We need a debate... your rebuttal?

Rarkasha · Post by **Rarkasha** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 8:41 pm

In an attempt to further the pursuit of enlightenment, I suggest we debate. That is why I put it in the Research and Education forum, by the way. Arguments are a great way to let off steam, but the best way to learn is from a structured debate.

I don't have any particulars on structure or rules, but I do suggest that we debate points of philosophy rather than academic or political issues, since academic issues might lead to an unfair advantage in knowledge, while philosophy can almost always be discussed adequatly, even on basic levels.

Braden Indianensis · Post by **Braden Indianensis** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 12:50 pm

I think this is an excellent idea. I would much rather have people expressing opinions in the civilized form of debating than simply yelling profanities at eachother and attacking eachother with as much violence as possible. Not that I have anything against yelling. Or profanities. Or indeed violence. Actually, that kinda puts a hole in my argument. Nevertheless, this is a great idea and I can't believe it has never been thought of before in Shireroth, a nation with so many angry political factions. But my soup is done, so I must go. I SHALL...RETURN!

Post by **Shyriath** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:05 pm

Hmmmm. Philosophical debates as a means of enlightenment... I like it. I'm not incredibly articulate on philosophy myself, sadly, but as long as people kept to plain language, it sounds like it might work out.

Did you have any ideas for particular points to be debated?

Rarkasha · Post by **Rarkasha** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 9:46 pm

Many and none. That is to say, I have many half formed ideas, but I can't really suggest much for this debate. Off the top of my head, I'd say a good two-sided debate would be a discussion on greed in man, the sides being which one of the two is stronger: tangible or intangible greed?

Post by **Shyriath** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:47 pm

Tangible or intangible greed? I'm guessing that refers to what kind of item the greed is directed toward... tangible greed being a greed for money, food, Star Wars collectibles, etc., while intangible greed being a greed for something like power, or influence, or adoration. Am I interpreting that right?

Rarkasha · Post by **Rarkasha** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 11:03 pm

Correct. "Winning" the argument would mean convincing the audience and/or your opponent that one is more common or powerful in comparison than the other.

AngelGuardian93 · Post by **AngelGuardian93** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:04 am

Honestly, we really don't have too many political factions. The OBC, the radicals, and the recent immigrants. Three.

Nick Foghorn Leghorn · Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:15 am

*considers importing the NWP*

Braden Indianensis · Post by **Braden Indianensis** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 8:21 pm

Can some sorts of intangible greed--i.e., the need for love-- really be termed "greed," since they're something healthy and natural? If so, all human beings are greedy. Of course, all human beings are greedy anyway. It's part of human nature, though the strength of said greediness varies from person to person (but that opens up a whole new debate about the existance of good and evil.) And ultimately, we can't totally defy our nature (though we should try.) And what about tangible greed? That stems from things humans created themselves, and since the need to create is also part of human nature, and human nature basically governs most of our actiobs on the basic level, then tangible greed is just as strong as intangible greed.

Rarkasha · Post by **Rarkasha** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 10:57 pm

But greed is defined as wanting something more than one needs or deserves. So there can be a greed for love, but not necessarily for everyone. But yes, nearly all human beings express some form of greed. But which is more common? Does it seem better, morally, to have greed for material things or the things immaterial?

But we really should save this for the debate. I don't want to take either side, since I proposed the debate. Is there anyone else who might be interested in judging or debating?

Kaiseress Semisa I · Post by **Kaiseress Semisa I** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:23 pm

I'll debate for the "intangible" side.

Braden Indianensis · Post by **Braden Indianensis** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:08 pm

I still say they're equal.

Kaiseress Semisa I · Post by **Kaiseress Semisa I** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:42 pm

So debate for the "there is no difference" side.

Braden Indianensis · Post by **Braden Indianensis** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:15 pm

MAYBE I WILL!

Nevertheless, if we're going to have a debate, I'd like to know where and when it will be held.

Rarkasha · Post by **Rarkasha** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:34 pm

Hell, we could have three sides: both, intangible, and tangible.

But like I said, I'm not very good with particulars. I suppose the Shrine of Controversy would be a good place to hold it. But we also need some judges of some sort.

Kaiseress Semisa I · Post by **Kaiseress Semisa I** » Sun Jan 15, 2006 8:41 pm

Actually, it should be held in here.

Post by **Shyriath** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:09 pm

That it should. And it will; if we can get someone to come in on the side of tangible greed, I'll open a thread for the purpose.

We need a debate... your rebuttal?

We need a debate... your rebuttal?

Who is online