Fruit_Inspector

Thanks for the feedback

I specifically mentioned the National Guard, which is part of the military.

I recall some "mostly peaceful" protesting when George Floyd died. It might have gone differently without National Guard presence. You might as well ask, "What if everyone never did anything wrong?"

https://www.debatecraft.com/debates/d/31/contraception-is-counterintuitive

Let me know how I did. Be brutally honest. I know which parts I thought were stronger than others, but it would be interesting to hear what others think.

We're the memes a nice flourish at the end or was it too much? Any feedback is appreciated as I am to improve in arguing with strangers online.

You are not taking advantage of being instigator. You get to set the definitions and choose a topic you are familiar with. You can even plan an argument well in advance to have an opener ready and research potential counterarguments.

Also, go back and read all of your votes. It seems like you're not really paying attention to criticism and fixing the issues. I'm not an expert, but a few things I've noticed:

--You need to have a strong opener

In multiple debates, you have just made a few short statements and assumed people will already be on your side. Not only do you not fulfill your burden of proof, you let your opponent's arguments be the main focus.

--Choose your resolution more carefully and focus on it

I used the word focus again intentionally.

--Use the description to set parameters for the debate

While people may still attempt to nitpick certain things to change your intended purpose for the debate, this goes a long way in reducing that. AND DON'T IGNORE DEFINITIONS! You don't have to go crazy defining every word, but you also can't just leave major contentious terms undefined all the time.

Hopefully this helps.

It's like you're intentionally trying to misunderstand everything I say. As fun as it is to keep explaining fundamental concepts and basic interpretation to you, I just don't really feel like doing it anymore.

Nothing in your link refutes what I've argued, and it is common sense than when you generalize any group with characteristics that do not apply to the majority of that group, you are being sloppy at best and disingenuous at worst.

You really need to go back and read it then. It's only two paragraphs. I'm not sure how you missed it.

Occam's razor is the test of whether your analysis is founded on that primary pillar.

I would be interested for you to provide a citation of a reputable source that explains Occam's razor to be a test where the simplest explanation is the only reasonable choice, as opposed to the preferable choice.

...you offered it as your explanation for what you're seeing. That means out of all other explanations, you think this is the most reasonable one.

You are the one incorrectly using Occam's razor in order to limit the number of possible answers, which is why we are talking about possibilities at all. All I'm doing is explaining why you're wrong. I am also pointing out how there is historical precedence to show that your misuse of Occam's razor fails on a practical level as well.

It is your misunderstanding of generalizations and Occam's razor which has caused your misunderstanding of my point. We're never going to get anywhere unless we can get past that.

What I'm doing is fundamentally different. Generalizations are first off all only genuine when one is talking about a sizable majority of whatever group is being referred to.

As I said, I'm not going to explain generalizations to you. For further reading, see the following link:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/generics/

By the second paragraph, it can be seen where your point that generalizations must refer to a majority in order to be "genuine" is incorrect.

Occam's razor isn't an argument at all, it's a test of whether logic is being applied correctly. To ignore it is to be irrational by definition

I typed too quickly and used the wrong phrase, but my point remains accurate. Occam's razor is not a "logical argument," but it is still not an end all rule since it deals with what is most likely, not what is definitively true. You are outright wrong because violating Occam's razor does not definitionally make something irrational. Your misuse of Occam's razor also further proves my point. But let's test out how accurate your assertion is anyway.

Has gun control historically been used by authoritarian governments as a means to disarm populations, allowing for easier control and preventing violent dissent?

Yes.

Did these authoritarian governments frame gun control measures in terms of population control, or in terms of public safety?

Public safety. It would not be politically expedient to outright admit the true purpose of their gun control measures. It is actually unreasonable to think a politician would not attempt to hide their true motives behind the facade of public safety.

Therefore, when a government official advocates for gun control, is the desire to reduce harm the only reasonable explanation? 

No. Historical precedence shows that disarming the population under the guise of public safety for the purpose of control is a reasonable explanation. The unreasonable position is to ignore this historical fact to exclude the possibility.

You are the unreasonable one in this situation.

Yes, and like I said, it doesn't actually exist. China's government is an entity on paper, it doesn't have cognizance, it doesn't have goals or motivations. The goals and/or motivations we ascribe to it are represented by the people running it, so if you're going to claim that this government wants something you have to put that claim through the lense of the people making those decisions in order to make sense of it.

You are being intentionally obtuse. I'm not going to explain how generalizations work.

Otherwise you're just spewing out words that mean absolutely nothing, which is exactly what you did by claiming "the left" wants gun control in order to control the population.

First, I made clear that is not the only reason, and not everyone on the left is seeking to disarm the population. Second, you are making claims about "the left" as well. Stop doing that if you are going to be so obtuse when someone else does it.

