"Arguments Against Objectivism" Subforum

[Cole]

What do you think of creating a subforum for non-Objectivists to present civil arguments against certain aspects of Objectivism? The forum rules state:

"This website (http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/) facilitates trade among Objectivists and students of Objectivism. The primary -- but not only -- form of trade will be information about Objectivism and discussion about its applications.

Agreement with Objectivism is not required for participation. Anyone interested in Ayn Rand’s philosophy may join. However, questions, discussion, and posting of new threads must not contradict the purpose of the forum."

While it doesn't outright prohibit non-Objectivists from arguing against Objectivism, it traditionally seems like doing so is discouraged. Fostering discussion among non-Objectivists would allow us to clear up misconcpetions about the philosophy, persuade opponents, and draw people (who may not be Objectivists or students of Objectivism before reading the forum) to a rich archive of accurate information on the subject. Arguments from opposing philosophies would create new and exciting discussion topics (as it is now, thread topics are often repetitive), allow Objectivists to concretize and validate their own position through the useful tool of debate, and cause non-Objectivist arguments to be publicly debunked.

An "Arguments Against Objectivism" subforum would also benefit all the other subforums by acting as a filter. Posts by non-Objectivists would then be able to be made in (or moved to) the new subforum instead of cluttering the others. However, it should not be used for Objectivists who are having difficulty or questions about a certain aspect of Objectivism. The subforum should only be used by explicit non-Objectivists. All of the same rules of etiquette should still apply- and perhaps be even more strict to ensure order and civility. Posting rude, insulting, or purposefully irrational criticisms of Ayn Rand and/or Objectivism should still be against the rules.

How does this idea sound?

[softwareNerd]

Cole, Are there specific cases of past threads that you think might have gone on productively if they were in a separate sub-forums with somewhat relaxed rules, but which were instead cancelled or "discouraged" as being disruptive or inappropriate?

[DavidOdden]

I'm skeptical. I can't see how this is particularly distinct from questions about Objectivism. If one is interested in "ranting attacks and longwinded screeds against Objectivism", HPO provides tons of posts along those lines. I guess I don't see how this is different from the existing Questions About; what level of attack would be required on the new forum to warrant a negative sanction, that's different from current practice?

[BurgessLau]

What do you think of creating a subforum for non-Objectivists to present civil arguments against [...] Objectivism? [...]

Fostering discussion among non-Objectivists would allow us to clear up misconcpetions about the philosophy, persuade opponents, and draw people (who may not be Objectivists or students of Objectivism before reading the forum) to a rich archive of accurate information on the subject. Arguments from opposing philosophies would create new and exciting discussion topics (as it is now, thread topics are often repetitive), allow Objectivists to concretize and validate their own position through the useful tool of debate, and cause non-Objectivist arguments to be publicly debunked. [...]

How does this idea sound?

To me it sounds intriguing. I have thought of proposing this myself. Even if no special subforum results, I think your question itself deserves discussion. However, some preliminary ideas need to be settled first. One such idea is "discussion" as distinct from "debate."

DISCUSSION. As I use the terms, and the ideas they name, "discussion" is a verbal exchange among individuals who are seeking, through mutual effort, to solve a common problem. A classic example is a work situation: One software engineer is facing a new problem that he does not have the expertise, yet, to solve. He brings it up in the next staff meeting. Others discuss the problem with him and seek a solution. All participants might start out in partial ignorance and end in enlightenment -- problem solved.

DEBATE. Debate is radically different. In debate, the debaters believe they already have solved the problem -- that is, the issue under debate. They have mastered the problem and the solution. To master means to know enough of a subject to teach others. Debaters don't ask, they tell. Debaters are seeking to win a prize of some sort. Often the prize is to win an audience's approval for the particular idea a debater is trying to spread. That idea then will, the debater hopes, change the world in which he lives. (Of course, debaters can have other motives, such as getting public recognition that will advance their careers.)

Though you used the word "discussion," I infer from your post that you are proposing a "debater's corner," right?

P. S. -- I am neither a moderator nor an administrator, but if I were, I would ask this question: "Cole, if such a subforum were setup, would you be willing to be the moderator for it?" The reason for asking, of course, is that such a subforum could require a lot of moderator attention.

