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.
I wasn’t angry or anything, no worries. Just wanted to clarify that.
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…
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?
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).
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.
A debate forum, while interesting could serve no practical purpose. To further explain…
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.
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
Who said we would follow the rules of formal debating ala Lincoln-Douglass?
Then what rules are you following? Do you have judges? A debate without format will soon lapse into unconstructive bickering.
Could you elaborate? Are you saying the situation would be the following? …
Yes, your description is accurate to what I was thinking, only with an important oversight: it would be the job of the moderator to ensure that the debate did not deteriorate into a series of “pot shots.” Posters would only be allowed to make original points, and not redundant ones. The moderator will also have to judge posts for quality and only allow those that properly represent OO.net.
This is, I submit, in fact fair because the threads will be initiated by a single opponent of Objectivism… and it is therefore the responsibility of that opponent to defend his or her own critique. I suppose that a multi-authored critique could allow for multiple defenders, but this would be an exception, and not the rule.
I’d like to see your thoughts on this, Burgess.
I think we’re trying to flesh out the rules here, Myself. No one’s saying we wouldn’t have a format. But you called an internet debate pointless based on the presumption that we sould follow the format you just argued against.
Then what rules are you following? Do you have judges? A debate without format will soon lapse into unconstructive bickering.
It is not a “format” which prevents a debate from lapsing into bickering, but rather an effective moderation with post previews and rules of conduct. It is also essential to limit the scope of the debate to a single or a very small collection of arguments. The debate would continue indefinitely unless or until the author of the critique has been proven to contradict him or herself.
Additionally, if the author has been shown to contradict himself, he must formally withdraw his argument or else be banned from further posting (in ANY part of OO.net) on the grounds of being an open irrationalist.
Hm, that gives me an idea: I wonder if it would be necessary that any person who makes a political point must first agree that he accepts the Objectivist position on Metaphysics and Epistemology, so as not to “put the cart before the horse.” (the idea being that if they do NOT agree with Objectivist Metaphysics of Epistemology, they should debate THAT point first before attempting a political debate)
What do you think of creating a subforum for non-Objectivists to present civil arguments against certain aspects of Objectivism?
I think it’s an interesting idea.
However, if we impose all of the constraints I’ve read here so far – namely, adherence to the axioms, remaining civil, staying on topic, remaining philosophic/eschewing statistics and equal treatment for all participants – I don’t think you will get many non-Objectivists to participate, at least not for long.
How many people at the organizations Felipe mentioned – Democratic Underground, The New Republic, People in Action – would even agree to the axioms?
In my experience with both leftists and conservatives, their argumentative techniques consist largely of evading such constraints. They deny the possibility of axioms (“no one can know anything for certain”), dispense with civility (argument from intimidation, ad hominem, smears, straw men, etc.), change the subject ( conflate all sorts of things), and remain stubbornly concrete-bound (“that might work in theory but not in reality”).
[…] it would be the job of the moderator to ensure that the debate did not deteriorate into a series of “pot shots.” Posters would only be allowed to make original points, and not redundant ones. The moderator will also have to judge posts for quality […]
You must be assuming moderator preview as a gate through which every debater must pass a post. You mentioned preview before, and now I see what you mean. With or without prereview responsibilities, the moderator will be very busy. Passing judgment on a post’s originality and “quality” is very time-consuming.
Are you envisioning something like the following? – On Monday the thread opens with Nimble’s first post on the philosophical topic he has selected (say, “We need to strike a balance between egoism and altruism.”). Perhaps later that same day, the designated moderator reviews and accepts his post. It appears in the visible thread, for everyone to read. On Tuesday, the moderator examines the list of responding posts from supposed Objectivists in OO. There are 24 posts waiting in the queue. He reads and evaluates all of them, over a three or four hour period, rejecting 21, and letting three pass through into the visible thread. That same day or perhaps on Wednesday, Nimble responds to the three posts. And so forth.
[…]and only allow those that properly represent OO.net.
Why do you say “represent OO.net” rather than “Objectivism”? My observation leads me to infer that many members of the OO forum are not Objectivists, either through conviction or, becaue they are new to Objectivism, through ignorance of Objectivism’s basic principles.
I think it’s an interesting idea.
However, if we impose all of the constraints I’ve read here so far – namely, adherence to the axioms, remaining civil, staying on topic, remaining philosophic/eschewing statistics and equal treatment for all participants – I don’t think you will get many non-Objectivists to participate, at least not for long.
My response to this likely scenario is “so what?” 
If nobody is willing to debate on those terms, then no debate SHOULD take place. Argument HAS to be based on reference to ideas commonly held by both sides. Without that, argument is logically impossible.
If nobody is willing to debate on those terms, then so be it. I would be satisfied with that result.
Are you envisioning something like the following? –
Yes. And I agree with your assessment that it will be VERY time consuming. If someone wants this to happen, he or she will have to volunteer a good deal of his or her time to make it happen properly.
