkor regularly kicks my ass in debates :p

On NS it is clearly Cat Tribe.

No one else brings the intellectual rigor to it that he does, providing mountains of cited factual material.

Not just that, but he's just good at debating, period. Debating is more than just providing sources. Hell, I provide lots of sources but I couldn't debate to save my life.

I am a master-debater


damn beat me to it.

There are many good debators, but I'd say that among the best are Disraeliland 3, The Cat-Tribe, Soheran, and Neu Leonstein.

Melk and VittosOrdination2 also deserve props.

Lots of excellent debators on here. Those choices are too tough for me. They are are exceptionally good at debate.

This looks more like a list of who's most popular. There are about a half a dozen people that aren't on that list that even the people on that list would say are more appropriate.

That said, I'd say TCT is among the best I've ever seen, on pure skills. We don't always agree, but I rarely see him fall victim to logical fallacies.

Jewish Media Control, Silly!

This looks more like a list of who's most popular. There are about a half a dozen people that aren't on that list that even the people on that list would say are more appropriate.

That said, I'd say TCT is among the best I've ever seen, on pure skills. We don't always agree, but I rarely see him fall victim to logical fallacies.

I'd have put your name in that poll had it been mine. I love to watch your debates.

I find the poll slightly skewed. It should read "Who spends the most time trying to make a point"

I, for one, don't really put my all into most of my arguments, due to the fact that most people in here have already made their minds up about most issues, and there will always be the inevitable flames and rude comments that make it difficult for me to care about who thinks my argument is sound.

I just say my peace, and move on. I really don't care what a perfect stranger in a different country thinks about my choice of persons to vote for, especially when it is so obvious that they are dead set in their opinions.

Me of course

I'd have put your name in that poll had it been mine. I love to watch your debates.

Yeah, but that's what makes me less effective actually. I try to be entertaining which may make people read my posts but it certainly doesn't help me avoid the logical fallacies. I catch myself in them all the time. Mostly, if I have a choice between making someone laugh and making a point, I'll generally choose the laugh, so there you go.

I am a master-debaterI was wondering how long it would be before some one used that chestnut:D At least it's out of the way now.

Yeah, but that's what makes me less effective actually. I try to be entertaining which may make people read my posts but it certainly doesn't help me avoid the logical fallacies. I catch myself in them all the time. Mostly, if I have a choice between making someone laugh and making a point, I'll generally choose the laugh, so there you go.
.

So perhaps the best debator choice is just a matter of taste. Different people may like different styles of debate. I like the entertaining as well as I do the serious. It doesnt necessarily make you less effective, on the contrary, rhetoric can invoke thought process just as the serious sound commentary some have to offer in their debate. If its thought provoking...then its good.

I was wondering how long it would be before some one used that chestnut:D At least it's out of the way now.

Oh, you over-estimate general. I'd bet it gets posted again before this is over.

Oh, you over-estimate general. I'd bet it gets posted again before this is over.
I'm Master-debating right now! :D

I'm Master-debating right now! :D

I've master-debated 4 times already today, damn I'm tired.

Philosophical debates I love, anything else is boring stat humping/bible quoting/wikipedia links.

Philosophical debates I love, anything else is boring stat humping/bible quoting/wikipedia links.
I can agree with that.

Hooray For Master-Debating!

Philosophical debates I love, anything else is boring stat humping/bible quoting/wikipedia links.

just too bad its mostly the latter

I am a master-debaterOh, you over-estimate general. I'd bet it gets posted again before this is over.What?

Demp or or yourself would get my vote. Mainly because both of you are a lot less dull than TCT & G teh IInd.

just too bad its mostly the latter

Aye, like an indian watching a man litter. I watch nationstates the same way. *sheds a tear as another religious thread is made*

BWO is very good at simply making the other persons argument look pretty stupid.

Cat Tribe basically wins debates through just seemingly proving the other persons argument wrong with the sheer weight of written evidence he presents.

Aye, like an indian watching a man litter. I watch nationstates the same way. *sheds a tear as another religious thread is made*

every time NS stars a relgion thread God kills an author.

I am a master-debaterWhat?

Demp or or yourself would get my vote. Mainly because both of you are a lot less dull than TCT & G teh IInd.

I don't find TCT dull (no comment on G, because we aren't often in the same threads). I can say a lot of things about Dem, but none of them would be that she's dull (though sometimes when we're arguing I accuse her of boring me. Come to think of it... this is not the post your looking for *does Jedi hand wave*)

every time NS stars a relgion thread God kills an author.

Hmmm, the author of the script for Jaws just died...where'd all these doomsday threads come from? Aaah!

Niccolo Medici, if anyone still even remembers him, was the best debater I've ever seen on NS.

Niccolo Medici, if anyone still even remembers him, was the best debater I've ever seen on NS.
mmm he was good... also, another departed old NS-er, Alien Born... he was good too

Niccolo Medici, if anyone still even remembers him, was the best debater I've ever seen on NS.

I remember him. What ever happened to him? :(

me

I am. It's hard to argue with the Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse. :p

This looks more like a list of who's most popular. There are about a half a dozen people that aren't on that list that even the people on that list would say are more appropriate.

Like you, perhaps?:)

I don't belong on the list, frankly. I don't actually debate anymore. I no longer get my jollies that way, and I've let debates fall to the wayside. TCT thrills me though, and therefore gets my vote.

I am. It's hard to argue with the Supreme Ruler of the Multiverse. :p

...Damn *bows*

mmm he was good... also, another departed old NS-er, Alien Born... he was good too
Yeah, I loved Alien Born...and Niccolo still pops in from time to time.

I am a master-debater

Aye ... that may be, but I am a cunning linguist.

I'd have put your name in that poll had it been mine. I love to watch your debates.
Except when they are with Dem. Those are just painful to watch. Like two spent wrestlers who refuse to take a break to shower and change clothes...*shudders*

I'm sorry, I just butchered Macbeth.

Aye ... that may be, but I am a cunning linguist.
And I'm a masticating thespian.

maybe just online in person is where you can prove it! my college debate team came in first- and we didn't type back and forth ahahahaa

What about me? I can debate with the best of them.:D

^
I always found cat tribe a very good one.

I know I'm not that great? Just average at it.

Fass, Fass, Fass?:confused:

Why no Fass?

Except when they are with Dem. Those are just painful to watch. Like two spent wrestlers who refuse to take a break to shower and change clothes...*shudders*

I'm sorry, I just butchered Macbeth.

Ha. I think you just wanted to invoke the image of Dem and I sweaty and wrestling, you perv. Get your mind out of the gutter so mine can float by.

Drunken Commies Deleted.

Drunken Commies Deleted.


Where is he anyway? And Tribes of Longton?

Where is he anyway? And Tribes of Longton?
See? You see what happens when I leave? Since you are all but figments of my imagination, I return forgeting some of you, and thusly erasing you from existance! WHY!??? WHY DO I HAVE THIS POWER???

See? You see what happens when I leave? Since you are all but figments of my imagination, I return forgeting some of you, and thusly erasing you from existance! WHY!??? WHY DO I HAVE THIS POWER???

I have the same power, but only works on clothing. Sometimes when I pciture certain women, their clothes are erased from existence. The AGONY!!

I have the same power, but only works on clothing. Sometimes when I pciture certain women, their clothes are erased from existence. The AGONY!!
So THAT'S where my panties went...damn you, I want them back!

So THAT'S where my panties went...damn you, I want them back!Eh sorry. I'm not sure Jocabia's the right one to blame for that ;)

Drunk Commies

Drunk Commies
You're DC, aren't you.