P. S. 2 -- By the way, this thread, at least so far, is an excellent example of a discussion. Cole has proposed a problem and a solution, and he has invited discussion. Others have responded with questions, suggestions, and doubts. All these may lead to a solution of the problem -- one way or the other -- through an exchange of ideas, not through debate (so far).

[softwareNerd]

Burgess, Thanks for making the proposal clearer. I now summarize it as:

1) OO.net discourages debate (as opposed to dicussion) about Objectivism.

2) The proposal is to create a "Debate Corner"

I am slightly sceptical about the outcome. On the other hand, since it wouldn't really take much (in effort, time and money) to create such a sub-forum, I'd suggest that it might be worth the experiment.

Your suggestion for a sub-forum moderator is a good one. Other than a moderator, we also would need Objectivist members who are interested in debating non-Objectivists.

[valjean]

I, for one, would like to see this new subforum.

Other than a moderator, we also would need Objectivist members who are interested in debating non-Objectivists.

Seeing people debate non-Objectivists and perhaps participating some is why I like the idea. I need some experience in that, as I'm about to enter a pretty liberal university setting.

[HaloNoble6]

A debate corner is an excellent idea. We could challenge leaders of other forums dedicated to ideas to a debate and host it, or have them host it. A minimum level of formality would be required so that the debate doesn't turn into a soap box, and things could even go so as far as having a debate schedule with a number of people and topics. For example:

July: Democratic Underground vs. OO.net, topic: Is welfare good?

August: The New Republic vs. OO.net, topic: Is abortion a right?

September: People in Action vs. OO.net, topic: What is a proper foreign policy?

Something like that. It would be great if we could just go down the list of major message boards and challenge them to an argument on their specialty, and watch them be exposed.

[Inspector]

Speaking as someone who has done this (on the forum that I administrate), it is essential that you first define the axioms and sticky them at the top of the subforum. Participants should be required to accept the axioms. If not, then you're going to have a lot of trouble on your hands.

Remember that since they are more fundamental than anything else, you can't hope to have a debate without them. Also, this makes it essential that the debate take place on THIS forum, so that you have the power to enforce this.

Now this next part I have not done, but have been meaning to: after the conclusion of a debate, we should have members identify the logical flaws and fallacies of the anti-Objectivist position and/or debater, and then start a new thread that summarizes the error and sticky that summary at the top of the forum so that you are not repeatedly addressing the same issue over and over again.

You're going to run into some "usual suspects" such as the conflation of economic and political power, the conflation of "business" as such with "capitalism," they conflation of altruism with benevolence, etc, etc, etc.

[Cole]

I'm skeptical. I can't see how this is particularly distinct from questions about Objectivism. If one is interested in "ranting attacks and longwinded screeds against Objectivism", HPO provides tons of posts along those lines. I guess I don't see how this is different from the existing Questions About; what level of attack would be required on the new forum to warrant a negative sanction, that's different from current practice?

Where did you take that quote from? I've read the thread and couldn't find where it was said.

The difference would be that the subforum would be specifically for non-Objectivists who oppose Objectivism. There should be no difference in the level of attack that would be required to warrant negative sanction. The moderators should not allow any attacks, but only civil arguments.

[Cole]

Though you used the word "discussion," I infer from your post that you are proposing a "debater's corner," right?

Yes.

P. S. -- I am neither a moderator nor an administrator, but if I were, I would ask this question: "Cole, if such a subforum were setup, would you be willing to be the moderator for it?" The reason for asking, of course, is that such a subforum could require a lot of moderator attention.

I really can't see it as being something that would require increasing the number of moderators. It would seem that the current level of moderation would be enough to cover such a forum, especially while it is new and its needs are still being gauged.

[Cole]

Burgess, Thanks for making the proposal clearer. I now summarize it as:

1) OO.net discourages debate (as opposed to dicussion) about Objectivism.

2) The proposal is to create a "Debate Corner"

Forgive me, but I don't understand what was so murky about the proposal in the first place. I thought that by refering to it as an "Arguments Against Objectivism" forum that it would be clear that I was talking about argumentation or debate.

Your suggestion for a sub-forum moderator is a good one. Other than a moderator, we also would need Objectivist members who are interested in debating non-Objectivists.

