I think your concern is valid. The solution, though, is simple.
Thank you, and I agree with the rest.
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.
I am intrigued by your purpose and how you think it would be possible to carry it out, given the problems I have illustrated. It is true that in society at large, there will be no such rules in place, and so a different approach is necessary to prepare new intellectuals for such debates.
If we can establish a system that allows for such training while still keeping everything under control, I think that would be valuable.
Perhaps we should not require agreement with genetically antecedent principles (other than the axioms), so that our new intellectuals can practice tracing the errors of their opponents “up the chain.” But I still maintain that once the debate reaches a disagreement on the fundamental axioms, that a moderator should step in, explain the axiom in question, make it clear that no further debate is possible, and close the thread.
Also, re: argument vs rational debate, yes I stand corrected. While argument is possible, a rational debate is not. We can make it the job of our new intellectuals, however, to do the tracing to the common ground or lack thereof, just as they will have to do out in the world!
I’m all for having a “debate forum” on this site.
By the way, there are plenty of interesting topics that Objectivists can debate on – it’s not necessary for us to bring in non-Objectivists to have an interesting argument.
I have radical views on a variety of issues – I’m sure I could find many non-trivial topics to debate other members on, and I’m sure that many others could as well.
I did Lincoln Douglas debate for three years myself, but that format is not suited for the web. A simple statement-response-statement format with a reply-limit of 24 hours and a maximum of about three responses per side (with optional extension) would suffice. To make it interesting, we could allow short posts from the members at large to comment on each rebuttal.
Instead of a judge, there would be a moderator, whose only function would be to make sure that debate and forum rules are observed.
So, when might this happen? Also, for the person who said that Objectivism holds knowledge to be a form of awareness rather than a form of belief–I liked that idea, although you left it very vague. Could you please point me toward an Objectivist definition of knowledge. I know Rand probably defined it in some essay somewhere. And, if she didn’t that would just be weird. Maybe Peikoff gave a definition.
To answer your quetions on the concept of ‘knowledge’ refer to this book:
Initially I had questions as to the value to be gained from a debate forum. However, to allow those who have a more aggressive attitude (i.e. the poster “mperkel”) in their questions about Objectivism to have their voice heard would ultimately bring in people who would otherwise be turned away because of the policy on debate in this forum.
I am supporting this idea and would be glad to help in any way I can. Please PM me if their is something I can do.
Could you please point me toward an Objectivist definition of knowledge. I know Rand probably defined it in some essay somewhere.
All you need to do, Nimble, is open your copy of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, to p. 35, and read the second full paragraph.
I’m all for having a “debate forum” on this site.
By the way, there are plenty of interesting topics that Objectivists can debate on – it’s not necessary for us to bring in non-Objectivists to have an interesting argument.
[bold added for emphasis.]
We could stage debates between Objectivists in this forum and non-Objectivists already in this forum, who now are prohibited (rightly) from arguing for their non-Objectivist positions. (Post 17 in this thread is evidence – in a convoluted sort of way – of their presence in OO.net.)
Another possibility that would meet the purpose of the debate forum – to train intellectual activists through participating in or observing debates with non-Objectivists – is to have an Objectivist volunteer to be a Devil’s Advocate. BTW, being a DA is the ultimate test for whether one understands the other side’s arguments.
We could stage debates between Objectivists in this forum and non-Objectivists already in this forum, who now are prohibited (rightly) from arguing for their non-Objectivist positions. (Post 17 in this thread is evidence – in a convoluted sort of way – of their presence in OO.net.)
I’m not following. If the non-Objectivist positions being supported are the same, then why should previous registration with the forums be a requirement? It is their registration date- not the position being argued- that should be the standard in determining acceptance?
I’m not following. If the non-Objectivist positions being supported are the same, then why should previous registration with the forums be a requirement? It is their registration date- not the position being argued- that should be the standard in determining acceptance?
Perhaps we are having a miscommunication. I am puzzled by your questions.
Who said anything about previous registration or the date of registration?
The point I made was that of course we don’t need to go outside this forum to find non-Objectivists for a debate between Objectivists and non-Objectivists. Non-Objectivists already are present in the overall forum but cannot (or should not) now openly advocate for their non-Objectivist positions.
Setting up a special subforum would give them one place in OO.net to do so without penalty. More importantly (I don’t care about non-Objectivists), Objectivists in this forum will have an opportunity to debate – or observe a debate with – non-Objectivists under moderated conditions.
