Open Debate Society

Muslim Terrorist? Really?

2011-09-18T15:14:00.002+01:00

Again on the news, I've seen some more terrorist crap about all terrorists being muslim, muslims are evil, islam terrorists, Libyan terrorists take control, bla bla bla. I think enough is enough, and we should just stop this insanity.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/terrorism-in-europe/

There! Proof that islam isn't a threat on the terrorist front, there are so many bigger issues that we should deal with. The islam invasion of Europe argument is just so ridiculous it should be ignored, and the crime by islams is just plain idiocy.

Oh dear, the absolutists are back...

2011-09-16T19:27:00.005+01:00

Heathen!

That's my word of today, I like it now. It is a great word to throw at people who disagree with you. But now, I am going to shout at people for beleiving in moral absolutism. There is a good reason for this; I've lost interest in keeping myself unbias. But instead, I will sign my bias material with "Devex3" and specifically, rebut other people's statements. Specifically, it is one to this link: http://swordofthespirituk.wordpress.com/2011/09/16/it-seems-absolutism-is-infectious/. I don't really think I should promote others, so I will quote what they said and specifically rebut what they said.

I shall go over why cultural relativism is correct, and moral absolutism is false, and a poor moral standard to live by.

We live in a rapidly changing world society, which is increasingly bringing people of various cultures in closer interaction with each other. This interaction can be positive or negative depending on the level of sensitivity and respect people have for other cultural groups. These two types of behaviors are related to the two important concepts examined in this presentation— ethnocentrism and cultural relativism. Negative attitudes towards other cultures and/or ethnic groups arise out of ethnocentrism, while positive attitudes are the result of a culturally relativist approach. If people are going to be successful in today's multicultural, information age, world society, they will need to develop a culturally sensitive frame of reference and mode of operation. It is the purpose of this presentation to help people move from an ethnocentric, exclusive mindset to a culturally sensitive modus operandi, by clarifying what is meant by ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, how each operates, and what are the steps that move a person from one perspective to the other. One of the most controversial challenges to the study of social ethics comes from a methodological approach of the social sciences called, cultural relativism. “Cultural relativism is in essence an approach to the question of the nature and role of values in culture”, says Hersovits.

Thus, we can't go around passing judgment on what other people do. For, “if all morality is relative, then what moral objection could one make to the Nazi holocaust, to the economic deprivation of a Latin American underclass, or to a militaristic nation's unleashing nuclear devastation on others? And what would be wrong with conducting painful experiments on young children, using them for case studies on the long-term psychological effects of mutilation? In a world where no moral court of appeals exists, might makes right. The only appeal can be to power”, says Holmes. I think now I'll stop quoting, and start actually arguing my point.

The concept of culture, like any other piece of knowledge, can be abused and misinterpreted. Some fear that the principle of cultural relativity will weaken morality. “If the Bugabuga do it why can't we? It's all relative anyway." But this is exactly what cultural relativity does not mean. The principle of cultural relativity does not mean that because the members of some savage tribe are allowed to behave in a certain way that this fact gives intellectual Cultural

warrant for such behavior in all groups. Cultural relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive or negative custom must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits with other group habits. Having several wives makes economic sense among herders, not among hunters. While breeding a healthy skepticism as to the eternity of any value prized by a particular people, anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. If all surviving societies have found it necessary to impose some of the same restrictions upon the behavior of their members, this makes a strong argument that these aspects of the moral code are indispensable. Part of the problem has to do with ethnocentrism, the polar opposite of cultural relativism. Both concepts, ethnocentrism and cultural relativism, can be placed as polar ends of a continuum, each reflecting a different approach, either as exclusive or inclusive; a different mindset either closed or open to differences, and an attitude and behavior that is either insensitive or sensitive to another culture.

Vincent Ruggiero tells us that "just as it is natural for us to read the behaviour of others in terms of our own standards, so it is natural to view actions in other cultures from the codes of our own standards, so it is natural to view actions in other cultures from the codes of our culture. What seems fair to us we assume is fair to them; and when we see an action we regard as of their code may reveal that they have not only not been violating it, but in fact observing it”

How can one eliminate ethnocentrism? Vincent Ruggiero suggests three important steps to take which will enable us “to penetrate deception of appearance.”

1. “Study the cultural context in which the action occurs.”

2. “Determine the circumstances of time, place, and condition surrounding it.”

3. “Learn the reasoning that underlies it and the moral value it reflects.”

At the heart of these three steps lies the importance of learning to “take the role of the other,” the ability to see things, especially that with which we are not familiar, from the perspective of the other before any consideration of judgment is considered.

Understanding this difference of approach can help us to grasp the importance of cultural relativism and where ethicists have misunderstood its positive contributions. What is cultural relativism? It is the idea that each culture or ethnic group is to be evaluated on the basis of its own values and norms of behavior and not on the basis of those of another culture or ethnic group. The basic principle out of which cultural relativism emerges is a simple one: “Judgments are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his or her own enculturation”

I shall leave with this quote about the topic.

“physician is expected to treat patients he dislikes or whom she believes are a social menace with the same care with which she or he treats their other patients. A judge, in her role of citizen, vigorously condemns a defendant, but, in her role of judge, discharges the culprit. This is not regarded as inconsistent or schizoid behavior. An actor wins applause for the

excellence of his enactment of the villain's role, not because of his personal approval or disapproval of the character portrayed. The latter question is recognized as a separate matter, of relevance in other contexts. Exactly the same is true of the scientist. He or she has performed their full function as scientist when they have clearly depicted the consequences of a proposed type of behavior—for example, when they have accurately predicted an explosion. Their applause or abhorrence of the explosion is not part of their scientific conclusion or function”

When you know you're arguing semantics

2011-09-02T04:07:00.001+01:00

[written by chronomax who writes here]

You've probably heard it before: arguing from semantics. If you don't know what that means (semantics, that is), it's essentially the definition and meaning of a word. So what's wrong about arguing semantics? Well, the whole point that you're not really arguing.