Then talk about those individual politicians and what their personal motivations are.

I'm not going to make a list of every politician and their political affiliations just because you're too obtuse to understand generalizations. I gave an example, and if you think Trudeau can't step back into a position of authority in the future, then you are again being obtuse.

Yes, you can connect them, but you are also completely disregarding Occam's razor to draw the conclusions you are suggesting. Regulations are far easier explained by a desire to reduce harm in the very ways they are designed to do rather than as some form of conspiracy to control the population.

Occam's razor is not the end all of logical arguments. Honestly, it's not even a very good one because of the abuse it receives due to the limitation of human knowledge. Not only that, you don't just get to say, "I'm right because of Occam's razor!" It's not a conspiracy to say that an unarmed population is easier to control, that's a fact. And it's not a conspiracy to say that many politicians desire power to exercise their will over people. It takes a truly obtuse person to assume that the simplest explanation is that all politicians are upstanding and moral individuals genuinely seeking the best interest of the public rather than their own selfish desires.

And as I’ve already pointed out, the totalitarian government isn’t actually a thing that exists. You can’t point to it and go that’s the totalitarian government right there.

China. That's a totalitarian government.

Justin Trudeau is one who specifically praised the Chinese style of dictatorship because of the ease which the government can do what they want. And there are certainly more politicians than him that have wet dreams about China's government.

So I ask you again, who are the people that you think benefit from this? Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton?

I was speaking of the Left generally. As far as individuals go, most politicians are not as stupid as Trudeau to come right out and say, "How cool would it be to govern in a totalitarian regime?" We could analyze individuals to make a judgment as to what style of government they see as ideal. But generally speaking, the Left seeks more government regulation. Totalitarian governments are characterized by high amounts of government regulation. There is a very simple path to connect Leftism with totalitarian style governance.

Ok, let’s start with the most basic. True or False:

more guns = more gun violence

That is one of the few that is probably true for the U.S. today, though even that is not a straight truism because it depends on who has the guns that are left. Since the Nazi/Soviet governments had most of the remaining guns, there was still quite a bit of unidirectional gun violence. An armed population may have gone a long way to deter this high level of gun violence.

Not only that, a reduction in gun violence does not necessarily mean a reduction in violent crime. If shootings go down but stabbings rise by the same amount, what have you really accomplished?

None of this changes the point I was making.

I was refuting the following statement of yours that was demonstrably false: "Guns meanwhile have no other purpose other than to kill people"

But yes, your main point was essentially, "The mockery is disgusting - but the mockers are totally right. Isn't the whole situation ironic?"

How on earth does this make sense to you? “The left” isn’t a person, so who exactly do you think benefits from the populace being “controlled”?

As I said, the totalitarian government benefits from having a population that is easier to control. If you have all the guns, no one really gets to question what you do.

You also seem to not understand the difference between intended effects and actual effects. I understand that you believe gun control will have certain intended effects. What you fail to understand is that you are probably wrong in most of your presuppositions regarding gun control, which means you have a faulty view of what the actual effects will be.

Killing people is not the only use for a gun. They can be used for hunting. They can also be used defensively as a deterrent. The threat of getting shot is often enough to stop a criminal without any actual use of force.

And control of the population is another reason the Left pushes gun control. Not all on the Left see it this way, but a disarmed population is much easier to control as a totalitarian government. All they need to do is convince the population it's in their best interest, then they take over. After that, they can do whatever they want with little resistance.

If the description is not the description, then what is the description?

I would argue that the description is the description of the debate.

I said the title should be the main standard by which voters should judge the debate. If the title is "Reclining Couches are Superior to Non-Reclining Couches," I'm going to determine the winner based on who most convincingly argued which type of couch is superior. You're right that there may be exceptions if the instigator makes that clear, which is why I said I believe it is the best practice. If the standard for voting is not made clear to the judge of the debate, each person will have to create their own standard, and it may vary from person to person.

I can see this to a degree. But in terms of best practice, I would say that the title should be the main standard by which voters judge the debate. The description adds context and rules to provide structural support, but the title should still be the foundation.

Turning autocratic? Every time communists get power, they create an authoritarian regime.

That was a heck of comment! Just letting you know I did read through it and I appreciate you taking the time for discussion. I find it good to engage with people who hold certain ideas rather than just doing an impersonal study of those ideas to help gain a better understanding (even if the person is only Marxist-adjacent). I will refrain from a response to avoid pulling you into a rabbit hole of longer and longer comments!

I think the description and rules are definitely two areas people should spend more time on to make sure the debate does not descend into chaos. I've seen too many already where key words in the resolution don't get defined until the middle of the debate.

