 New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
New link in the top of page "IRC Chat". |
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Last Posts
| IRC Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | XPW | Stats | Color Chart | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Debate Shrine. |
| User | Post |
| Logos Posts: 280/641 |
Originally posted by Vulkar I disagree with your definition, as your definition of knowledge only covers what is pedantic, and ignores the normative nature of knowledge. In short, I declare your definition fundamentally flawed, and therefore your entire case explodes, in a highly exothermic reaction. Empirical data has no real value, as I have said, and you have not refuted. Your case is so riddled with holes that I really have no reason to address more flaws until you start to rebute them, which you haven't. The common practice in debate is that if the affirmative doesn't uphold their case, they automatically lose, while the negating side has no such burden, but to disprove the affirmation. I'm sick and tired of these metaphysical snakes on my plane of thought. Vulkar should be tested for chemistry by being thrown in a next of poisonous snakes and then, given basic components, make himself an antidote, without the aid of multiple-choice questions. Just like a lab! 
By the way, you need a resolution. It should be a concise sentence. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 1597/4541 |
People may take that class in high school, but they can easily forget it. Like me with chemistry, I forgot some of it when I took it last year.
Second, the snake is a valid arguement. I think that unless you can combat it, then I already won this arguement. Give one reason why that person should pick up the snakes if he has no idea about it, and assuming there are no other factors involved. My definition of knowledge is how much you knwo this empirical data. You would be tested on how much empirical data you have stored in your brain. Combat the snakes or I'm going to stop replying to your posts. |
| Logos Posts: 277/641 |
Originally posted by Vulkar Let me break up the main points into bite-sized chunks. One is required to take government and economics in high school. That is about the equivalent of your entire argument. The actual system would not be changed, as the greatest fundraiser or encumbent usually wins anyways. What gives one the blatent right to tread over other's human agency? In a democratic state, the idea of democratic ideals usally carry a great deal of weight. Therefore, I think it's safe to say that the democratic ideal of voting rather important. I'm sick and tired of your snakes in this thread, tell them to get out. The questions you state are underscored by their blatent subjectivity. Your definition of knowledge, ironically, is supposed to be purely empirical data. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 1592/4541 |
Logos, I think that you don't understand me. All I'm saying is that if they vote, all they have to know is what they are voting for. Allow me to say this again, they must, if they follow my idea, must know what they are voting for.
The line is, as I said, 80% of about, say, twenty questions. The questions will ask about tax plans, plans for the current war(if one is going on), policy on more sensitive topics like abortion or same sex marriage, and various things like that. Look at the snake example to see why. Think metaphorically, and tell me why those people should pick up a nsake if they know nothing about it. |
| Logos Posts: 275/641 |
Originally posted by Vulkar If one must know, "tax the poor more" isn't the correct way to say it, one might say increase regressive taxes. Same think for the statement "tax the rich more," it's called increase progressive taxes. An increase in proportional taxes is what you might want to say for question c. What I'm trying to make clear is that where is the line for "knowledgable"? And in a democratic state, I would think the value of democracy outweighs knowledge. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 1589/4541 |
Read the rest of my post. Perhaps not too many, but msot definitaly too many people that don't know what they're voting for. For them it's like seeing a collection of snakes, they can pick one up, or they can not. Assume for the scenario and sake of discussion that they know nothing about how to identify poisonous snakes. If they are smart, they'll leave them all alone. But if they choose to pick one up, it could be poisonous, or it could not be. These guys are picking up snakes when they vote. Then there are the intelligent people, who can pick up whatever snake they want without getting killed, because they know what snakes are poisonous.
The intelligent people are quite clearly those who know what they're voting for, the people who pick up snakes without know what they are are those who vote without knowing about who they vote for. And Logos, other than why I'm chosing knowledge as an ideal, what did I not adress in your post? Why knowledge is an ideal I think is adressed in my above paragraphs. Simply put, for them to vote is them picking up a poisonous snake. |
| avatar of law Posts: 432/486 |
Originally posted by Vulkar and from there, you've lost me. too many people vote? Wow... if anything, too little people vote. everything you've said after that, is null/void and ridiculous. |
| Logos Posts: 258/641 |
Originally posted by Vulkar Seeing as you don't even know the proper terminology for the questions, what would give you the right to vote? No offense, of course. Who's to say that only those with a degree in political sciences should be able to vote? And read my post above, please? |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 1580/4541 |
Okay, I'll use examples from the last election. Some(but not all) of the questions would go like this:
What is Kerry's position on tax reform? (a) tax the poor more (b) tax the rich more (c) increase sales tax (d) none of the above What is George W. Bush's supposed plan for the war one terror? (a) Attack anyone who opposes us. (b) Make friends with everyone! (c) Try and negotiate, if the negotiations fail, go to war. (d) none of the above. If anyone doesn't know questions like these, or what's discusssed on the debates, then they aren't doing anything other than voting blindly. It would be like walking on a narrow an curved path with a blindfold, unless they know where they're going or what they're doing, they'll fall. And this is a democratic republic by the way, electing the officials is the republic part. Democracy is making every law by popular vote, where republic is electing officials to make those laws. Our government allows citizens to vote on some things, like bonds a few years ago in my state. |
| Logos Posts: 256/641 |
"Anyway, to be honest, if people refuse to take a test to vote, good riddance. IF they fail the test, then that proves they don't know about who they are voting for. Good riddance."