Fass, Fass, Fass?:confused:

Why no Fass?

Because I have on several occasions professed my dislike at these sorts of popularity/ignominy threads, I should hope.

Because I have on several occasions professed my dislike at these sorts of popularity/ignominy threads, I should hope.
You remind me of the ugly girl who says she hates beauty contests! :p

I have the same power, but only works on clothing. Sometimes when I pciture certain women, their clothes are erased from existence. The AGONY!!

Ooh, ooh, share your powers with me! :D

You remind me of the ugly girl who says she hates beauty contests! :p

All your girls are ugly, so that's to be expected.

All your girls are ugly, so that's to be expected.
Would you care to expand on that blanket statement, lest you be misinterpreted?

You remind me of the ugly girl who says she hates beauty contests! :p

Huh? I never said that...

Would you care to expand on that blanket statement, lest you be misinterpreted?

Since when have I been sufficiently invested to mind the latter? I've nothing against people thinking I find US women ugly. Mostly because they're: 1. USian; 2. Women.

Out of that list, I went for TCT, but I agree that there are others that could definitely be included on the list. Grave'n'Idle comes to mind as a formidible opponent - in some areas at least. Bottle can be as well. And some of the others have already been listed.

Out of that list, and others, a lot of times it depends on the topic. I've seen people whose debating skills I have quite a bit of respect for have "off-threads" where they end up in logical fallacies or in insults and don't come back out.

I can say that I have quite a bit of respect for a great deal of that list. =)

Of course, it really is a matter of taste I suppose. A couple of people in this thread have named a certain poster who seems only able to try to make a point by insulting his opponent - and then warning them that he's a mod if they reciprocate at all.

Since when have I been sufficiently invested to mind the latter? I've nothing against people thinking I find US women ugly. Mostly because they're: 1. USian; 2. Women.

I'm going to cry now.....*sniffle*

I'm going to cry now.....*sniffle*

I have pierced the cockles of your heart, no doubt.

Out of that list, I went for TCT, but I agree that there are others that could definitely be included on the list. Grave'n'Idle comes to mind as a formidible opponent - in some areas at least. Bottle can be as well. And some of the others have already been listed.

Out of that list, and others, a lot of times it depends on the topic. I've seen people whose debating skills I have quite a bit of respect for have "off-threads" where they end up in logical fallacies or in insults and don't come back out.

I can say that I have quite a bit of respect for a great deal of that list. =)

Of course, it really is a matter of taste I suppose. A couple of people in this thread have named a certain poster who seems only able to try to make a point by insulting his opponent - and then warning them that he's a mod if they reciprocate at all.

Grave was one of the people I specifically thinking of when I wrote my first comment. GnI is different from a lot of posters in that he generally only enters a thread where he feels comfortably knowledgeable and he mostly sticks to what he knows within those threads. He's perfectly willing to give up certain points to be debated by people who are more versed than he and to break down the points where he knows he is more versed than anyone else present. That makes him a pretty good debater in my book.

gotta go with Cat-tribe. 99% of the time there is no way to disagree, really.

Drunken Commies Deleted.

He's a good what again?

I question how some of these people made the list.

I question how some of these people made the list.
I'd debate that, but I don't debate.

Drunken Commies Deleted.

wtf? He's only slightly more suitbale and commendable than me:confused:

gotta go with Cat-tribe. 99% of the time there is no way to disagree, really.
I disargee all the time with Cat Tribe

I disargee all the with Cat TribeYes well who would've thought..

From the list, I'd probably have to pick Cat-Tribes, since I greatly respect a reasoned argument, especially when it is 'backed up'... and Cat-Tribes definitely 'backs it up'.

Given free reign, however... most of the people I would consider high contendors for the title, are not even on the list. For example:

Jocabia does a nice line in sarcasm, and is no slacker in the innovative thinking.

Bottle always 'brings it'... or she just stays quiet. She just doesn't often turn up to the party unprepared.

Dempublicents is another one of those that can get involved in debates with a great deal of support in reserve, and usually manages to see both sides of the debate.

Straughn has a seemingly insatiable supply of evidence, and use a wicked sense of humour with scalpel-like precision.

Gravy, your name should have been up there. Youve been mentioned for it in the thread by several.

Even I didn't vote for me. I bow to Cat-Tribe.

<ow, me ego!>

From the list, I'd probably have to pick Cat-Tribes, since I greatly respect a reasoned argument, especially when it is 'backed up'... and Cat-Tribes definitely 'backs it up'.Yes.. I do like TCT style..

honorable mentions to Neu Leonstein, TG, Niccolo, Yossarian, keruvalia, Zeppistan and (hmm.. damn.. can't remember all the names )

Cat-Tribe, Nazz, the former Zeppistan, Bottle-the researchers, the ones who don't rely on 'off the top of thier head' and actually use research to back up the shit they say, those are the cats that I respect. And they sometimes make me feel like a clown becuase I'll take someone at thier word and argue in circles and they'll come in and research the topic and find out it's whole premise is based on bullshit. Then I feel like I've just been arguing with a post.

Yes.. I do like CTC style..

honorable mentions to Neo-Leoisten, TG, Niccolo,Yossarian, keruvalia and (hmm.. damn.. can't remeber all the names )
As always, I take these kind of statements to mean me. hehe

Even I didn't vote for me. I bow to Cat-Tribe.

<ow, me ego!>Not to worry, you got my vote. You've almost single-handedly saved me from posting in any of the myriad "Gl0ba7 w4am1ng is t3h h04xxez" threads.

As always, I take these kind of statements to mean me. hehe:D all rite.. You make it in my list (on Clever points)

Cat-Tribe, Nazz, the former Zeppistan, Bottle-the researchers, the ones who don't rely on 'off the top of thier head' and actually use research to back up the shit they say, those are the cats that I respect. And they sometimes make me feel like a clown becuase I'll take someone at thier word and argue in circles and they'll come in and research the topic and find out it's whole premise is based on bullshit. Then I feel like I've just been arguing with a post.


good pun. I argue with posts all the time.;)

Gravy, your name should have been up there. Youve been mentioned for it in the thread by several.

You know... I think maybe I lack a strong enough presence? It is actually something of a source of pride to me that I have made more than 10,000 posts, and practically never show 'above the radar' on any of these 'popularity' threads, or whatever. :)

Maybe it means my arguments speak louder than my voice?

But, thanks, sweety... :D

Thanks to those that mentioned me, but TCT it is.

good pun. I argue with posts all the time.;)
You know what's sad? And I'm man enough to admit this, that totally didn't occour to me until I read that...

Thanks to those that mentioned me, but TCT it is.LOL, your post helped me correct the first 2 names on my post

To those who voted for me ... I don't debate ... I babble until something sounds coherent. I am a fan of Socrates, after all. ;)

Cool that I've made the list, though. Nice that someone's noticed me babbling.

Looking at the poll results, a debate between Cat-Tribe and Other would be epic.

Other must be awesome. Wish I'd have read their posts more often.

I disargee all the with Cat Tribe
I didn't say he was right, there are many things I disagree with, but it's hard to 99% of the time, I just come up looking uneducated. :( I hate looking stupid.

I'm not sure I quite understand what all the fuss is about over Cat-Tribe: I've heard people rave about him now for months and while he's certainly one of the better ones I don't really see any grounds for a "ZOMG HE'S HANDS DOWN TEH 1337 DEBAT0R!" I think there's an overwhelming tendancy here to make such a declaration largely because you people agree with Cat-Tribe more than you're probably willing to admit to me [or anyone else who happens to be on the right side of the aisle]. Cat-Tribe's political attitudes are very much in sync with the general political overtones of this board in the first place, and I think some people probably get a little too excited when they read Cat-Tribe's posts, because he's very good with words and says a lot of things that you might want to hear.