To argue or debate is to take a stance on a subject logically- empirically. I'm not really the best at talking on the differences between reason, logic, empiricism, etc. but basically it's this: arguing that freedom should be more valued than safety means that the reasons why are fixated. If you can show empirically that the death penalty is morally right, it means that logic leads to that conclusion. However, semantics doesn't do that. Semantics doesn't care about any of that, but it does matter about words.

Words are merely a way for me to pass one idea to you. We do so by symbols called letters and sounds called phonetics. They are then defined and given meaning so that grouped together, it better explains what you want to convey. However, the problem is that there is no objective definition- there are dozens of meanings for the word "set" and words are different from Oxford to Webster. So a lot of the times, we can use a word like a variable.

Urlyp means that I feel sad. For now on, you can relate the emotion of sadness to Urlyp. That's very important when you argue semantics.

Today, second day of school for me, I had a round about forty-minute open argument on using love and hate in literature. The teacher argued that you can't love something that can't convey the same emotion towards you, while me and another person said otherwise. There's a lot I can't talk about just because of how much we went in to depth (the discussion on society with "Lord of the Flies" was awesome). Here's one of my arguments that I came up with probably because I was constantly referencing and making allegories to science while I lugged a college textbook around.

You can love a human
Humans love
You can love a dog
Dogs love
You can't love a mosquito
Mosquitoes can't love

It take an advanced brain to love
Love is reliant on the brain
The brain is reliant on neurons, chemicals, and electricity

Love is quantifiable
Love is reliant upon only one person

Love does not require another person

You can love as long as you have an advanced brain

Yeah. Said all of that right in class. It was lovely.

The problem here is that she said that it wouldn't be love. Simple as that, and that's where the problem is. She wasn't arguing about love and I wasn't arguing about love. The teacher was saying that you can't feel [an emotion related to extreme liking with another sentient being] with another sentient being. I was saying that you could feel [an extreme liking conveyed from a sentient being] without another sentient being. Substitute what's in the brackets- our definitions- with the word love, and you understand why we weren't arguing about love.

We were arguing semantics, and arguing semantics is not debate.

Arguing the Negative

2011-08-28T23:23:00.002+01:00

I am going to do a quick, short post about arguing from the negative. It's not hard, it's not easy, but if you know what you're doing, you'll do just fine. There are 4 things you need to hit upon (unless you're doing a different debating style to the norm, which isn't bad, just unorthodox, and not done by myself), and if you do any of them well enough, then you'll win the debate.

The negative has the burden of rejoinder. This means that the Negative must point out the weakness of the Affirmative's analysis; whether it is faulty, incomplete, or just contrary to true facts. In order to win, the Negative must successfully clash with at least one affirmative argument. If the Negative fails to clash with at least one, it allows the affirmative to go unchallenged, presenting them with a prima facie case, the judge has no option but to vote for the affirmative.

The Negative have a burden of proof on whatever they assert to be true. This means they are in the position of the affirmative to support their reasoning. This isn't the burden of proof, which is the burden to present a prima facie case, but the burden to support their reasoning with expert opinion or equally convincing proof.

Third, the Negative desires to steal the offensive from the Affirmative. This is a principle of debating. The Affirmative gains a great advantage from speaking first in the debate; the First Negative speech is basically defensive. The Negative should adopt tactics to put pressure on the Affirmative analysis, rather than meekly to defend. This is the difference between an offensive and defensive argument, which is basically the difference between winning and losing.

Finally, the Negative desires to open up more issues in the debate. Again, this is a principle of debating. The Affirmative wants to focus debate on the necessary change, or active action. The Negative wants to introduce arguments that diminish the need, obliterate the inherency, and prove disastrous side-effects that may range far beyond the resolution.

Who has the burden?

2011-08-26T18:24:00.005+01:00

Here's something that happened again to me today; I was told that I have the burden of proof to say how UFOs aren't real. I tried to explain in the Q&A session how I did not have a burden of proof, yet the opposition kept trying to make the point. Of course, the judges picked up on this, and gave me the round. Huzzah. But these kinds of things are becoming all too common. So, I will try and explain how the burden of proof and the burden of rejoinder works.

The burden of proof is on whoever is asserting a claim. The claim must be active. For example, the claim that England should have a constitution is an active claim, while the opposition would be making a passive claim. If the opposition is not asserting that we should remove a constitution, for example, they are making an active claim, but claiming that their opposition is wrong is a completely passive statement. Mathematically:

The motion affirmer states : "X (agent) should do Y (action)"

The motion negater states: "X (agent) should not do Y (action)"

The negater of the motion has what is known as the burden of rejoinder. This means they must prove that the motion's affirmer is incorrect. There are multiple ways of doing this, and I shall show them in the next post to come.

Absence of evidence, god, and burden of proof

2011-08-24T07:03:00.000+01:00

[written by chronomax who writes here]

There's a common saying: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". While yes, it sounds snappy and has the backwards thing going on, but science doesn't give a shit about proverbs and idioms.

I don't know why this isn't obvious, but absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. See, a lot of believers in a god say that we don't need to have physical evidence to know that a god exists- which is true. We don't have physical evidence of a black hole existing, but the theoretical evidence is so compelling that it's foolish to say that they don't exist. But we don't have any definite theoretical evidence for a god, and the whole concept of a personal god shows that there should be physical evidence.

If I claim that a terrapin in my backyard built your house and communicates with you, you would immediately call me crazy. We have an explanation for who built your house, you don't communicate with a turtle, and you've never seen me buy any food or items for said amphibian. Now you would say that since I am claiming all of these things, I need to give you evidence- "But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." That's nonsense. I can't claim things and say that I don't have evidence, but that doesn't matter. If you don't get it by the way, the terrapin is god, the builder of the house is the Big Bang, and you're a sane person. After all, I made a claim, I need to have the evidence.

This isn't always used for a god however, but is usually used with spiritual claims or "exotic" things: reincarnation, conspiracies, etc. But besides stating the obvious fact that burden of proof is on the man making the claim, I think I can prove this with the scientific method.