This makes it difficult to judge as well because the voter needs to decide on a criteria for analyzing the debate rather than being told what is being debated.

Debby, I don't think that's necessarily true. Leaning's point does imply that broad debates can force someone to become generally more familiar with a topic without requiring in-depth technical knowledge. Though I would agree that going in blind with no background knowledge whatsoever is a recipe for disaster unless you are a quick learner and clear thinker.

I've seen things go wrong in debate set-ups. For example, if two people are arguing whether this or that is the moral thing to do, it kind of destroys the purpose of the debate if somebody accepts the challenge only to say, "There's no such thing as morality."

I had one debate where I tried to do something like this (there is a term that I can't remember to describe this tactic). I figured I should try it at least once and I felt awful the entire time. I'm glad that I lost that debate. That's definitely a good point to think about how to avoid that with rules and definitions.

What got me thinking about writing this post was reading through a couple debates where vague resolutions led to squabbling over definitions and such. It really detracts from a debate when it takes two rounds just to figure out how to interpret the resolution.

And by "this site," I am subconsciously including debateart.com almost without realizing it...

I like your point that the description is a great place to make sure terms are clear. And I don't think there is anything necessarily wrong with general debates. But how do you feel about general debates on this site in particular? As an example, what about "Evolution is Wrong" as a title. I feel most times if a see a title like this, I know it's just going to be a a lot of surface level arguments that cover multiple fields of science, and neither side has enough space to really nail down any particular argument. That's not always the case. I do think that in most cases, at least for large topics like that, it is best to make it more specific.

Perhaps there would be some benefit from the addition a "Debate" forum topic. This could be a place to help people grow in their knowledge of debate strategy, terminology, logic, and other such areas. It would also potentially improve the quality of debates, contributing to a better experience for new and existing users.

Along these lines, what are some tips or strategies for creating a title/resolution for a debate? What are some common mistakes you see regularly?

This is an interesting point but certain jobs, positions, and so on, probably don't help oneself or others (and leaves open the question of "who's work day"). And some jobs are at the expense of others.

I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive definition of work. I was explaining the importance of work. Not all work is beneficial, and not all work is good.

There is an abstract moral value to work because it is an action with a purpose. Dealing drugs could be considered work, but not morally good work. Even if the drug dealer is trying to feed his family, he's using bad actions to achieve that outcome.

There is also a market value of work determined by a myriad of factors. An employer values work differently than the worker. The customer also places a different value on that work. Changing external conditions also affect the value. This is a basic concept that is not unique to Capitalism.

If everyone in a community is a corn farmer with no other fields of expertise (get it? "fields"?), there will be a shortage of many things, even in a Communist utopia. If a dairy farmer moves in, his work will have a much greater "market value" (so to speak) even if there is no greater moral value.

Capitalism itself makes it so that some people are out of work

That is not something that is unique to Capitalism. Let's say in our corn-farming utopia, no one owns a car. An auto mechanic is not going to provide much value and will be "out of work" (again, so to speak) unless he acquires a different skill that has value in the environment he finds himself in. Should the commune devote resources to build a car repair shop because that's the type of work the mechanic knows and desires to do? Or will the mechanic have to find a different form of work?

Althusser is also not a small name in the history of Marx - he is one of the chief contributors to Western Marxist thought.

There are still fundamental similarities in all Marxist thought regarding the nature of man. Namely, Marxists reject human essentialism, even if humanists believe there are some fixed aspects in the nature of man. How human nature plays into the dialectical process may be different, but it is still the dialectic which primarily or entirely shapes human nature. I understand there is plenty of nuance to convolute the matter, but I think this is probably a fair summarization.

So, how can there be a coherent system of signifiers and ideas that are linked together in one's head - in a more or less hierarchical fashion in one's head - with "foundational" principles and conclusions following from that?

When I talk about foundational principles, I am talking mainly about the fundamental beliefs that typically make up a world view. These beliefs are at the top of the hierarchy in terms of forming a coherent system. For example, if I believe in a God who created mankind and is the ultimate judge of the universe, that will significantly impact many, if not all, of my views.

I believe most people do not intentionally hold to views that are contradictory. This mainly happens out of ignorance. It could be ignorance of the specifics of their own views, or an ignorance of how the different views they hold interact (coherently or incoherently) When the contradiction is discovered, they either need to adjust or abandon their one or more of their views. Of course, some may ignore the issue to remain in ignorance, though it is likely they will eventually have to confront the issue and make a choice (like at the ballot box).

In regard to this concept, a diffuse acquisition of ideas is more susceptible to ignorance than a systematic one. Systematic acquisition reduces the chance of overlooking glaring logical contradictions. No matter which form a person uses, they either hold a view or they don't with varying levels of ignorance.