I mean yeah, he's good [maybe even nearly as good as I am ;) ] but there's a whole lot more competition around here than most people seem to think. It's not so cut and dry as "so and so is the best debator" since each of us have our own distinctly different talents. If you're going for a by-the-book debate class type candidate, I don't think very many of us qualify to begin with.

That said, my vote goes towards myself. You all can kiss my hairy white tuckus!

I'm not sure I quite understand what all the fuss is about over Cat-Tribe: I've heard people rave about him now for months and while he's certainly one of the better ones I don't really see any grounds for a "ZOMG HE'S HANDS DOWN TEH 1337 DEBAT0R!" I think there's an overwhelming tendancy here to make such a declaration largely because you people agree with Cat-Tribe more than you're probably willing to admit to me [or anyone else who happens to be on the right side of the aisle]. Cat-Tribe's political attitudes are very much in sync with the general political overtones of this board in the first place, and I think some people probably get a little too excited when they read Cat-Tribe's posts, because he's very good with words and says a lot of things that you might want to hear.

I mean yeah, he's good [maybe even nearly as good as I am ;) ] but there's a whole lot more competition around here than most people seem to think. It's not so cut and dry as "so and so is the best debator" since each of us have our own distinctly different talents. If you're going for a by-the-book debate class type candidate, I don't think very many of us qualify to begin with.

That said, my vote goes towards myself. You all can kiss my hairy white tuckus!


I challenge you to a debate about *tries to think of something girly as hell* ...

I'll get back to you.;)

I'm not sure I quite understand what all the fuss is about over Cat-Tribe: I've heard people rave about him now for months and while he's certainly one of the better ones I don't really see any grounds for a "ZOMG HE'S HANDS DOWN TEH 1337 DEBAT0R!" I think there's an overwhelming tendancy here to make such a declaration largely because you people agree with Cat-Tribe more than you're probably willing to admit to me [or anyone else who happens to be on the right side of the aisle]. Cat-Tribe's political attitudes are very much in sync with the general political overtones of this board in the first place, and I think some people probably get a little too excited when they read Cat-Tribe's posts, because he's very good with words and says a lot of things that you might want to hear.
probably somewhat correct. I would rank you up there too, but you wern't on the list, and I'm way to lazy to do the whole "other" option. Also, I think I had just seen one of his posts

I mean yeah, he's good [maybe even nearly as good as I am ;) ]
There's that modesty we all know and love;)
but there's a whole lot more competition around here than most people seem to think. It's not so cut and dry as "so and so is the best debator" since each of us have our own distinctly different talents. If you're going for a by-the-book debate class type candidate, I don't think very many of us qualify to begin with. I'm pretty sure that no matter what you are looking at, if you ask for "by the book" from NS General, we all fail. miserably.

That said, my vote goes towards myself. You all can kiss my hairy white tuckus!what a charming image *chokes back vomit*;)

I think there's an overwhelming tendancy here to make such a declaration largely because you people agree with Cat-Tribe more than you're probably willing to admit to me [or anyone else who happens to be on the right side of the aisle].

Actually, I find I agree with other people more than I agree with Cat. However, I don't have to interpret Cat. Cat's very clear.

Being in agreement does not a good debator make. Cat just happens to follow the rules of debate. Cat is an incredible Sophist - like any good lawyer should be. Cat knows the rules, knows the procedure, and follows it.

In the end, that's all that matters to being a "good" debator.

That said, my vote goes towards myself. You all can kiss my hairy white tuckus!

Please? I promise to wear the fuck-me red lipstick. ;)

I'm not sure I quite understand what all the fuss is about over Cat-Tribe: I've heard people rave about him now for months and while he's certainly one of the better ones I don't really see any grounds for a "ZOMG HE'S HANDS DOWN TEH 1337 DEBAT0R!" I think there's an overwhelming tendancy here to make such a declaration largely because you people agree with Cat-Tribe more than you're probably willing to admit to me [or anyone else who happens to be on the right side of the aisle]. Cat-Tribe's political attitudes are very much in sync with the general political overtones of this board in the first place, and I think some people probably get a little too excited when they read Cat-Tribe's posts, because he's very good with words and says a lot of things that you might want to hear.

I mean yeah, he's good [maybe even nearly as good as I am ;) ] but there's a whole lot more competition around here than most people seem to think. It's not so cut and dry as "so and so is the best debator" since each of us have our own distinctly different talents. If you're going for a by-the-book debate class type candidate, I don't think very many of us qualify to begin with.

That said, my vote goes towards myself. You all can kiss my hairy white tuckus!

You are correct, this is a popularity thread. And it means little. But part of why he does so well is that he's not caught up in popularity, which isn't something you can't really argue after that post.

EDIT: Incidentally, posts like this one are likely why I'm not on the list either.

i vote bwo, because the answer is clearly one of the several anarchists with a bit of grad school under their belts we've got running around here, and he actually made the list. solidarity, basically.

Please? I promise to wear the fuck-me red lipstick. ;)
ah yes...the "fuck me" red...a shade darker than crimson.

[QUOTE=Melkor UnchainedThat said, my vote goes towards myself. You all can kiss my hairy white tuckus![/QUOTE]
Dare I ask what a tuckus is?
How many different meanings can we come up with?
I know! Let's have a debate on Melkor's tuckus*




*well, obviously not literally 'on' his tuckus. Though melkor would prob like that.

I'm not sure I quite understand what all the fuss is about over Cat-Tribe: I've heard people rave about him now for months and while he's certainly one of the better ones I don't really see any grounds for a "ZOMG HE'S HANDS DOWN TEH 1337 DEBAT0R!"From what I've seen around here since joining, I disagree. But that's what we're here for, right? - Disagreeing I mean.I think there's an overwhelming tendancy here to make such a declaration largely because you people agree with Cat-Tribe more than you're probably willing to admit to me [or anyone else who happens to be on the right side of the aisle]. Cat-Tribe's political attitudes are very much in sync with the general political overtones of this board in the first place, and I think some people probably get a little too excited when they read Cat-Tribe's posts, because he's very good with words and says a lot of things that you might want to hear.I'm sure the opposite is equally true. That TCT happens to be unusually eloquent (compared to the rest of us), probably doesn't hurt people's opinion of him.I mean yeah, he's good [maybe even nearly as good as I am ;) ] but there's a whole lot more competition around here than most people seem to think. It's not so cut and dry as "so and so is the best debator" since each of us have our own distinctly different talents.Hence my vote for Gymoor. Gotta give the guy some credit for continually making [censored] look so bad.If you're going for a by-the-book debate class type candidate, I don't think very many of us qualify to begin with. Cheers, I'd almost forgotten how sad I am.

... Gotta give the guy some credit for continually making [censored] look so bad.Well .. If we are going to start giving credit to the ones making other posters look bad.. Then I definitely consider m-self "the" MasterDebater..

...and a cunning Linguist too (LOL @ Keruvalia) :D

Well .. If we are going to start giving credit to the ones making other posters look bad.. Then I definitely consider m-self "the" MasterDebater..

...and a cunning Linguist too (LOL @ Keruvalia) :D

Other posters. Not making yourself look bad.

Maybe I'm not spending enough time on NS but I just can't remember everyones personalities. How should I remember who debates the best?

