philosopher Posted May 4, 2011 Report Share Posted May 4, 2011 Allison was not eager to talk about morality, and they went into discussions about what "works" and "doesn't work" for some undefined goal. I hate it when they do that. The opponent needs to immediately ask "Works to achieve *what*?" and then go back to asking if that thing is moral. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASUK Posted May 5, 2011 Report Share Posted May 5, 2011 Watching Allison 'debate' the demos fool (if thats what it can be called) was like watching a train-wreck in slow motion. Difficult to watch but even more difficult to look away. The subject of the debate was not even debated, instead Aliison seemed to accept the pragmatists premise and a 'discussion' on statistic ensued. When Allison said he would 'prefer' the 'Fair Tax' when the subjected of taxation was brought up, I had to switch off. He might be good at lecturing but I have no idea whatsoever what he was doing on stage, debating the demos weasel, behind a placard of ARC. Didn't the ARI even check Allisons knowledge before allowing him to go on stage like that!? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.