Question, research, hypothesis, experiment, analyze, conclude. 'Tis the thing that makes the world go 'round- well, that shows that the world rotates on an axis and orbits the sun. In a regular example, there is no problem with burden of proof and evidence. However, if I make an outrageous claim and don't provide evidence...

Does a personal god, interested in the human race, exist?
Personal things communicate with what they're personal with. An all powerful and omniscient being also would have the ability to communicate at any time. Said god also has communicated with the human race before.
We should see signs of current, if not, past, events where a god communicated with humanity.
...
A god exists.

Yeah... doesn't really work does it? Without an experiment to draw conclusions from and analyze, we reach an illogical conclusion. Nonetheless though, the burden of proof will always be on the person stating a positive claim so I didn't even need to make that model. I wouldn't ask you to give me arguments for why my terrapin doesn't exist, and you shouldn't take any bullshit from a creationist saying that atheist has to give evidence.

Fallout London Chapter 2, a fallout fanfic - FanFiction.Net

2011-08-23T21:20:00.000+01:00

Fallout London Chapter 2, a fallout fanfic - FanFiction.Net

My story fanfic of Fallout. I'd like everyone to go on it and comment ;)

Objective, Relative, Subjective.

2011-08-23T17:56:00.002+01:00

I thought I'd do a segment on Objectivity, Subjectivity and relativity. It annoys me when people get confused between the three of them. This also comes up a lot when one debates morality, and therefore I am going to try and clean up the talk about these three words, before somebody makes another mistake about them.

Firstly, there is objectivism, objective values, or objective whatever. Objectivism is where the scenario does not affect what one should do. Also means not considering opinion or circumstance when considering and representing facts. For example, I believe that it is objectively wrong to use capital punishment.

Then, there is subjectivism, moral subjectivity, or subjective whatever. Subjectivism is where the circumstance is extremely important, the context, the who what where when why and how. For example, I believe that it is wrong to shoot someone, however, I do it when I am playing airsoft (because it doesn't kill or maim) or I'd do it in self-defense.

Finally, there is relativism, moral relativity, or relative whatever. Relativism is where it varies from person to person. This does not mean the "who", as in the article of the action being done to, but who is doing it, and who is judging whether it is acceptable or not. For example, I deem it objectively wrong to use capital punishment, while Vick may find it acceptable on multiple homicide scenarios.

If you haven't noticed, this means something objective can be relative, and something subjective can be relative, they do not contradict. However, something relative cannot be objective, that is axiomatically false. You cannot be always right, depending on the context.

So, I hope that explains it.

Correlation can equal Causation

2011-08-22T19:09:00.003+01:00

Now, I am going to talk about correlation and causation. Correlation does not mean causation is a common argument used in the face of evidence that is either incredibly flimsy, or incredibly strong. When evidence is incredibly flimsy, it criticises the conclusion. When an opponent brings up this statement (although usually not the exact line in high level debates), you have an easy statement to make. It is a quick rebuttal of "correlation does not equal causation" usually is a huge opening. I hope to help people exploit this gap.

OK, the first thing is incredibly simple: How to determine where correlation = causation. You must firstly be able to cross-reference the citation and give conclusive proof that there is only 2 variables that are..well...varying. You need 1 independent variable that you control to affect the dependent variable.

So, if there is a study where there are multiple variables, and it claims to be one of them specifically, it can be disregarded. However, if there are multiple studies, where only 1 variable is constantly changed, and the rest are controlled, then it can make an accurate conclusion. An example:

If 1 study on whether allowing weapons to be legal correlates to a large murder rate, showing difference between London and LA, and saying that the legal guns is the cause of the murder rate, would be invalid.

If there was a comparison the same as this, but done with a hundred cities between America and Britain, then it would be a stronger conclusion, but still invalid to make the claim it is solely legal guns (claims could be made about culture).

If there were many countries doing comparisons of towns against other countries, including many (at least 3) countries from both sides, then the conclusion will be valid (unless there is a more accurate conclusion. For example, comparing Paris, Venice and London with Tripoli, Zawiya, and somewhere else, would be invalid as there is a civil war going on).

I hope this clears up when correlation can equal causation. Remember it does not always mean it does, but it does many times. As usual, peer reviewed journals or studies are the best source for the information.

Debating the morality of a deity, and degradation.

2011-08-18T11:38:00.006+01:00

Debating the morality of a deity is surprisingly easy. I have decided to do a quick inert about how to disprove an argument that uses the idea that the deity is moral.

There is a single key argument I shall try to rebut before it becomes apparent in a debate, and the opponent can articulate it: God being moral as he is God, and he "sets the rules". The first thing to bring up is Euthrypro's dilemma. Does God command the good because it is good, or is it good because it is commanded by God?

Very simple topic, but hard to disprove, unless you know of the debate format of a disadvantage. A disadvantage means that your position is inarguable by the definitions the opposition has set out -- your opponent's position is axiomatic. If your opponent is arguing God is good because he is God, then rebut with this:

"If God's actions are good because they are God's actions, then you've set up an impossible standard. This means good is whatever God does. So you wish for me to disprove that God's actions are God's actions. This is axiomatic. The argument is inarguable, and unjustified. Therefore, the only correct position left is that good exists and is not subject to God's will."

Now, this is useless in an informal debate, but in a formal or marked debate, it is a great point to make -- as a judge of debating, I can tell this is a degradation. This is an inarguable position, as the opponent cannot justify a definition which has no value except stifling thought. If you wish to take it further, then you can bring up the God Complex, and the idea that someone knowing everything, including morality, and bring up Plato's analogy of the statesman and the politician, (that the politician who lies and cheats will make himself similar to you while the statesman who knows more will have differing opinions but can justify them), to continue that train of thought informally. However, just showing it is a degradation in a real debate is perfectly applicable.

IQ (and YouTube drama)

2011-08-17T21:18:00.002+01:00

[written by chronomax who writes here]

A lot of the time, people measure "intelligence", "smart", and "knowledge" on something called an Intelligence Quotient, commonly initialed as IQ. It's a number where one-hundred is the average and any number above it is "brighter", while lower numbers are "stupid". However, while an average IQ by definition is one-hundred, there is, to my knowledge, no comity that creates a world-wide or even nation-wide census where people are tested, so for all we know an IQ that is 110 could be relatively low. After that quick refute, I'm going to explain how these test prove nothing in relation to intelligence and a certain YouTube video and theskepticalheretic's response.