I'll just choose "Other".

This thread should be titled: "Whose ass would you rather crawl into?".

It isn't me. I've posted maybe a bakers dozen of posts in a serious debating format. It always feels like I'm unzipping the flame suit I've thrown together when I do, so I just like to avoid it, and deal with walking silly.

I'm going with "other". Just because I agree with Melkor Unchained.

Neu Leonstein!!!

I'm not sure I quite understand what all the fuss is about over Cat-Tribe: I've heard people rave about him now for months and while he's certainly one of the better ones I don't really see any grounds for a "ZOMG HE'S HANDS DOWN TEH 1337 DEBAT0R!" I think there's an overwhelming tendancy here to make such a declaration largely because you people agree with Cat-Tribe more than you're probably willing to admit to me [or anyone else who happens to be on the right side of the aisle]. Cat-Tribe's political attitudes are very much in sync with the general political overtones of this board in the first place, and I think some people probably get a little too excited when they read Cat-Tribe's posts, because he's very good with words and says a lot of things that you might want to hear.

I mean yeah, he's good [maybe even nearly as good as I am ;) ] but there's a whole lot more competition around here than most people seem to think. It's not so cut and dry as "so and so is the best debator" since each of us have our own distinctly different talents. If you're going for a by-the-book debate class type candidate, I don't think very many of us qualify to begin with.

That said, my vote goes towards myself. You all can kiss my hairy white tuckus!
don't worry melkor, i voted for you. :)
you pwn my ass frequently when i deign to enter a debate (though officially that's "give me a run for my money" ;)) so, recognising that, i voted other for you :cool:

Sinuhue ... that's it! Far and away best debator here.

don't worry melkor, i voted for you. :)
you pwn my ass frequently when i deign to enter a debate (though officially that's "give me a run for my money" ;)) so, recognising that, i voted other for you :cool:
At least you have the courage to admit it :p

Bottle must get a mention

Bottle must get a mention


Indeed. She's handed out her share of asses on plates..

me....

Indeed. She's handed out her share of asses on plates..

*nod*

She's a great ass hander outer.

Bottle must get a mention

Agreed.

I think there's an overwhelming tendancy here to make such a declaration largely because you people agree with Cat-Tribe more than you're probably willing to admit to me [or anyone else who happens to be on the right side of the aisle].
You actually did come to mind first, but it's because I agree with what you say so much that I didn't vote for you. If you and I were debating I doubt it would be much of a debate because I would just agree with you. ;)

MMmmme

Actually, I find I agree with other people more than I agree with Cat. However, I don't have to interpret Cat. Cat's very clear.

Being in agreement does not a good debator make. Cat just happens to follow the rules of debate. Cat is an incredible Sophist - like any good lawyer should be. Cat knows the rules, knows the procedure, and follows it.

In the end, that's all that matters to being a "good" debator.I'd have to agree with this. I agree with Cat on some issues, but fervently disagree on others, yet even then I respect his unceasing ability to present concise, logical and articulate arguments.

I also think very highly of Bottle, for essentially the same reasons. Had her name been on the list, I'd have had a lot of difficulty choosing between her and Cat. I think they are both highly skilled debators.

I haven't really paid any attention to any debates recently.

No one

I refuse to vote because I don't want to see the results.

As far as actual debating goes, my votes would go for Melkor, Dissonant Cognition, or AnarchyeL. They are knowledgable of the subjects they get into, they are reasonable, and they follow very logical deductions. Most importantly, they avoid dragging every debate into an argument over semantics.

Cat-Tribe is excellent at clearly expressing and backing up his statements.

Neu-Leonstein is very knowledgable, reasonable, and interesting. I always stop to read his posts because I am likely to learn something.

...AnarchyeL...
Are you joking? I've never seen someone so consistently [and probably purposefully] misinterpret my questions and statements, and then accuse me of evasion and distortion: when I debated with him he seemed interested in "banning" the dictionary from philosophical discussions, but actually used it in the same post. When a definition contradicted his idea wbout what the word ought to mean, he either dismissed it is immaterial to the discussion [sometimes after he was even the one who brought it up], or ignored the post entirely. He's a lot more intelligent than I had initially given him credit for, but intelligence =/= debate skills. At first, I was "ignorant" and "pig-headed," essentially for disagreeing with him. But lo! After I threw him a compliment or two [deserved, under the circumstances, as my initial estimation of his intelligence was an incorrect one] I was "too smart for my own good." Contradictions have always struck me as somewhat stinky, even in so minor a context as this.

I'll freely admit that last time we spoke, I made some hastily conceived [and in a couple cases, utterly erroneous] generalizations, but at least I had the courage to actually correct myself in the course of the debate. I'm surprised you'd lump him into the category of not "dragging every debate into an argument over semantics," since that's more or less precisely what happened the last time the two of us tangled.

I'm going to have to go with Deep Kimichi. I remember a thread where Bush had said something, and then done the complete opposite the very next day. It should have been a straight forward Bush-bashfest, but the DK got involved and by the second page people were arguing whether or not nuclear power was supported or condemned by the democrats. The thread continued for another seven pages and never got back to it's original point. Highly impressive.

I'm going to have to go with Deep Kimichi. I remember a thread where Bush had said something, and then done the complete opposite the very next day. It should have been a straight forward Bush-bashfest, but the DK got involved and by the second page people were arguing whether or not nuclear power was supported or condemned by the democrats. The thread continued for another seven pages and never got back to it's original point. Highly impressive.
Yes, the ability to completely redirect a topic through red herrings is an excellent debating skill.

I'm going to have to go with Deep Kimichi. I remember a thread where Bush had said something, and then done the complete opposite the very next day. It should have been a straight forward Bush-bashfest, but the DK got involved and by the second page people were arguing whether or not nuclear power was supported or condemned by the democrats. The thread continued for another seven pages and never got back to it's original point. Highly impressive.
Yes, Deep Kimchi is a master of deflection and obscuration. That isn't debating though.

So suddenly good debating is failing to address the topic altogether. Okay, then I nominate Bill Clinton, because he was THE MASTER.

To be honest, the vast vast vast majority of people i've seen on here, in my sporadic encounters with the board, in incarnations going back 2 or 3 years that no one would remember because they maybe hit 500 posts then disappeared...

(tries to work out where he was in a sentence)...oh yeah...

the vast majority of people on here aren't debaters. They don't freely share idea's or concepts and grow and change and develop their world view and take things on board. Most everyone on here is an <b> arguer </b>.

And thats somewhat different.

As a thought, perhaps we should have a contest. Seeing as there is a set group of considered "excellent debators," why don't we have a thread locked only to them and let us watch and comment elsewhere?
- Veritas

:confused: Wait, wasn't there awards just a few weeks ago to determine this?

So suddenly good debating is failing to address the topic altogether. Okay, then I nominate Bill Clinton, because he was THE MASTER.

The point was not that he failed to address the topic (which any idiot can do) but that he managed to convince everybody in the thread that there was actually a different topic up for debate.

I think what must be done here is to set down what we think good debating is. This is becoming an issue of semantics, ironically.

Also, I wish to challenge Melkor Unchained for a moment. Melkor, how can you claim to have strong debating skills when your posts during the last two monthes have either been A. RPing threads both OOC and IC or B. Response posts to a previous person's point in which you rip apart their ideas but place in none of your own? This is not meant to be a personal attack, simply a challenge.

- Veritas

I think what must be done here is to set down what we think good debating is. This is becoming an issue of semantics, ironically.