I'm also just curious: do you attach normative importance to doing work? Is it just that it's unrealistic or that not doing work abrogates a moral obligation or does the idler a disservice to themselves?

The importance of work is twofold. On the positive side, work is how we build up ourselves and our society. And I don't mean in a selfish way. At the bare minimum, it means providing for our own needs and those of our family so as not to burden our community.

On the negative side, we live in a world subjected to futility:

"cursed is the ground because of you;

in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;

and you shall eat the plants of the field.

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread,

till you return to the ground,"

-Genesis 3:17-19

You can disagree with the Bible, but this is a pretty good description of the difficulty our work is often subjected to, generally speaking. Decay, pests, disease, weeds, and the like add a certain futility to our work, but our stomachs still need to be filled with something - even if it's just a Big Mac with crusty old mayonnaise.

It should also be mentioned that work does not just include employment. As you mentioned, child-rearing and household labor are also forms of productive work that help to build up ourselves and our society. Even creative passions can be work if they fulfill this role. But the futility that our world is subjected to means that drudgery becomes a main focus of our work.

It's arguably not the foundation.

I guess I have not communicated what specific principles I mean when I talk about foundational principles. You are right that how work will function in the utopia is not the foundation of Marxism. What I meant was that the nature of work and the nature of man are two foundational principles in Marxism. And the ridiculous conclusions pointed out in the OP are reasonable end points for someone who holds that view of man and work.

Also, is that really how ideologies function? We have all these starting principles and from them we derive their consequents?

Typically, yes. We all have a worldview. How one answers the major questions of life is a major determiner for everything else (Who am I? Where did I come from? Why am I here? What is wrong with the world? Does God exist?).

You are right that people don't often take the time to think about how they answer those questions, which can lead to conflicting principles. But that just means someone else is doing their thinking for them, but they still have a worldview.

And I would generally agree there is not a single "core" principle that determines everything else. But there are foundational principles of Marxism (the nature of work, the nature of man, history, science, the driving force of society, etc.) that do have necessary consequences. Some are unique to Marx's Marxism, but some are universal to even later branches such as the neo-Marxists.

Tying this back to the OP, I believe that the foundational Marxist view on the nature of man and the nature of work are fundamentally flawed. And even if there are differing views of utopia, the general view that Communism will work at all is based on that flawed view of man and work (among other things).

Sure. He probably wants a work day below 10 or 8 hours.

So if we assume 16 waking hours, we're already at less than half of that spent laboring. And that includes at least one full day of rest. Just how little of our time should ultimately be spent on labor?

You can take inspiration or ideas from one thinker or ideology without following them to their conclusions.

The reason I pointed out a rotten foundation is because the foundational principles of Marxism are wrong. You can't have a sturdy building if you build it on a rotten foundation. Your ideology is the building, just in case that wasn't clear. And the foundation is the main principles you build it on. And Gary is the construction worker who buried beer cans in the back yard (yeah we know what you do when you're not flipping burgers Gary, come get your trash please).

Now if you reject the foundational principles of Marxism but adopt some of the fringe concepts, you might be able to salvage something from the mess of an ideology you'll likely end up with. But probably not.

American Marxism isn't real, though.

Marxism is alive and well in America. Though it has evolved.

It's just a scapegoat to hide the corrupt crony practices endemic to all centrally planned nations.

I hope you're not a Marxist or the irony will be too much to handle.

Yes, fewer hours. More automated work. He was writing during a time where working days being shorter was a primary political demand because capitalists wanted workers on the job 24/7.

But wouldn't it be fair to say when Marx talked about reducing the work day, he wasn't just trying to go from 16 hours to a 10 or even 8 hour work day as an ultimate end goal?

Also as I said in the first sentence I make no claim about Marx's utopia being realistic.

If the foundation is rotten, the whole building is compromised.

Your concern was that "Marxists say x" about future society. Maybe they do. That's not all Marx said about it though.

But, as you recognized, my concern is about what Marxists currently believe. I can appreciate that you aren't a Marxist, so I suppose all those questions aren't directed toward you.

So the Marxists who told you everyone is going to work on what they want and nobody will have to do drudgery is wrong

I didn't mean to imply that Marxists believe all drudgery will disappear (though I'm sure those hippies out there). The point was more that there is this fantasy that work will primarily become this fulfilling creative activity, and the drudgery will become this minimal task that people occasionally do.

And they will want to do it. Because all selfishness will be replaced with altruism for some magical reason.

But most of his work is on the critique of capitalism, not necessarily the envisioning of a future society.

This claim seems like a misdirection, since Marx did have a specific enough vision for a future society that is unrealistic and worthy of criticism.

And your post was a lot of vague rambling without meaningfully interacting with the topic or giving concrete answers to valid questions.

It was a lot like reading Marx.