Let me first say that I have had an official IQ test- I'm not arguing about internet quizzes that promise an IQ but by an actual psychologist giving standardized tests. Also, I would like to say that I don't have any kind of grudge: in fact, I scored a one-twenty-five which allowed me into the Gifted program and can allow me into Mensa.

Simply put, and sorry if I use this argument a lot, but IQ tests don't mean anything without defining the "I". Unless we have a stable definition of Intelligence then we're playing an opinion game. I am not one of the people who will say that the mentally challenged kid or the flunking student who plays football are completely, 100% equal. My philosophy is that yes, some people are better at some things, some people know more than others. However, finding out how much you know is extremely hard: in fact, I play around with the idea of brains using electricity to communicate and disks that, like magnetism, can read the electrical pathways.

You also have to determine whether knowledge is inherently equal. Einstein, perceived as the smartest man to ever live, knew how to design a part of the atomic bomb. Would you say that is equivalent to knowing who invented basketball? While it's ridiculous to define, objectively, what knowledge is, it's even more ridiculous to think that there's a system of units like 1 ! or 1 kilo ! because, well, it's subjective.

There are a multitude of IQ tests, but the one I took was a combination of tests in varying things. Reading and mathematics were tested, while the more interesting precognitive tests were also included (believe me, I have a lot that I can argue about with school systems favouring reading and math). These recognition tests were sometimes rotary and mechanical like assembling blocks to form a pattern. There also included a part testing processing speed (I'm proud to be part robot- 99 percentile) where you looked at a key of symbols, then translated them according to a test- it's hard to explain without showing you.

I don't disagree with processing speed because that seems to be definable. Things like pattern recognition is also off: I can say that the odd one out of a group of, say, a cat, the sun, and a rock is the rock because it doesn't contain hydrogen, oxygen, and carbon, but the test might say that it's the sun because it doesn't exist on Earth. I especially can't say that reading and math are objective either for "intelligence",

Really, IQ shouldn't matter. Standardized tests including multiple portions of your brain would better be suited, kind of like how the SAT is incorporating a right-brained section.

Now for drama. The two videos up there are about the belief that the different races have different IQ's. It is common to claim that there are three races (Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid) which are different according to genetics. Now while I would say that race also needs a definition, I wouldn't disagree to say that there is major difference in DNA and structure with an African, a Chinese man, and a person from England. But, to say that there is a large or even noticeable difference in what we classify as IQ is ridiculous. People from the Asian continent (Mongoloid) are strict in education, the whites (Caucasoid) have imperialist histories and imposed prejudice so that only whites had good education, and Africa (Negroid) is struck with poor environmental conditions. But, if you send a Irishman and a Somalian to South Korea, you'll get the same results as the people living there. I would link, but it already was in the response video I provided.

English Riots Part 3 -- How the riots were handled

2011-08-14T20:01:00.010+01:00

The riots in England that happened a couple days ago now, but I am going to finish this section: How the riots were handled. This is actually going to be relevant for a few weeks after this post (unless some huge event takes place, like France has a civil war, or Spain defaults, but that is unlikely), so I will continue with this final section.

I am going to focus on what actually happened, and specifically on David Cameron's reaction. Now, I am a tory, so you should take this with a pinch of salt (but not dismiss it... please don't! :D), but it would have been easy to over-react and Labour probably would have.

On Monday there were plenty of voices calling for a curfew, rubber bullets, water cannons, live rounds and, finally, the army. It was a level of disorder we'd frankly never seen before. It looked almost apocalyptic. The speed of events, their geographical distance, the ferocity of the violence and the depth of the depravity shook all of us. Many people became understandably over-excited. History is a good teacher here, but not something many will accept when they are on the firing range, but Labour would probably have overreacted. The party, so wary of being criticised on Law and Order, would have probably had a knee-jerk reaction, and caused mass extreme punishments for the crimes.
A speech was done today in a community centre by Ed Miliband and David Cameron, about the riots. Cameron brought up the idea that it is about crime and"opportunistic thievery", while Ed Miliband brought up the culture, and is requiring an inquiry at the issue's aftermath.

David Cameron brought up some issues about reviewal of things that are interesting such as new police orders to remove facemasks, additional landlord powers, meeting the cost of legitimate compensation claims and increasing the time limit of applications to 42 days; some spending issues such as £10 million on a recovery scheme, to make areas "safe clean and clear"; £20 million high street support scheme, based on helping affected businesses getting back up and running quickly; and other smaller issues.

There were a few strange ones however at first glance, such as dispersal powers to policemen to disperse groups of teenagers (if you don't see the flaw in this, it's a breach, in my opinion, of human rights, to congregate. The tottenham peace rally is an example: it was not previously stated, but it was allowed to go on when it was obvious that there was no threat). I think this may go through, however, there is a second issue he raised.

I think he is "reviewing" until this issue goes away, but this is a hope, and if he pushes this law through, he's lost a lot of respect from me. The issue, without further ado, is monitoring facebook and twitter feeds and other social media when "we know they are plotting violence, disorder, and criminality". The ethics of this, obviously, is wrong. I can make a few comments on facebook, talk about some stuff, get onto the topic of the riots with my frien-- *bang* police storm through the door, riot gear, tear gas, SAS screaming "hands on the ground!". No thanks.

They also talked about the initial riots being handled. Officers have faced a difficult challenge, I will say again, there were hundreds of people in different places all at the same time. And Americans, we don't have a hero policy hardwired into the English brain. When there is 1 policeman, not prepared for the rioting, and then there are 40 rioters, not attacking you, do you run in, get your ass kicked, and become useless, or regroup and tactically handle the problem? I don't understand how you can think that 1 policeman is going to win that skirmish; you must have some kind of superhuman ethos embedded to your belief of what a policeman does.