Also, I wish to challenge Melkor Unchained for a moment. Melkor, how can you claim to have strong debating skills when your posts during the last two monthes have either been A. RPing threads both OOC and IC or B. Response posts to a previous person's point in which you rip apart their ideas but place in none of your own? This is not meant to be a personal attack, simply a challenge.

- Veritas

Oh fuck. You're in for it, now.

Is that a threat or a warning, Potarius?
- Veritas

Is that a threat or a warning, Potarius?
- Veritas

A warning... Sheesh.

Just clarifying, you never know these days.

I shall be leaving for a bit. I shall respond to the response to my challenge when I return.
- Veritas

I am suprised at the sloth, what has happened?
- Veritas

Wow, having controversy over my "nomination" may actually be better than getting one. :D

For my part, it's The Cat Tribe, hands-down. Vittos Ordination2 would get a well-deserved honorable mention... While I disagree with his range of values and his defense of them, he is usually willing to bite the bullet and follow through on their worst implications.

I think what must be done here is to set down what we think good debating is. This is becoming an issue of semantics, ironically.

Also, I wish to challenge Melkor Unchained for a moment. Melkor, how can you claim to have strong debating skills when your posts during the last two monthes have either been A. RPing threads both OOC and IC or B. Response posts to a previous person's point in which you rip apart their ideas but place in none of your own? This is not meant to be a personal attack, simply a challenge.

- Veritas
Probably because most of the posts you're reading are follow-up posts that generally take place after a "debate" has been attempted and the vast majority of my points have already been largely ignored. The big, ZOMG HUGE posts with the quote after quote are the ones where my ideas are offered [and in a plentiful amount: indeed your accusation puzzles me as I've seen more actual and concrete statements to the effect of "this is my idea:" from me than nearly anyone else on the forum, who are generally prohibited from making moral declarations in the first place on virtue of their assumption that morals are "subjective" and "vary" from person to person: such an attitude generally makes it difficult to convey moral arguments, since they can have no objective basis].

Most posts [from me and just about everyone else] are largely anecdotal, or generally only answer one specific line of inquiry rather than an entire post. I haven't written one of the afrementioned Monster Posts [tm] in probably about three weeks, which is likely the reason why you haven't seen them. I did a little digging myself, and the first ones I came to were a few pages back, I think.

Smunkeeville

I don't really pay attention to the debates enough to really know, so I chose Eutrusca because he is the bomb diggity.

TCT has my respect even though I often vehemently disagree with his assessments: he's Humean to the core, whereas I'm much more Kantian in my outlook. Nevertheless, the fact that he can understand what the hell I'm talking about, and can debate effectively on issues ranging from religion to philosophy to constitutional law, earns him esteem in my book. Most importantly, however, I usually learn quite a bit from his posts. I often scroll through threads to the last page, but I always stop for his posts.

Melkor is also an excellent debater with a good command of logic and philosophical (or "philosophical", given his predilection for Objectivism) knowledge, even though I vehemently disagree with his economic viewpoints. I have noticed, however, that he can be a bit selective about what he chooses to respond to, and will every so often revive arguments I was pretty certain I'd bashed previously. He's a long, long way from certain other posters on the boards in this respect, though.

That being said, most of the suggestions are more about popularity than actual effectiveness. I don't know how many times, for instance, I've seen some fundie doofus make a statement about Sodom and Gamorrah in a debate on homosexuality, only to have people, including people on that list, respond with the broad assertion that God does not exist, morals are relative to culture, and you're an idiot to boot. That doesn't answer the question, because even provided there isn't a God, homosexuality might still be wrong for that culture, and the last statement is nothing but an ad hominem. More effective and concise arguments, however, asserting that the person is misreading the Bible are definately provable, but rarely made.

I'm going to have to go with Deep Kimichi. I remember a thread where Bush had said something, and then done the complete opposite the very next day. It should have been a straight forward Bush-bashfest, but the DK got involved and by the second page people were arguing whether or not nuclear power was supported or condemned by the democrats. The thread continued for another seven pages and never got back to it's original point. Highly impressive.


Yeah..isn't that great.

Cat Tribe, Bottle (for obvious reasons)

Grave n idle
AnarchyEl (for being able to phrase most of my ideas better than I can)
Free Soviets

And, on the other side of the aisle:
Vittos Ordination 2
Melkor Unchained (when he's not being unnecessarily sarcastic)

Edit: and Neu Leonstein

...I've seen more actual and concrete statements to the effect of "this is my idea:" from me than nearly anyone else on the forum, who are generally prohibited from making moral declarations in the first place on virtue of their assumption that morals are "subjective" and "vary" from person to person...
They are, aren't they?

How can you have spent so much time on NS and still not believe that?

They are, aren't they?
No, because if they are, every bit of philosophical, ethical, or political guidance that could possibly be offered or explained would be an even bigger waste of time than it already is. There would be no basis for debate, no basis for civilization, justice or very nearly anything else.

If you mean "morals are subjective" in the sense that different people have different ideas about what they are then you'd certainly be correct. If, however, your suggestion is deeper than that paramaters for what's right and what's wrong vary from person to person based on what they believe'], which is often the case with moral subjectivists, then you couldn't possibly be more wrong if your name was W. Wrongey Wrongenstein.

How can you have spent so much time on NS and still not believe that?
Easily. By not swallowing what I'm told hook line and sinker by either particular debators, or the community in general, who invariably simply regurgitate an unholy stew of ideas concocted by a mixture of Marx, Rawls, Hegel, Kant, and Mill anyway. The idea that reality somehow changes as a result of my time here [i.e. morals are no longer absolute because the NS board doesn't think they are and I've spent so much time here and 'ought to know that' by now] is a pretty ridiculous one.

By not swallowing what I'm told hook line and sinker by either particular debators, or the community in general, who invariably simply regurgitate an unholy stew of ideas concocted by a mixture of Marx, Rawls, Hegel, Kant, and Mill anyway. The idea that reality somehow changes as a result of my time here [i.e. morals are no longer absolute because the NS board doesn't think they are and I've spent so much time here and 'ought to know that' by now] is a pretty ridiculous one.

Not one of whom (ironically?) is a subjectivist.

Not one of whom (ironically?) is a subjectivist.
Sure seems to me like most of the people they've influenced sure as hell are. Kant [to name one of them] talked a lot about moral absolutes, but in my opinion he laid the groundwork for the modern subjectivist movement. As with most philosophical developments in modern times, there are likely to be key changes here and there, most of which are probably borne from contradictions in his [or any other philosopher's] basic premises. Likewise, while I wouldn't call Hegel a racist zealot, one can notice the interesteing paralells between his ideas and Hitler's.

Basically, my point is that [i]most modern academic philosophy can be traced to one or all of these five men. Since most people don't pursue philosophy outside of the courses they have to take in college, anyone who wants to try and cross-reference the political happenings of today with, say what they learned about right and wrong, they'll usually end up with ideas descended from one or more of these men [and/or their parents], and the end result is usually one of moral subjectivism, whether any of the aformentioned philosophers meant it that way or not.

Hell, just the other day on the news I saw a Danish citizen actually struggling to admit fault for this debacle in Europe, his eyes darting drom side to side as he admitted that "some of this had to be expected." If we examine what this statement [and its underlying attitude] actually means, one quickly realizes that it is an attempt to reconcile the actions of these nutcases on the grounds that "They're very religious people" [his words, not mine] and we should be "more mindful" or somesuch nonsense. The idea, of course, may not be that the Muslim community's actions are necessarily justified [they're certainly not], but it seems to imply that some moral mitigation is in order on virtue of the strength of their convictions.