Why do you say “represent OO.net” rather than “Objectivism”? My observation leads me to infer that many members of the OO forum are not Objectivists, either through conviction or, becaue they are new to Objectivism, through ignorance of Objectivism’s basic principles.
I wondered whether anyone would catch that! I meant simply not to presume that we speak for Objectivism, as such. (because as I understand it we cannot do so, as Objectivism is the closed system of philosophy created by Ayn Rand. Do please correct me if I am wrong.)
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.
Objectivism rejects “justified, true belief” as a definition of knowledge. Knowledge is not a species of belief; in my view, it is a species of “awareness.”
My response to this likely scenario is “so what?”
If nobody is willing to debate on those terms, then no debate SHOULD take place. Argument HAS to be based on reference to ideas commonly held by both sides. Without that, argument is logically impossible.
Oh, I quite agree. I am merely pointing out that the first debate that will take place will be over the constraints themselves – and I am predicting it won’t get past that point.
However, it will not hurt to ask the other parties.
If nobody is willing to debate on those terms, then so be it. I would be satisfied with that result.
My first response to your statement was: But how does that help us achieve our purposes? I specified my purposes earlier: Benefit Objectivists in OO by (1) giving them a chance to practice debating; and (2) show Objectivists here the enormous variety of arguments (and rhetorical tricks) that non-Objectivists use. The idea that integrates these two purposes is to provide training for intellectual activists.
I sense now that you see some other purpose for having a debate (if someone meets all of your qualifications – which I think would be impossible). If so, what is it?
One idea that should never be a purpose of such a debate is the hope that it will “change the mind” of the non-Objectivist debater. That hope, as you know, is almost always vain.
I suggest that, before deciding any other issue here, OO moderators involved must decide what the purpose(s) of the debate is. Purpose sets context. Everything else flows from that – format, rules, topics, and so forth. So, let’s discuss the issue of purpose(s) first and then let Felipe decide (if he hasn’t already).
I meant simply not to presume that we speak for Objectivism, as such. (because as I understand it we cannot do so, as Objectivism is the closed system of philosophy created by Ayn Rand. Do please correct me if I am wrong.)
I think your concern is valid. The solution, though, is simple. The debate rules (which I think should be a separate section of the existing Forum Rules) would state that the speaker for the Objectivist side is not speaking for Objectivism – only Ayn Rand could have done that, and now we have only her published writings – but for his own understanding of it.
Yes, Objectivism – as the philosophy which Ayn Rand created – is a closed system. Kantianism (“the critical philosophy,” I suppose he would call it) is likewise a closed system.
Argument HAS to be based on reference to ideas commonly held by both sides. Without that, argument is logically impossible.
If “argument” here means “debate,” then I disagree. True, for a debate to reach resolution – or even merely address the same points! – the debaters must be working from the same context (that is, basic, context-setting principles).
However, as a social event, debate can take place even between the most disparate (though still sane) opponents. For example, the phrase “reason/faith debate” names a valid idea in the sense of a socio-intellectual event. Of course agreement or other resolution is impossible if the debaters are radicals – say Kierkegaard vs. Rand.
This approach – seeing a debate here as a socio-intellectual event – ties in with my purpose for such a debate in OO – as training for intellectual activists planning to carry their ideas into society at large. Whether others here share that purpose remains to be seen.
My first response to your statement was: But how does that help us achieve our purposes? I specified my purposes earlier: Benefit Objectivists in OO by (1) giving them a chance to practice debating; and (2) show Objectivists here the enormous variety of arguments (and rhetorical tricks) that non-Objectivists use. The idea that integrates these two purposes is to provide training for intellectual activists.
Once again, you have honed in on an important point. I have reached my position through my experience as an administrator of a forum with a similar subforum, and I put those rules forward as a means to avoid the problems and “dirty tricks” and overall disintegration that I have seen takes place in such a subforum.
Interestingly enough, as you point out, though it was not my intention to do so, I have arrived at a point where people would not be able to 1) practice debating (because not much debate would take place, and the debate would be already mostly won by the rules) or 2) Observe the variety of arguments and tricks that non-Objectivists use. (because such tricks would be forbidden)
I do think that my ideas for the subforum would provide a different, and also valuable purpose. Perhaps even a more valuable one: that of showing that the arguments of non-Objectivists rely on “rhetorical tricks” and cannot stand up to a scrupulous environment. It would show that they CANNOT argue on rational terms.
I submit that to argue with non-Objectivists (by which I mean the ones that would not accept the terms I set forth) on their own terms is to surrender the debate to them at the very beginning. Even if my terms were not in place, every debate would end the same way: we would trace the critiquer back to those premises, which he would disagree with, and the moderator would have to conclude that since the parties disagreed on basic Axioms, that no debate was possible.
The idea that it is necessary, productive, or proper to debate with people without first establishing a common ground on which both parties agree is, I think, a flawed one.
I guess that I just wanted to nip that one in the bud and set the rules out at the beginning.