Surprisingly, Ed Miliband was quite reasonable, and tried to take the conservative high ground with how to react, and definitely was more composed than a couple days ago with the rubber bullet remarks. Of course, this was a great buildup to the comment by Miliband saying :

"Does the prime minister understand why they would think it is not right that he goes ahead with the cuts to police numbers?"

A great and simple remark by Miliband which promotes the assault on Conservatives for making the necessary cuts (I am not criticising him for bringing it up, it's a smart political move). He also dismissed most of Cameron's remarks as "gimmicks". I am wondering whether we have another Blair...
But onto the riots! The riots were done by many people in different places, but I will focus on the riot tactics.

In areas where horses and dogs were utilised, the riots were brought under control quite quickly, which shows that the animals still have a role to play. I cannot find out why they were not employed in a larger area; I am torn between "not enough money" and "trial run". The money is an obvious cry, but you wouldn't instantly send in ALL the cavalry if it could fail horribly.

The rioters were highly mobile, and very concentrated in a small area. In contrast, the police were spread out and not prepared for what was to come. I do not blame them for the first day, and not excessively for the second, because of this major problem of unforeseeable events.

This will updated with any information that is given, so please, tell me some facts (with citation preferably) and I will post it up here. Thank you.

Riots in England -- Part two, the Cause.

2011-08-14T10:14:00.006+01:00

The riots are slowing down in excessiveness, although someone tried to organise another one where I live, less and less people are wanting to do one, and although the British wheels are slow to turn, they are unstoppable once they start: the british police are now cracking down on the riots. But what is the message behind it? Well, let me tell you.

There are many different ideas that have been posited for the cause of the riots, so I will go through a few of them before coming up with the most popular English answer (most popular because it is almost definitely correct).

1. Socialism

People like to say it is socialism all the time in the conservative media (none moreso than in Fox News. Look at my post here for more) and some other news agencies. It's just comical that this is the cause. It's nothing like that. Firstly, there is no socialism in Britian, it is progressive. Socialism is a buzzword with no value in America. The meaning that is occasionally meant to be used as is that some things are government run and failing, however, there is a more specific reason why I think people are rioting, and the idea that it is "socialism" is too large a cover in some cases, and a buzzword in others.

2. Political Message

There is none. Many of them are rioting, stealing randomly from stores. As an example; JBSports was the most stolen, while no waterstone stores were hit. Also, someone robbed a barbers to steal sugar. A message to the sugar making factories that they should stop selling sugar!

3. Anarchy

Now, this is one I agree with. It isn't the majority of people doing this: It is a small amount of people, teenagers and young adults, attacking and robbing people and places. Why, though? There is no "political message". It is simply people who are bored attacking people on the street.

4. Boredom

Yes, it is boredom. If the rabble had something to do other than riot, they wouldn't riot. It's that simple. There is record unemployment in the areas of the riots, and it is the most realistic answer, coupled with the lack of intelligence or direction or targets of the rioters.

5. Gangs

Gang violence is always a large problem, especially in city areas. What does it means when there is rioting on the street? More gangs will go out and loot and riot as well. This is a possibility, and could easily be a contributor, but not the cause.

So, very simply, a combination of boredom from a lack of funds able to help the youths in big city areas, groups of people run onto the street, loot, wreak havoc, and retreat back, in flash riots. I hope this gives a better understanding of the riots in England. Goodbye.

Riots in England -- Part One, the American Spin

2011-08-12T14:42:00.026+01:00

I think that, living in England, I should write something about what is going on. About the riots that are happening, and more specifically, the causation. But, the more I hear about what is going on in my country, or more specifically, what I am told what is going on by people abroad, coming up with these ideas that it is caused by socialism and government, I feel slightly confused at what is going on in foreign news; this is a topic I am learned in, and yet these ideas seem to be coming across that it is political riots. Well, let's bridge the understanding over the Pacific.

Well, I go to my local American bias news source, Fox News, and see what they have to say:

Sean Hannity is my first pick of the day.

I'm looking at what's going on in London right now and the rioting that's taking place there. Rioting is taking place in large part because of austerity measures because their country's going bankrupt. We should be learning from their mistakes but we're not; and people are out there, they're blaming conservatives, they're blaming the government, they're blaming "rich people" that it's their fault. They've got 16,000 police officers in London trying to handle this – more than they've ever had – and I'm thinking this sounds a lot like America ten, 12, 15 years down the road, because once those promises can never be fulfilled [sic].
I think this explains this very simply of the Fox News, or Amurikan, viewpoint. Now, Hannity sees a direct link between the riots and the recent austerity measures imposed in Britain. Yet he believes the best way to avoid a similar outcome in America is to impose even deeper spending cuts than the $2.4tn recently authorised by Congress. Although I agree with him that America needs deeper cuts, the grounds of the correlation is false: Correlation does not equal causation, as people have chirped before.

He discussed the problem with freshman Senator Rand Paul, a leading member of the Tea Party caucus, who agreed that the austerity measures that are due to be implemented in the US aren't nearly severe enough to stop Americans imitating their British counterparts. Although it may seem counterintuitive to think that the best way to prevent riots that both men believe were caused by austerity measures is to impose even more drastic austerity measures, Paul explains that it's best to start implementing cuts immediately, because if we wait too long, people will just get a bigger shock when their checks stop coming.

Neither Hannity nor Paul saw any merit in trying to find alternative means of dealing with our deficit woes (such as increasing revenue by revoking the tax cuts on the rich, for instance) that might avoid inflicting the sort of pain on the masses that could possibly cause them to revolt. Hannity was also upset that the Tea Party is being blamed for the downgrade of America's credit rating, which he fears will not be restored anytime soon.

In as many words, I remember him saying not too long ago that Half of America is not paying taxes, 15% of Americans are on food stamps, and it takes at least a decade to gain a rank for the S&P to improve their rating again (although we are still waiting for the other three companies opinion on the matter).