Lets put it this way: Would anyone be singing the same tune if I firebombed your house for publishing a cartoon of a dollar sign with a gigantic X through it? What if I found a mob of republicans to help me?

The idea that reality somehow changes as a result of my time here [i.e. morals are no longer absolute because the NS board doesn't think they are and I've spent so much time here and 'ought to know that' by now] is a pretty ridiculous one.

I'm in agreement here.

Funny, isn't it? We seem to agree on a lot of things aside from economics.

Cat Tribe, Bottle (for obvious reasons)

Grave n idle
AnarchyEl (for being able to phrase most of my ideas better than I can)
Free Soviets

And, on the other side of the aisle:
Vittos Ordination 2
Melkor Unchained (when he's not being unnecessarily sarcastic)

Edit: and Neu Leonstein

Ah, so everyone on the list except for me...:(

Hell, just the other day on the news I saw a Danish citizen actually struggling to admit fault for this debacle in Europe, his eyes darting drom side to side as he admitted that "some of this had to be expected." If we examine what this statement [and its underlying attitude] actually means, one quickly realizes that it is an attempt to reconcile the actions of these nutcases on the grounds that "They're very religious people" [his words, not mine] and we should be "more mindful" or somesuch nonsense. The idea, of course, may not be that the Muslim community's actions are necessarily justified [they're certainly not], but it seems to imply that some moral mitigation is in order on virtue of the strength of their convictions.

Lets put it this way: Would anyone be singing the same tune if I firebombed your house for publishing a cartoon of a dollar sign with a gigantic X through it? What if I found a mob of republicans to help me?


I'm not inclined to sympathize with those who riot and kill over a cartoon.

But neither am I inclined to sympathize with those who continuously poke and prod at a hive of bees and then try to act all innocent when they get swarmed. I would prefer to simply leave the hive the hell alone and not risk personal injury or death. Unfortunately, this attitude that we must "take a stand" is very strong and ensures that we will continue to beat on hives, get swarmed, and die for the forseeable future.

It's not really a matter of "subjective" vs. "objective" morality. One simply shouldn't be purposefully looking for trouble, especially when one can reasonably deduce how his target with react: insult the sacred image of a violent and repressive sociopolitical culture ---> culture responds with violence and repression...D'oh!

Me. "My logic is undeniable"...and always correct.

Jewish Media Control, Silly!
is an idiot

Straughn has a seemingly insatiable supply of evidence, and use a wicked sense of humour with scalpel-like precision.

I was wondering when someone would mention him. I find his use of debate merely a means for him to prove his intellectual superiority. Which is funny coming from me as I consider him a close friend off line.

Most of the people on that list get emotionally fired up too easily and don't deserve to be there. Where is Bottle?

Niccolo Medici, if anyone still even remembers him, was the best debater I've ever seen on NS.
I agree. He was a legend. What happened to him?

I disargee all the time with Cat Tribe
Uhm tain't much debate if some ain't dis'greein.
Good to feel useful, i guess. *shrugs*

I was wondering when someone would mention him. I find his use of debate merely a means for him to prove his intellectual superiority. Which is funny coming from me as I consider him a close friend off line.
Not superiority, just an excuse for cognitive blunt-force trauma. *nods*
A peculiar dichotomy of the online/offline issue - he can't stand me here! WooT!
Seriously, though, i'm a kitten IRL. I couldn't argue my way out of a paper bag. :D Hence the love patter.

As for posters, i give props moddamn near everytime a good debate comes up, and i agree that a few have been grossly misrep'd.
I don't see myself as being that good at almost anything but i'd like to thank Grave_n_Idle, for no matter how much an arsehole i am online (which is quite often), Grave is quite dignified and understanding of his topic matter. I often warn people to take that into consideration when they cross him.
I also give props to Bottle, who was the first big impression on me as a debator when i first arrived here at NS.
As for other props, gotta say The Cat-Tribe and Gymoor II:the Return (since i've argued a lot on the same issues as these folk).
Of course, a few of the others.
Since i was left with *others* instead of *just one*, i voted as such.

This isn't a 'threat' or anything - just an observation. I watch General debates, but hardly ever partake in them, so I don't think I'm qualified to answer. That said, I think it's interesting some of the people who've posted most in this thread, complaining about the options, are not the ones who most people are citing as the best.

That said, *votes for Melkor*

Easily. By not swallowing what I'm told hook line and sinker by either particular debators, or the community in general, who invariably simply regurgitate an unholy stew of ideas concocted by a mixture of Marx, Rawls, Hegel, Kant, and Mill anyway. The idea that reality somehow changes as a result of my time here [i.e. morals are no longer absolute because the NS board doesn't think they are and I've spent so much time here and 'ought to know that' by now] is a pretty ridiculous one.

Not one of them was responsible for modern subjectivism. If you want to look for the modern influences on subjectivism, you would usually look for people like David Hume, who Kant and Hegel were directly responding to, and Hans Kelsen, H.L.A. Hart, and Derrida, all of whom were critiquing, not espousing, the ideas of people like Kant, Hegel, Mill, and Marx. Rawls, by contrast, is a guy who critiqued Mill, Hart, and Kelsen.

No, the real problem isn't that there is some blasphemous conglomeration of those people, but the fact that NSers don't follow the ideas of those people enough. Instead, they get some vaguely Derridean bullshit fed to them in school by second-rate education majors, they are also inculcated with the belief that the only people who aren't subjectivists are those damn dirty fundies who just want to spring the Spanish Inquisition Mk. II on them, and they come to think that those ideas are pretty much all they need to know about morality. If you want to lay the blame at the feet of anyone, lay it at the feet of people who teach ethics without having the mind or learning for it, because they are the ones spawning all these goofy subjectivists, not those philosophers.

I was picked as the Master Debator in 6th grade history. Does that count? :p

I know there's one person who keeps on telling me they love the way I debate, but I can never remember their name.

I still vote for Niccolo Medici.

I was wondering when someone would mention him. I find his use of debate merely a means for him to prove his intellectual superiority. Which is funny coming from me as I consider him a close friend off line.

I think Straughn is one of the funniest people on here and yet one of the most well spoken. He can be silly one minute and then cut you to pieces via Kung-Fu-debate.


And hes the winner of the ThumBs Up award too.;)

Most of the people on that list get emotionally fired up too easily and don't deserve to be there. Where is Bottle?

Bottle has some of the best debating skills, but some of the worst etiquette.

Not one of them was responsible for modern subjectivism. If you want to look for the modern influences on subjectivism, you would usually look for people like David Hume, who Kant and Hegel were directly responding to, and Hans Kelsen, H.L.A. Hart, and Derrida, all of whom were critiquing, not espousing, the ideas of people like Kant, Hegel, Mill, and Marx. Rawls, by contrast, is a guy who critiqued Mill, Hart, and Kelsen.
The differneces between any two of the philosophers you [or I] mentioned earlier are generally remote, in my view. They [being different philosophers] clearly have different ideas, but they're all precisely as erroneous as the next. I'm sure you could describe the differences between Rawls and Mill [not that I'd care much more for either afterwards anyway], but I find your claim that "not one of them" was responbsible for modern subjectivism is dubious at best. When I speak with these people, Hart, Derrida, and Kelsen are not the names that come up: Kant nearly always does, usually accompanied closely by Hegel and Rawls and/or Bentham. This doesn't mean to imply they're all the same, nor that any one of them is singularly responsible for this century's moral decay, but that the influence these people have created tends to do things their creators did not forsee. I don't think Hegel had any plans for a Third Reich, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few of his ideas didn't stick with young Adolf at an early age. I can't condemn Hegel solely on that basis alone [there are thousands of better reasons], but it goes to show you just how ridiculous some of these ideas actually get after a few generations.