I don't think that's a need we'd have to put any added effort into filling. If the forum were created and the word was spread, those who are interested would come on their own.

[DavidOdden]

Where did you take that quote from? I've read the thread and couldn't find where it was said.

Those are scare quotes, not "so-and-so said" quotes.

The difference would be that the subforum would be specifically for non-Objectivists who oppose Objectivism. There should be no difference in the level of attack that would be required to warrant negative sanction. The moderators should not allow any attacks, but only civil arguments.

Okay; but I don't see how that's different from existing sub-forums here, especially Questions About. OTOH, if the idea is to have organised debates and especially invite participants on other boards to participate, I see the difference.

[Proverb]

If certain people are not willing to visit this site with polite curiosity and an appropriate attitude, what is to be gained from giving them a special place for us to dignify irrational panderings?

A special place for debate would be good, but doesn't this forum already encourage peaceful debating?

[BurgessLau]

A special place for debate would be good, but doesn't this forum already encourage peaceful debating?

At the moment, when I try to access the Forum rules, I receive an error message only. My recollection, however, is that Forum Rules prohibit anyone here from advocating ideas contrary to Objectivism. If consistently applied, this policy rightly results in prohibiting debate by anti-Objectivists.

My understanding of the Questions about Objectivism subforum, now in place, is that it is a place for doing just that: asking questions and then discussing the answers, not debating -- that is, not advocating positions contrary to Objectivism.

Having a special debate subforum, in which non-Objectivists could enter under strict conditions, would allow a non-Objectivist to present his ideas, assuming he (and his Objectivist opponent) follows strict rules of etiquette -- including staying on topic.

Edited July 24, 2005 by BurgessLau

[BurgessLau]

I really can't see it as being something that would require increasing the number of moderators. It would seem that the current level of moderation would be enough to cover such a forum, especially while it is new and its needs are still being gauged.

I disagree. First, does ObjectivismOnline have enough moderators now? Second, a debater's subforum -- perhaps even each active thread in it -- would need its own moderator. For instance, the moderator for the thread open at a particular time would be the one to initially decide which person will represent each side. The moderator can invite a single debater from another site; but the moderator also needs to select one Objectivist from this site. (Possibly, the debate might have two debaters on each side, but more than that number would be unwieldy.)

A debate is not a free-for-all; the moderator specifies the topic, designates the debater on each side, by name, and is ready to step in at any moment if either debater violates the rules of etiquette. I assume a thread can be closed to all other participants. Is that assumption correct? I don't know.

Felipe understands the problems involved. I can see that from his proposal to have one debate topic per month. Even that will require quite a bit of extra work for the appropriate moderator or administrator. As time passes, and procedures are worked out, the workload might decline somewhat.

Edited July 24, 2005 by BurgessLau

[BurgessLau]

If certain people are not willing to visit this site with polite curiosity and an appropriate attitude, what is to be gained from giving them a special place for us to dignify irrational panderings?

I don't understand. First, the issue isn't attitude, but behvaior. Does a particular debater -- Objectivist or non-Objectivist -- follow objective rules of etiquette in debate? That is the issue in selecting debaters and moderating their debate.

Second, are you saying that everyone who disagrees with Objectivism is "irrational"? If that is what you are saying, would you please present an argument in favor of your position?

As for what benefits might be gained from polite, but radical debate, that question has already been answered in this thread. One example is a chance for Objectivists to practice debating, in general, and debating about specific tenets of Objectivism in particular. Another benefit of such a controlled debate is an opportunity to see conservative or liberal arguments presented in a coherent manner -- thus making them easier to dissect and thus easier to deal with in the future in other arenas.

[nimble]

I for one would like to see this. There have been many threads where I have wanted to argue a particular belief of mine, but have been restricted by the rules of the forum from advocating any belief that Ayn Rand did not specify as a tenet of Objectivism. I don't think that I would be rude in any of my arguments, and maybe if the argument were allowed to continue, I might actually be persuaded otherwise, or might point out a flaw in someone else's belief. I think this could be very beneficial. Plus I believe that Objectivism needs to be much more intellectually debatable in academics to ever encounter a large subscription to the Objectivist beliefs. If it is true that the truth always prevails in an argument, there should never be a reason not to debate, if you believe you are right in your belief system.

[HaloNoble6]

Well first let's stop talking about belief systems.

[nimble]

Well first let's stop talking about belief systems.

Huh?

[HaloNoble6]

Those who would be debating on the Objectivist side would not be debating on behalf of a belief system, but on behalf of a validated integrated system of truth.

[nimble]

I apologize, it was a genuine error to use that. I didn't realize that Objectivists had a different definition of knowledge. When I think of knowledge, I think of it as defined as "justified, true belief." Again I apologize.

*Please be aware that my area of expertise is economics, not epistemology. You will have to direct me to an Objectivist definition of knowledge sometime.

Edited July 25, 2005 by nimble

[HaloNoble6]

I wasn't angry or anything, no worries. Just wanted to clarify that.

[Inspector]

A debate is not a free-for-all; the moderator specifies the topic, designates the debater on each side, by name, and is ready to step in at any moment if either debater violates the rules of etiquette. I assume a thread can be closed to all other participants. Is that assumption correct? I don't know.

Burgess, I like the way you think. I have seen many a debate swerve out of control and off topic because of too many participants, and this kind of debate is especially vulnerable. I would assume, however, that moderator preview for posts would be sufficient, rather than closing the topic off entirely. People should be prepared to have their posts rejected on the basis of thread control, however, and not let their feelings be bruised...

[BurgessLau]

I have seen many a debate swerve out of control and off topic because of too many participants, and this kind of debate is especially vulnerable. I would assume, however, that moderator preview for posts would be sufficient, rather than closing the topic off entirely.

Could you elaborate? Are you saying the situation would be the following?

1. The OO moderator invites one debater -- such as Nimble or someone from the Democratic Underground, for example -- to speak for the other side, the non-Objectivist side, on a mutually agreeable, formally specified topic and under explicit rules of debate (e.g., stick to philosophy and eschew appeals to statistics or history).

2. The OO moderator for the thread previews each post from both sides, allowing an unlimited number of supposed Objectivists to post against Nimble or some other non-Objectivist standing alone.

If that is the situation you have in mind, then I disagree. A debate is one of the few situations in life where fairness (exactly equal treatment) is appropriate. The justification for being fair (whether in formal debates or in trials) is to serve greater ends. In the case of a debate, treating both sides fairly, that is, equally, allows the debate to focus on one issue at a time -- rather than the spectacle of one debater standing against potshots from many debaters on the other side.

[Myself]

A debate forum, while interesting could serve no practical purpose. To further explain...

- I have participated in formal debates and there are specific rules governing debate.

1. The debate is either a values debate or a policy debate ie. the debate focuses on the philosophical values behind the resolved topic, or the debate focuses on proposing new legislature or evaluating old ones which pertain to the resolution.

2. A debate can be in team format or solo, I assume this would be a team format. The format of a team Lincoln-Douglass debate would be as follows:

-1st affirmative Constructive

-Neg Cross-Ex

-1st negative Constructive

-aff. Cross Ex

-2nd affirmative Constructive

-Neg Cross-Ex

-2nd negative contructive

-Affirmative Cross-Ex

-Neg Rebuttal

-Aff. Rebuttal

In this format there are three debaters per team, one upholding the resolution, the other attacking it. In normal debate there are strict time limits in regards to each speech. In internet format, you would have to limit the number of words per speech. Each constructive speech has either 1 or 2 contentions, which are major arguments that they are proposing; the rest of the speech supports these contentions. The cross examinations allow a person to question the opposing contructive speaker to expose holes in their arguments. They have a strict time limit, but in this format you would have to limit the number of questions. The rebuttalist in the end will attempt to recover each side's case and why you should either uphold or oppose the resolution.

The reason that this sort of debate would be impractical on the internet is that you need a panel of impartial judges, not affiliated with either side to determine who won the debate. A debate without judges and a format is pointless. Either side can ramble on and on, and no winner can be conclusively determined.

Therefore: If you cannot find impartial judges who know how to judge debate standards or are willing to learn, or will not follow a strict format then debate is useless and counter-productive.

Edit: attempted to remove white space at bottom

Edited July 25, 2005 by Myself