Rush Limbaugh

How can you not think this guy won't comment on the riots? I am wondering whether he'll blame the muslims, the blacks or the communists for the riots. Ah, wait. He mentions that "Obama would not be upset. Obama wants it." In addition to believing that the rioters and looters are no different than "Obama voters", Limbaugh goes on to assert than not only is it inevitable that the rioting is "precisely what we[America] are headed for".

The following is an extract from the horse's mouth :

All this is happening 'cause of rich people, the people that got businesses, the conservatives. That's why all this is happening. You're dubious about this? They burn down the stores to show the rich people we can destroy what they have so that they will have nothing, too. We can burn down the property of the rich people so that they've got nothing, either.

............

They live in a full-fledged socialist country. They have their equivalent of food stamps. They have interminable unemployment. They have free medical care, ostensibly. This is what they were promised. These were the people that bought into the false promises of socialism. These are the people that bought into the false promises of Utopia, and who are they mad at? They are mad at people who didn't! They are mad at people who are self-reliant. They're mad at people who are making something of themselves independently. They think they have been defrauded.

Now, if you didn't listen to English News on an English Topic, and thought this man spoke "the truth", I don't think you are well informed. So, being the great guy I am, I'll do an in depth analysis to his insanity:

1. "All this is happening to the rich people". Well, tell that to Haroon Jahan, Shezad Ali and Abdul Musavir.

These three men died trying to protect their area, after leaving from the local mosque. If I quote Martin Wainwright :

Neighbours said that the men had just left the mosque and were among large numbers of local people determined not to allow the fluid series of grab-and-run attacks in the city centre to spread to their area.

Now, unless you are in the mindset of it's good that they die, I think you, as well as I, will feel a grief and sadness for what has happened. They were not rich. They were not special. Just 3 victims in the wrong place at the wrong time, in the midst of anarchist violence.

"They burn down stores to show we can destroy what they have" Well, yes, I agree. That is the depth of the political message. We can, therefore we shall. This mindset follows with how they broke into the Barber of Aaron Biber. One the victims has been Aaron Biber, an 89 year old barber whose shop was wrecked by rioters on Sunday. Having worked in Tottenham High Street for decades, Biber despaired, “I will probably have to close because I haven’t got insurance and I can’t afford the repairs."

http://keepaaroncutting.blogspot.com/ Is the blog where people have donated to keep him in business. At my last check, it said 5:02pm. Do you know what happened? The people came in, with Biber still inside, stole the kettle and sugar, as well as some scissors, shavers, and a few other specialised haircutting goods, before leaving. That sounds like a brilliant way to make a message! Steal sugar! I want to meet the mastermind behind this attack! Their political genius must work at a level that I cannot even comprehend.

How about another youth, 19, who stole a violin for the reason of "[he] wanted to learn how to play it". How about all the cars destroyed on the streets? Why not march into Knightsbridge, instead of Peckham? (If you aren't strong with London districts, Knightbridge is one of the richest areas in the country, while peckham is one of the poorest). The genius of this man astounds me.

"They live in a fully fledged socialist society" Do I need to say anything? Anyone European, and a lot of non-europeans, would realise that Socialism isn't a bad thing. Only in America, as they say, is it seen as horrible and despicable (I am thinking a side-effect from the Cold War propaganda that existed, and communist censorship, as well as a deep-seated dislike for non-capitalism and The American Dream (see Death of a Salesman)).

I could do a more deep analysis of this man, but the king amongst Fox is coming up. I mean the big dog. The head Honcho.

Bill O'Reilly. America's answer to the Question "Who can Bullshit the longest and get away with it?".

Quoting Bill : The difference between America and Great Britain is that here in America, many of us are armed because of the second amendment. In Great Britain, they don't like guns, as you mentioned, the cops don't even carry guns. But here is a really good example of if you are a shop owner or a store owner and you don't have a gun, you're in big trouble. Now, is [sic] any of that been raised by the BBC and the other liberal British press?

Now, let's look at what Bill is suggesting. He wants to give all the English people weapons, so people won't kill each other. Brilliant idea! Let's give a bunch of idiots weapons and let them walk down the street! Now, instead of assaults, we get murders en masse! Brilliant! A+ Mister Reilly. Also, it's good to see the last statement is so baseless, he could be in the outer rings of Saturn just floating with the comets. It's not that no liberal press has said. it's not that no liberal person has brought it up. It's that no one has brought it up! I have not seen this in ITV, Channel 4 News, BBC News (which is renown for lack of bias, which I'll address in another post), Even Russia Today or CNN. Just Fox News, coming up with these ideas, yet again, folllowing "No Spin" O'Reilly.

But this is simply about the American spin on the riots. I will do a "part two" where I will go into depth of the riots going about in England, from what I can gather, and find on sources including News as it comes and goes, as well as psychological insight. 'Till then!

Fallacy Series 2 - The Likely Lads

2011-08-11T12:22:00.001+01:00

OK, so, we're on to the second of the fallacy series: The Likely Lads. If you haven't worked it out, I enjoy British comedies. Because I am British. And I like comedies.

OK, so fallacy number one, an Ad Hominem. Translated from Latin, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person." This means when you insult the opposition, instead of their arguments. It seems quite obviously a flaw, but it is something that is done a lot, and occasionally for good reason. But usually, it isn't.

Mathematically, the argument has this form :

Person A makes claim X.

Person B makes an attack on person A.

Therefore A's claim is false.

Notice the lack of the attack on the claim, and attack on A, not X. When written like this, the flaw becomes obvious. However, it is still common use, especially when the opposition says something that is utter lunacy, and they won't take it back (for example, in a discussion I was having, someone defined evolution as an ideology that is to disprove God and prove the Big Bang. He did not know what speciation was, yet alone what natural selection, artificial selection or genetic mutations. I may have resorted to calling him a fool. And a few other things.)

Let's go for some examples.

"YOU'RE an ad hominem!" (Response from NephilimFree (A youtube evangelist) when he insulted people (while drunk) by calling people bad americans. After someone said it was an ad hominem, he responded. Riots ensued.)