No, the real problem isn't that there is some blasphemous conglomeration of those people, but the fact that NSers don't follow the ideas of those people enough. Instead, they get some vaguely Derridean bullshit fed to them in school by second-rate education majors, they are also inculcated with the belief that the only people who aren't subjectivists are those damn dirty fundies who just want to spring the Spanish Inquisition Mk. II on them, and they come to think that those ideas are pretty much all they need to know about morality. If you want to lay the blame at the feet of anyone, lay it at the feet of people who teach ethics without having the mind or learning for it, because they are the ones spawning all these goofy subjectivists, not those philosophers.
You've got a point. I certainly can't get on, say, Marx's case for what his followers did with his ideas, but I can still shake a fist at the bastard for thinking it might actually work. In a nutshell I suppose what I was complaning about was the tendancy for these people to favor certain ideas almost unanimously. Like with any other occupation, I'm sure being a professor attracts a certain kind of mindset, and it's entirely possible that most of those people are drawn to certain ideas, which leads to a natural prevalance of certain modes of philosophical thought in our universities. For all the complaints the young leftists love to lodge about "indoctrination" and capitalist values "perverting" our society, the predominant political lineage in today's cademic circles is largely more sympathetic with the modern left than it is with the modern right, especially with all the fucking up they've been doing for the last few decades.

I've got no problem with blaming people that teach ethics without a mind for learning it, but I've also got no problem blaming his students for swallowing that garbage. It's one thing to receive instruction from someone and pass their course, and it's something else entirely to change your mind about ethics because the guy at the front of the room has a piece of paper saying he knows more about it than you do. If I had a PhD walk in the room and tell me that communism was a viable moral paradigm, I'd tear him apart as quickly as I'd tear apart a third-rate 17 year old socialist and for the same reasons.

The blame is not simply the professor's, it's everyone's when no one wants to think for themselves. If the professor accepts certain ideas as reliable simply because they're long-held ideas or philosophical conventions, he is every bit as much to blame for teaching them as the student is for believing them [i]because it's coming from the front of the room. When challenged, it is common to see the reactive attitude be to the tune of: "You can't be serious! But every modern philosopher agrees that..." as if the challenger's greatest sin should be that of contravening accepted ideas and universal [even though they "don't exist"] absolutes.

Melkor.
And why is Eut on there? Stubborn persistence doesn't a good debater make, I should know.

I would like to thank everyone for the overwhelming support they've given me as one of the best debators... *lives in a complete fantasy land and refuses to come out*

The best debator? That's a tough question. But I suppose I could name a few I consider to be good.

Bottle, Bodies Without Organs, Xenophobialand, Niccolo Medici, Dempublicents, and The Cat-Tribe.

Note: I have disagreed with all these folks, sometimes rather strongly. And these are just the Generalites. There are a number of good debators on this site that rarely or never venture into General.

Sure seems to me like most of the people they've influenced sure as hell are.
Would you care to name an example?
Kant [to name one of them] talked a lot about moral absolutes, but in my opinion he laid the groundwork for the modern subjectivist movement.
How so? He insisted that any ethics worthy of the name should be valid for "all rational beings," including (in theory) any non-human rational beings one might happen to encounter. I don't see how he could have laid much groundwork for the modern subjectivist movement (which explicitly reviles him, almost always without actually bothering to read him).
As with most philosophical developments in modern times, there are likely to be key changes here and there, most of which are probably borne from contradictions in his [or any other philosopher's] basic premises.
It is true that subjectivists perceive themselves as responding to contradictions inherent to Kantian or Hegelian philosophy. Still, I fail to see how this makes either of them responsible for subjectivism. Philosophers had been responding to one another's contradictions for thousands of years before finally deciding that moral truth is fundamentally "relative."
Likewise, while I wouldn't call Hegel a racist zealot, one can notice the interesteing paralells between his ideas and Hitler's.
True. Actually, if you were to call Hegel a racist zealot, I would have little to complain about. He was explicitly racist toward non-Europeans. Moreover, Heidegger was strongly influenced by Hegel, although he rebelled against much of Hegelian philosophy... and he did wind up siding with the Nazis. On the other hand, much of Hegel's thought (perhaps, in fact, those aspects against which Heidegger rebelled) would directly contradict Nazism.

Basically, my point is that [i]most modern academic philosophy can be traced to one or all of these five men.
Yes, and it can all be traced to Plato and Aristotle. So what?

Since most people don't pursue philosophy outside of the courses they have to take in college, anyone who wants to try and cross-reference the political happenings of today with, say what they learned about right and wrong, they'll usually end up with ideas descended from one or more of these men [and/or their parents], and the end result is usually one of moral subjectivism, whether any of the aformentioned philosophers meant it that way or not.

Well, I can agree that the widespread phenomenon of moral subjectivism has something to do with students' experience of philosophy classes, but I don't think the problem can be "traced" to any of these philosophers. Rather, the problem is in how these courses (intro classes especially) are taught: namely, as a sort of verbal encyclopedia of the Western tradition. Students come away without carefully examining any philosophy in detail, leaving them with the impression that "all of them are right" or "it depends on how you look at it" or "philosophy is all a matter of taste."

Hell, just the other day on the news I saw a Danish citizen actually struggling to admit fault for this debacle in Europe, his eyes darting drom side to side as he admitted that "some of this had to be expected." If we examine what this statement [and its underlying attitude] actually means, one quickly realizes that it is an attempt to reconcile the actions of these nutcases on the grounds that "They're very religious people" [his words, not mine] and we should be "more mindful" or somesuch nonsense. The idea, of course, may not be that the Muslim community's actions are necessarily justified [they're certainly not], but it seems to imply that some moral mitigation is in order on virtue of the strength of their convictions.

We agree here. I think it is absurd to excuse religious extremism in its most base and mindless form on the ground that "we can't judge" or some such rubbish.

I just disagree with your conclusion that this is the direct result of a philosophical tradition following from, for instance, Kant and Hegel. On the contrary, I think it is the direct result of a failure to engage this tradition.

Have you, by any chance, encountered Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind? Professor Bloom was, in my opinion, one of the last truly thoughtful conservatives.

No, because if they are, every bit of philosophical, ethical, or political guidance that could possibly be offered or explained would be an even bigger waste of time than it already is. There would be no basis for debate, no basis for civilization, justice or very nearly anything else.

I really would like to understand what exactly it means to have moral absolutes.

I understand the basic idea, but without a God-figure (and then it is not absolute morality, just "might makes right") it seems to be just a stupid idealist fantasy that is completely irrelevant to actual reality.

So what if supposedly, in some mystical immaterial plane, there is a Platonic form of Goodness that calls for a specific course of action (or insert your own model, if you don't like that one)? Why should I care? Why should that stop me from pursuing my own moral path, and believing it to be the right course of action?

If there's no good reason for why I should care, how can you call it a moral absolute?

Would you care to name an example?
Lots of people I've read here, some I've met around here at campus--most are personal examples that I've encountered, although to be honest not many people my age that I've encountered so far are intelligent enough yet to know who people like Kant and Hegel were, so my basis for making this statement is admittedly limited. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but it sure seems like Kant's ideas seem to be the predominant ones, at least as far as academics and general public morality is concerned, and subjecitivism is nearly equally widespread.