I have radical views on a variety of issues – I’m sure I could find many non-trivial topics to debate other members on, and I’m sure that many others could as well.
Enough talk! :lol: Go for it, David!
Can you please explain what this means;
“…with a reply-limit of 24 hours and a maximum of three responses per side.”
Edit:
Also, I’m not sure how this forum allows for any debating that could not just as equally be had in a previously-exisiting forum. You state that the purpose of the new forum “is to allow debaters holding two opposing positions to take each other on. Debaters can choose from among several debate formats, some of which permit other members to contribute to the debate. There will be no judges in a debate, but the debate parameters and forum rules will be strictly enforced by a moderator, and violation of the rules is grounds for termination of the debate”- all of which was already acceptable in the other forums. If this is the case, then the new forum is useless. It doesn’t offer a new category. My idea was to create a forum that would make permissible something that was previously prohibited, and therefore cannot be categorized by any of the existing forums. If arguing for explicitly non-Objectivist positions is acceptable in this new forum, then perhaps you’ll want to mention that in the OO.net board rules.
I agree with Cole.
Is it permissible to argue from non-Objectivist positions?
From the looks of things, it’s shaping up to be the least popular forum on the board. I think this clearly confirms the problem I pointed out in my last response.
I’d like to now re-introduce my idea of an Arguments Against Objectivism forum in hopes that it will be implemented.
From the looks of things, it’s shaping up to be the least popular forum on the board. I think this clearly confirms the problem I pointed out in my last response.
In the first place, should popularity be the criterion for adding a forum? I don’t see why.
In the second place, what evidence (“the looks of things”) do you have that the proposed forum, whose format and rules have not even been defined, will be the least popular of all the forums on OO.net?
In the third place, I can’ find, in your preceding post, any serious objection to having one place in OO.net where non-Objectivists can debate without penalty. Or are you advocating that non-Objectivists should be able to infest all the forums? Your position is unclear to me. Could you explain?
Is it permissible to argue from non-Objectivist positions?
Do you mean now? I can’t speak for the admins and moderators, but I can refer you to the present Forum Rules. Have you studied them? My interpretation is that advocating non-Objectivist positions – that is, tenets of philosophies other than Objectivism – is prohibited by the Forum Rules (the last time I read them). You can now ask questions about Objectivism, but not use OO.net resources to advance other philosophies.
In the proposed new forum, you would not only be permitted to argue from your own philosophy, Nimble, but you would be encouraged to do so. Do you object to that? If so, why?
I’d like to now re-introduce my idea of an Arguments Against Objectivism forum in hopes that it will be implemented.
Are you saying you will re-introduce your idea? If so, when? Or are you reminding your readers that you have already presented it – somewhere – and it should be reconsidered? If the latter, where is it? If you give a specific reference – either a link or the title of the thread and post number – your proposal will be easier to find. I am very interested in reading (or rereading?) your proposal, assuming it addresses the key issues of focus, etiquette, and limiting non-Objectivists to specific threads under close moderation.
In the first place, should popularity be the criterion for adding a forum? I don’t see why.
No. The ability to supply a demand should be a criteria in adding a forum- which is evidenced in the popularity of the forum after it is created. When the new forum does not permit or categorize anything that was not previously permitted or categorized, then it makes since that the forum would be very unpopular.
In the second place, what evidence (“the looks of things”) do you have that the proposed forum, whose format and rules have not even been defined, will be the least popular of all the forums on OO.net?
I was referring to “Debate Forums” as it currently exists- I was not referring to any propositions. I was not predicting the future. I was commenting on its actual state. The evidence that it is the least popular forum is that it has zero replies.
In the third place, I can’ find, in your preceding post, any serious objection to having one place in OO.net where non-Objectivists can debate without penalty. Or are you advocating that non-Objectivists should be able to infest all the forums?
If you can’t find where I object to an idea, then on what basis do you believe that I do object to the idea? Why would you imply a conclusion in which you yourself admitted there was no evidence in support of? What lead you to think that I advocate allowing non-Objectivists to post anywhere on OO.net? Quite to the contrary, I made this thread to propose the idea of a specific subform for “Arguments Against Objectivism.” How you could see this and gather that I oppose a specific subforum, and instead support the idea of non-Objectivist arguments being posted anywhere on OO.net, is beyond me.