"I don't think Hitler's military was strong. He killed all the jews!" (It is also another fallacy, a reductio ad Hitlerum, or Godwin's Law)

"I can't take what you say as truth. You're a priest, you're argument is obviously bias." (An argument I've heard with even a pro against a priest. Of course, it was more cleverly hidden).

OK, moving on to the next one...

credits to www.cooltext.com for their website of making text

An ad Populum argument is when you specifically attempt to appeal to the public, instead of your opposition's arguments. It is also known as an argument to popularity. For example :

"I read the other day that most people really like the new gun control laws. I was sort of suspicious of them, but I guess if most people like them, then they must be okay."

This is whenthe fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. The more common uses of the argument is used with a Slippery Slope Fallacy, etc.

This sort of "reasoning" is quite common and can be quite an effective persusasive device. Since most humans tend to conform with the views of the majority, convincing a person that the majority approves of a claim is often an effective way to get him to accept it. The Asch Conformity Experiment is an experiment which shows that people are more likely to conform to a view if others agree to what had been said.

Mathematically,

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).

Therefore X is true.

Simple!

Some more examples include :

"My fellow Americans...there has been some talk that the government is overstepping its bounds by allowing police to enter peoples' homes without the warrants traditionally required by the Constitution. However, these are dangerous times and dangerous times require appropriate actions. I have in my office thousands of letters from people who let me know, in no uncertain terms, that they heartily endorse the war against crime in these United States. Because of this overwhelming approval, it is evident that the police are doing the right thing."

OK, now, a false dichotomy. (No, it is not as dramatic as the "Ad Populum")

A false dichotomy is a very simple fallacy to use, abuse, and understand. Noticing one is hard though, because the key word isn't dichotomy, it's false.

For example, a false dichotomy would be : "In the current economic climate, we need to either cut costs or raise taxes". This is false because we can do both. (Or neither, but then we'd be screwed).

A normal dichotomy would be: "Either we accept that the Ark on Mt. Ararat was fake, or we disregard the testimony of the archeologists, the NAMI (Noah's Ark Ministries International), the head historian of the Judean Archeology institute, and the people who said, and provided images, that they did the scam to get money from the NAMI." This is not a false dichotomy, although it is an attack on the credibility of the opposition, and reveals bias in a less-than-civil manner. (Or the person could be mistaken, however, in this scenario, they're not.)

The mathematical format of a dichotomy would be :

You have either claims X or Y to be true.

Claim X is false.

Therefore Claim Y is true.

It is easier to point out a true dichotomy when X is the negative of Y. E.g. Either Justin Beiber has a face you want to punch or he doesn't. If you disagree with X, you agree with Y.

A false dichotomy is harder to notice : An obvious one would be you either want to punch or kick Justin Beiber. You may want to do neither (for some reason unknown to me).

Another example :

Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive. <-- This is the only other option (if we assume there is someone called Bill.Senator Jill: "We'll have to cut education funding this year."
Senator Bill: "Why?"
Senator Jill: "Well, either we cut the social programs or we live with a huge deficit and we can't live with the deficit." FALSE!

I hope this clears some things up for you. Next time I will talk about the Fallacy laws : Poe's Law, Godwin's Law, and others.

Debate Terminology

2011-08-11T11:32:00.000+01:00

Hello, it's your friendly neighbourhood Dictator, and I want to talk about Debating. Again. But this time, about something that is somewhat different: Terminology. The technical terms that you would have to scour the internet for? They'll all be in this one, easy to read, easy to use webpage.

Now, I could go into what a debate is, or how to do it well, but I can't. It's something you pick up naturally, when you start doing it, and listen to others doing it.

Many people have different ways to debate (I am a mathematical debator, I use obvious proofs, or blatant truths, to try and prove my case. Some people debate trying to win the position of sensibility: the opposition is putting forth such a claim with such ludicrous implications, that it is not rational to agree with them (Yes, it sounds like it is a form of Ad Hominem, but the form is criticizing the lunacy of the argument, rather than the person for believing it. British Politicians use this many times, especially recently when it comes to the economy), or other techniques), and watching people use these techniques is the best way to learn how to debate. I specifically reccomend the TOC finals debate here.

But, here and now, we are talking about debating terminology. So, let's get straight down to business, shall we?

(I have made the key words in bold so that you can understand what the key words are. If you do not understand what these words mean, comment in the comments, and I will edit this for a stronger explanation)

Firstly, and most importantly, there is the debate itself.

A debate consists of contentions, which are also known as points of contentions which are the points your opposition (or the honourable gentleman/lady if you are using a British Parliamentary format) has to refer to (usually) that are the major points of your opposition. If they do not refer to your contentions, then the debate is practically won in your favour. Just as when you play Chess, if you completely ignore your opponent's moves, you will not win against someone of intelligence.

The way to get your contentions across is with the most important part of your debate (for my style of debating, it is instrumental, but I cannot think of a debating form that this is not useful) is the framework. I cannot stress this enough. If you do not make a strong, coherent, and clear framework, you will lose track of your exact contentions, your framework will collapse, and you will have to follow your opponent's line of reasoning.

A specific type of framework is the following :

(This debate quotation comes from W.L.Craig vs Bart Ehrman on The Historicity of Jesus Christ's Ressurection)

In conclusion, then, I think that there is good historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection. Specifically, I've staked out two basic contentions for discussion tonight:

I. There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis:

Jesus' burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the very origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection, and

II. The best explanation of these facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

The framework by W.L.Craig was obvious: He is contending on the points of the historical facts, and the best explanation. Bart Ehrman's rebuttal was intelligent and coherent, but strictly defensive, and could not clearly make a rebuttal (except that it is not historically accurate to say a miracle then occurred, which would have had more weight if he made it more coherent. Ahh well, someone, someday, will debate W.L.Craig, and they'll have a knowledge of debating... I heard a rumour about Dawkins debating him soon, that'll be good. OK, back on topic).

Then, of near equal importance, is the team line. The team line is similar to the framework, but it is short and sweet: A one line explanation of the contention. Bart Ehrman gives a good one in the same debate:

Historical research cannot lead to theological claims about what God has done.