Who knows? Maybe the people I'm talking to don't know what they're saying and never will. Maybe everyone I've met has had to read the same philosophy textbooks in college and just spit the names out to sound clever and debate in order to make the people around them think they know what they're talking about. Maybe people do it here too, and are just misrepresenting their ideas.

How so? He insisted that any ethics worthy of the name should be valid for "all rational beings," including (in theory) any non-human rational beings one might happen to encounter. I don't see how he could have laid much groundwork for the modern subjectivist movement (which explicitly reviles him, almost always without actually bothering to read him).
Because Hegel and Kant's philosophical descendants have more or less compromised morally with the philosophical descendents of the people who were heckling them back in the day. The lines now aren't quite where they were when Kant and Hegel were alive.

It is true that subjectivists perceive themselves as responding to contradictions inherent to Kantian or Hegelian philosophy. Still, I fail to see how this makes either of them responsible for subjectivism. Philosophers had been responding to one another's contradictions for thousands of years before finally deciding that moral truth is fundamentally "relative."
This is kind of what I'm talking about right here. On one hand, you're telling me that Kant and Hegel and the others I named are in a distinctly different camp and ought not be held accountable for the prevalance of today's moral relativist attitude, and then you turn around and suggest in your next breath that philosophers have "finally decided" that moral truth is "fundamentally 'relative.'"

To be completely honest, I probably should have been a bit more broad with my endictments earlier: the amount of disdain I have varies typically very little from philosopher to philosopher, and the ones I singled out are just the ones I tend to think of first when I ponder who I don't like in the world of philosophy. Like just about everyone else I'm sure I've got my fair share to learn about the subject, but these are the big names that have cropped up so far that I've noticed I don't like very much.

True. Actually, if you were to call Hegel a racist zealot, I would have little to complain about. He was explicitly racist toward non-Europeans. Moreover, Heidegger was strongly influenced by Hegel, although he rebelled against much of Hegelian philosophy... and he did wind up siding with the Nazis. On the other hand, much of Hegel's thought (perhaps, in fact, those aspects against which Heidegger rebelled) would directly contradict Nazism.
You have no idea how relieved I am that you're not defending Hegel.

Yes, and it can all be traced to Plato and Aristotle. So what?
Plato yes, Aristotle not so much. The answer to you "So What?" appears in the sentances which directly follow the one you're answering here, which you evidently chose to answer seperately.

Well, I can agree that the widespread phenomenon of moral subjectivism has something to do with students' experience of philosophy classes, but I don't think the problem can be "traced" to any of these philosophers. Rather, the problem is in how these courses (intro classes especially) are taught: namely, as a sort of verbal encyclopedia of the Western tradition. Students come away without carefully examining any philosophy in detail, leaving them with the impression that "all of them are right" or "it depends on how you look at it" or "philosophy is all a matter of taste."
I think Xenophobialand and I touched on this earlier too. I didn't say that there were problems that could be traced to those men, I was saying that the moral decision making skills that they present us in college [which the student may or may not accept over the same skills as taught to him by his parents] are generally an outgrowth of Kantian or Hegelian ethics. I would be willing to guess that those are two of the most heavily represented philosophers in nearly any college level philosophy course.

Kant and Hegel deserve at least part of the blame for this phenomenon if only because people likely often attempt to retreat to their ideas when confronted with a difficult ethical question: whether they succeed or fail is a different story. If you shove a camera and a mic into some random 30something's face on the street and ask her about a touchy political/ethical/whatever situation, she's probably going to try to say something that doesn't make her sound like an idiot, and she's very likely to draw on things she learned [or thought she learned] in higher education, since a lot of people in this country are raised with the belief that higher education is some noble, nearly unequalled zenith.

Of course, how well she does depends on how closely she paid attention [and how good her long term memory is], but that's a different issue.

We agree here. I think it is absurd to excuse religious extremism in its most base and mindless form on the ground that "we can't judge" or some such rubbish.
Mmmm, refreshing. The people that tell us that judging is bad forget that without judgement, things like friendship and romance are impossible; since both are the result of judgements or evaluations one undertakes in order to compare one object [the friend, the lover] against his values. One should always judge.

I just disagree with your conclusion that this is the direct result of a philosophical tradition following from, for instance, Kant and Hegel. On the contrary, I think it is the direct result of a failure to engage this tradition.
I probably should have been more clear. I'm not faulting them directly for the spread of subjectivism, but by coming up with a horrid cesspool of ideas, they've succeeded in little else besides just adding all of that into the amorphous, primordial chaos that calls itself "subjectivism" in this day and age. Maybe that just makes them all the more batshit for citing Kant and Hegel as philosophical influences, but that still doesn't earn either party a gold star.

Have you, by any chance, encountered Allan Bloom's The Closing of the American Mind? Professor Bloom was, in my opinion, one of the last truly thoughtful conservatives.
Thoughtful conservative? I'm.... at a loss! :eek:

I really would like to understand what exactly it means to have moral absolutes.

I understand the basic idea, but without a God-figure (and then it is not absolute morality, just "might makes right") it seems to be just a stupid idealist fantasy that is completely irrelevant to actual reality.
Wait, and it does makes sense with a God-figure?

But seriously, Moral absolutism [at least, my brand of it] dispenses with the question "who is the final authority on eithics" [who various people will tell you is either god, society, or the underpants gnomes] and contends that reality is. If you're looking for a "god-figure" equivalent in moral absolutism, it is reality and its basic properties: more specifically, the nature and meaning of thought and action.

I can't say I'm entirely up to speed on my atheist moral absolutist theores, but from an Objectivist standpoint, it's impossible to suggest that "Might makes right" since the right course of action requires thought, and force and mind are opposites. Since one cannot be forced to think or forced to produce [at least beyond a very basic, menial level], Might makes Wrong, for the most part. I don't suggest that God, society, or the local school board dictate reality to an individual, but that reality dictates itself and you perceive it.

So what if supposedly, in some mystical immaterial plane, there is a Platonic form of Goodness that calls for a specific course of action (or insert your own model, if you don't like that one)? Why should I care? Why should that stop me from pursuing my own moral path, and believing it to be the right course of action?
It shouldn't, and frankly so long as you don't go out of your way to hurt other folks I've got no complaints. I've noticed something of a defensive reaction here, which is curious to me because it seems like you're looking for some reason to be compelled to follow one particular brand of morality.

A Christian would tell you that if you didn't believe, you'd go to Hell. A Jew might tell you you'd have a shot anyway so long as you were a decent, virtuous person. There's a tendancy to search for aversions in a philosophy or religion, in which case one invariably becomes more interested in the means by which they should be brought to follow something, rather than why they ought not just do it on their own volition.

If there's no good reason for why I should care, how can you call it a moral absolute?
Because absolutes don't necessarily have to be obeyed: they can easily be ignored and quite often are. If you don't want to care [which seems to be the case], no one's making you. That's the beauty of having a free mind.

Ah, so everyone on the list except for me...:(Sorry, forgot you, Eichen, and Ariddia. Though I didn't see my name on your list...

I think Straughn is one of the funniest people on here and yet one of the most well spoken. He can be silly one minute and then cut you to pieces via Kung-Fu-debate.


And hes the winner of the ThumBs Up award too.;)
Thank you. *bows*

That's one of the kindest things ever said about me here or anywhere.
Now, unfortunately, i have a reputation to live down. ;)

What ThumBs Up award?
The only thing i know i've won here was the Jesus Replacement allocation, per Saint Curie (who also is an excellent debator, btw!)
:confused: