General

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

Graham Wright — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 22:00:26 GMT

Anarcho-libertarian:
Edit: I had questions but reading Ghraham's debate on the other forum cleared them up. I don't see how anyone could get mad at you for just asking questions like that. I'd like to see other examples of you debating like that because I think you nailed it.

I saw your questions before you edited them out. Some of my bullet points don't apply in some circumstances. Reading through that thread that z posted, the advice about not posting un-asked-for links / quotes, for example, isn't so helpful there; I think z (aka hf1) did the right thing arguing the way he did and provided links / quotes appropriately. The difference is the pace of the forum, the number of people involved, and the degree of homogeneity of views. Because I tend to prefer slow-paced, smaller debates, my advice is mainly geared toward that. Being up against more than about 5 people is difficult without backup.

I like to write my immediate, angry response right away. Then I delete it and write my calm and reasoned response. It helps me to get it out of my system.

Yeah, that's a good tip.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

shazam — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 00:51:02 GMT

I was SPC.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

z1235 — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:20:50 GMT

Jargon, no worries. Thanks.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

Jargon — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 19:17:11 GMT

You're right. Sorry, I was addressing what I thought I read.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

z1235 — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:42:45 GMT

shazam:

Does anyone want to critique how I have done in this debate? The topic is the Civil Rights Act. http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=165853.0

Sorry, but I found it extremely difficult to follow that thread with all the giant pic sigs, colors, one-line contributions, and whatnot. It seemed everyone there suffered from ADD. Which poster were you, btw?

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

z1235 — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:37:18 GMT

Then I don't see how your post is related to it or to pluckedkiwi's argument in the linked thread that Walmart is not "evil" for not paying its employees a "fair, living" wage, for not paying its suppliers a "fair" price, and for "destroying" mom-and-pop shops. Or perhaps you believe that businesses, customers, employers, and employees would not exist in a free society?

I'd rather not start another capitalist vs. socialist debate, especially not in this thread.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

Jargon — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 18:18:46 GMT

All of it.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

z1235 — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:40:31 GMT

Did you read any part of what I just wrote?

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

Jargon — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 16:32:26 GMT

z1235:

I think it's quite possible and productive to destroy typical leftist/collectivist myths about evil corporations, wage slaves, and coerced welfare on their own merit. The fact that most large corporations enjoy state privileges today does not imply that there won't be businesses and rich people in a free society, too -- without any state subsidies to support them.

Well this is quite a way to sterilize the issue of corporate abuse, when the only other alternative is collectivism. Are Monsanto's, Bechtel's, Haliburton's, GE's, BP's, Raytheon's, or Goldman Sachs' abuses just phantoms of the leftist/collectivist imagination?

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

z1235 — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 14:35:30 GMT

AJ:
I do think there is a strong "rightist" lopsidedness to many libertarian argument suites, where the positives of corporations are emphasized and the (state-enabled) negatives are passed over in silence. This is particularly odd when debating leftists, since the very anti-state arguments omitted are the ones most likely to be acknowledged and to disarm the opposition. Libertarians are on everyone's side to a degree, and this should be taken advantage of profusely. I think people have it in their heads that a debate must be a fight and to show anything that would please the other side in any way would be compromising.

I haven't observed this tendency as most libertarians do seem to throw in a disclaimer about corporatism and regulatory capture whenever they discuss corporations. I think it's quite possible and productive to destroy typical leftist/collectivist myths about evil corporations, wage slaves, and coerced welfare on their own merit. The fact that most large corporations enjoy state privileges today does not imply that there won't be businesses and rich people in a free society, too -- without any state subsidies to support them. Egalitarianism and collectivism can be debated quite effectively without constantly invoking corporatism, IMO.

That said, I do believe that education about economics is of utmost importance. Whichever way one finds to effectively impart economics knowledge would be the most effective one. That's why I think pluckedkiwi was doing a good job.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

shazam — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 07:58:04 GMT

Does anyone want to critique how I have done in this debate? The topic is the Civil Rights Act. http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=165853.0

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

AJ — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 07:49:52 GMT

I do think there is a strong "rightist" lopsidedness to many libertarian argument suites, where the positives of corporations are emphasized and the (state-enabled) negatives are passed over in silence. This is particularly odd when debating leftists, since the very anti-state arguments omitted are the ones most likely to be acknowledged and to disarm the opposition. Libertarians are on everyone's side to a degree, and this should be taken advantage of profusely. I think people have it in their heads that a debate must be a fight and to show anything that would please the other side in any way would be compromising.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

z1235 — Sat, 08 Dec 2012 02:50:04 GMT

^ I still think he is educating by addressing only few issues/questions at a time. Perhaps you could do better by dumping the whole AnCap bucket on the (left oriented) statist pack at once and see how far that gets you.

I tried (poster hf1), and made it to 750+ posts before I got perma-banned. My first post was here which spawned the main discussion thread here (locked) and here.

Comments, critiques are welcome.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

Jargon — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:21:37 GMT

Yes I read his responses.

Here is why I dislike his defense. It only goes about one unit of time back/beneath the obvious. He is shallowly applying libertarian ethics to the culmination of a long line of statist economic policies. He's less interested in solving what are plausibly problems and more interested in telling people that they aren't problems. Personally, it amounts to "this is your lot in life, take it like a dog!" For example, he does not discuss at all how Wal-Mart benefits from eminent domain and transportation subsidies, or the oligpsony of labor which makes some people cling to their employment like serfs. Nothing about the Healthcare quagmire, whose high costs often lead people to blame their employers for not helping them. Nothing about why these situations, in which big companies have, what many consider to be, disturbing authority over employees and consumers, come about or how they would be mitigated in a free market.

I'm not saying I agree with his opponents either, who are interested in punishing those they consider unfair, but I don't agree with him either. No one is discussing at all removing the supports of corporate power, which is a more appealing presentation of libertarian prescriptions. He is more interested in applying libertarian ethics to a system which is dominated by corporations whose managers and administrators are removed from the consequences of their actions.

He is misrepresenting the consistent libertarian's perspective on this issue, which is a combination of both: the defense of an employers' right to his property, but also a clarification on the effects of the state's many interventions in the economy, many of which benefit the big at the expense of the small.

Re: Winning Strategies for Debate in Other Forums

z1235 — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 22:53:43 GMT

Jargon:

He looks to be employing the "But it's voluntary!" defense (in addition to accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being a "nutjob conspiracy wacko". his is why people think that libertarians hate poor people or worship corporate power. He sounds like he needs to read more. He reminds me of Lee Doren

Why do so many Libertarians neglect the Carsonian thesis? That is, detailing the difference between free markets and historically existent capitalism. I find it much more convincing than the appeal to individual morality extrapolated to the economy and really just a more robust development of Rothbard's analysis of historical capitalism.

I don't quite understand your critique. The guy is not an AnCap and the forum is predominantly left-"progressive"-collectivist. I think he is doing just fine and one could probably learn a thing or two from his approach.