The team line is simply that Historians cannot use theological proof to historically prove something, as that is ridiculous (He uses a favourite analogy of mine, stating a mathematical proof for the anti-Semitic polemic of the Merchant of Venice cannot exist. It is to be repeated many times, as Bart Ehrman does, with a slight twist, and relevance. I hate people who debate using the team line lightly: It is a persuasive device. If you are going to rush it out, just don't bother (Someone, when debating the outer-biological relevance of evolution, kept repeating the line "I have my belief, what about yours?" So many times, I wanted to kill him). It just leaves you open to comical character degradation (where you point out ludicrousness in someone else, e.g. "not doing their homework", or "fanatical obsession with X bordering on sexual". A slight character attack, but the psychological impact makes it worth it. If you can pull it off.

A feature of British parliamentary debating is the point of information, which is an interruption by a speaker (The current person talking) during the speech of a member of the opposing team. As in the House of Commons, the speaker making the speech has "control of the Floor", and may accept or refuse to allow this interruption. Denying too many POIs is seen as ignorant, or obsessive, or "hiding something". Bringing up too many POIs is seen as uncivil, and should be avoided. Quality over Quantity, right?

You get a judge vote (where judges decide who win a debate), which usually includes the n-1 rule (where judges are equal to the number of sides -1). Or you get a house vote, sometimes known as a floor vote. This is when the spectators vote on who decides who won (usually on a tilt, which is where the shift is decided on who wins, rather than the actual majority. In an example, if 8 people are pro-life, and 2 are pro-choice, then after the debate, 6 are pro-life and 4 are pro-choice, then pro-choice gained 2 people, while pro-life lost 2 people, therefore pro-choice wins).

There are other things I can mention (and please, say things to add) but some things like rounds are simple (a debate in a tournament, where there is more than one debate), or things I shall go into depth later like a rebuttal (the second portion of someone's speech, to refute the opposition among other things).

So, simply, these are some terms that you should get to know before diving into a debate. I also plan on doing something about frameworks, how a debate runs, and other things like that. Also, my next post shall be another in the fallacy series.

Fallacy Series

2011-08-10T23:17:00.001+01:00

I've decided that the first thing that will come up onto this forum will be extremely simple; information about fallacies. Fallacies are the bane of those who wish to debate well, because they are common, sometimes cleverly disguised, sometimes are the rare ones that you can't spot. But, right now, we're going to try and help you stop the fallacies. You may miss a few on the way, and you'll have the occasional miserable fail, like many people have, but you'll be stronger for it. You'll be able to spot them faster, stronger, quicker, we can rebui--

*ahem*. Let's begin.

I shall create the contents following, so people understand what each topic is.

1 -- QI -- What is a fallacy?

2 -- The likely lads -- Ad populum, Ad hominems, False Dichotomies, slippery slope fallacies and others

3 -- Only fools and horses (use these fallacies) Arguments to tradition, Band wagons, poisoning the well

4 -- Law and Order -- Poe's Law, Godwin's Law, and others

5 -- Whatever happened to the likely lads? -- There shall be more coming soon.

Anyway, let's get on with QI

What is a fallacy? Well, we need to say what an argument is first, before we say what a fallacy is. We need a solid foundation, after all. An argument consists of a (series of) premises, followed by evidence, followed by a conclusion. If the premise is true, as it is supported by the evidence, the evidence is reliable, and the logic is true, then the conclusion is factual. Simply, if your premise is true, and your logic is not flawed, your conclusion is correct.

A fallacy is when your logic is flawed. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. There are many different fallacies, at least 50 common ones, some of them are obvious, some of them are subtle, and some of them are just plain crazy once you can find them.

A recruiting announcement to loyal readers

2011-08-10T23:16:00.000+01:00

As this is a public use blog, dedicated to promote discussions, debates, and arguments, it needs contributors and authors. It is simple, really. A blog needs bloggers. So, this is a recruitment drive! Those who want to make a stamp on the community, and write their minds, and tell us what they think, then you have a perfect opportunity to do so. Come one, Come all!

The Open Debate Society is looking for many new members and contributors. If you think that you'd have something to say, something to talk about, or anything of interest, just register to www.wordpress.com, make your account, and make a comment on this post, or message me. I will try and be punctual, and make people contributors.

If, for any reason, I don't get to you any time soon, contact me at the usual site (gvolive.com/conference,89012231#).

I am going to try and get a lot of posts up on this website as quickly as I can, so you wonderful people have a lot of new information that they can read, and enjoy (or shout at for being wrong). Obviously, though, I haven't actually wrote anything of any substance yet (except two quotations, if you count them), but the next segments shall have more substance.

So, feel free to read, comment, exaggerate, slander, criticize, moan, attack, compliment, insult, applaud or any other verb that comes to mind, do it to my writing!

Except eat. You can't eat words. After all, in the words of Winston Churchill, "Eating words has never given me indigestion."

Hello, and welcome, to the Open Debate Society!

2011-08-10T21:59:00.000+01:00

Hello, and welcome everyone, to the open debate room wordpress blog. Feel free to comment here, about whatever you want. My name is devex3, and I will be your Lord and Master.

Seriously, though, this will be a website for all who want to debate. This is not pro-atheist, pro-christianity, or pro-anything except pro-debates. In the words of margaret thatcher:

"I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that's not their job."

I don't agree with her on much, but I agree with her on this. I don't expect people to agree with what I say. I don't expect them to mindlessly follow my words like drones; that would be the single worst thing to come out of this. I want people to read this critically, and think about what is wrote, and apply reasoning to my writing. Every time you point out a flaw, I can update, or even scrap, an argument that I have came up with. Please, comment on what you see. Say what you want to. Express yourself.

In the words of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: “Daring ideas are like chessmen moved forward. They may be beaten, but they may start a winning game.”

So, get your ideas out there! You may get a few blunders here or there, but, eventually, and sooner than you'd think, you'll find one that is just spectacular. And that is what you'll be remembered for.

This blog has a link to the gvo room : www.gvolive.com/conference,89012231. Go there and we debate all kinds of things, when we are not just casually talking.