Might you provide some examples of these questions? I'm really curious. Before I say anything about them, I'd like to know what exactly they might be. "No more comments on what knowledge is is neccesary" If you refuse to answer to questions about knowledge, the basis of your case, then your entire case falls. Correct me if I am wrong, but could your entire resolution be summed up as "In a democracy, only knowledgable citizens ought to vote"? Anyways, define what you consider a "democracy" as well, please? I asked why knowledge is neccessary, too. I for one don't think one can use knowledge as a value, just because a value is something that isn't really debatable, e.g democratic ideals, human agency, justice, and such. One cannot really make the argument that justice isn't necessarily good, but I'm pretty sure I could make the argument that knowledge isn't necessarily good. However, if not your central value, to what end does knowledge achieve? But in short, like the immigration debate, what really matters is that you're denying them the right to vote, violating the democratic ideal of the people voting, not just the a certain group of people. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 1568/4541 |
First off because I'd rather have a slight impact on todays society, rather than having a corrupt politician decide who gets elected. Besides, a lot of good qualified people would never be put into office if only because they aren't all that famous.
Now, on Elara's comments. I watch the debates. A lot of people watch them. However, what about those that don't have TV and vote? What about those who merely read the article about what happened rather than watching it? What about those people who don't really pay attention to whoever they are voting for in the first place? Anyway, to be honest, if people refuse to take a test to vote, good riddance. IF they fail the test, then that proves they don't know about who they are voting for. Good riddance. As for that comment about how it was used against the blacks, my suggestion is that you get 80% right or more. The questions would be multiple choice, and a computer examines the answers. The test would have no questions about race, party, credit score, or anything like that. Besides that, a computer isn't prejudice, it wouldn't care. Finally, on Logos' comments on knowledge, allow me to define what I mean as knowledge, so that this doesn't turn into a debate over the definition of a word.
This test would be on how well aquaintedd the voter is with these said facts. No more comments on what knowledge is is neccesary, and this is how I define it, as according to dictionary.com. |
| Logos Posts: 253/641 |
What gives importance to the thoughts and preferences of the masses? Why not eliminate voting and create a system in which the most qualified person receives the job? What validates a democratic system? |
| Elara Posts: 3873/9736 |
*looks at her post for mention of people's thoughts on democracy*
... *doesn't see a reference to it* But, if I get what you mean, you are asking if it matters what people think in a democracy then the answer is yes. It should at any rate, since it is supposed to be governed by the people, so I would hope that what people think matters. |
| Logos Posts: 251/641 |
Originally posted by Elara I meant the idea of a democracy. |
| Elara Posts: 3870/9736 |
In which way do you mean? What the people think about the test? The candidates? What the candidates think? The people arguing for or against a proposition? You need to make yourself a bit clearer.
And that same statement can be applied to the first post in this thread. |
| Logos Posts: 249/641 |
Originally posted by Elara Just one thing about your case, does it really matter what "people" think? |
| Elara Posts: 3868/9736 |
They used to test people to vote... it was one of the ways they kept blacks from voting in the South after it was illegal to keep them from voting due to race.
You know what you do to learn? Watch debates, which are broadcasted on *gasp* CNN and other news stations! You read that big booklet that comes before the election with information on people and propositions, and the debates for and against them that are written in newspapers. Instituting a test would decrease voter turnout, not because of people failing, but due to people going "fuck that, I just won't vote." Human apathy is a powerful opponent. So yeah, I don't think you're idea would work at all. |
| Logos Posts: 231/641 |
Originally posted by Vulkar That's nonsense. If a serial killer told one they wouldn't kill a person, their ethos would be diminished compared to the average citizen(I wouldn't really believe the serial killer much either, but that's not the point). Likewise, if the Dalai Lama said he wouldn't kill a person, most would believe him a lot more than the average citizen saying so. Ethos matters a lot, especially in politics.
I refuse to agree with your definition because it is too subjective for the purpose of this debate. Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines knowledge as "the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association." To reiterate, everyone doesn't share the same experience or association that is necessary for knowledge, and therefore their interpretation of knowledge is not the same. I'm just saying they have to know what position the guy is taking on a certain issue. I couldn't really care less about what else they know. That's democrats, if you wanted to know, and this has no relevance in the context of this paragraph. So? You don't impact this point at all.
You drop this point, fair enough. |
| Lord Vulkas Mormonus Posts: 1532/4541 |
Contention one: Knowledgeable would be what the person they are voting for takes on certain political issues. Kerry wants to tax the rich more? The voters should know. Kerry won three purple hearts? It doesn't matter, that has nothing to do with his politics. What the voter should know isn't history, only what position the person they are voting for takes. If A politician was once a mass murderer from Russia, then assuming his political ideas were good, I wouldn't care. History would not be on the test, only ideas on current events.
And knowledge isn't really subjective. I'm just saying they have to know what position the guy is taking on a certain issue. I couldn't really care less about what else they know. Contention two: There are many liberal republicans or conservative democracts. The knowledge matters because if they don't know it, then they have no idea what they are voting for. They could easily, without knowing it, vote for a guy who believes that video games should be illegal. On a side note, there are many politicians that believe that, so it does apply. Contention three: That wasn't my main point, I was just noting it, and I'm too lazy to argue immigration without it having a seperate thread. |
| Logos Posts: 227/641 |
Originally posted by Vulkar I firmly disagree with the resolution put forth that "knowledgeable" people should only be allowed to vote. Contention 1: The argument in itself is flawed, because my opponent does not define what "knowledgeable" means in the context of voting. Though they state that "knowledgeable" means passing a test, they neglect to note that much of politics is not in fact empirical data, it is highly subjective, and particular to each and every individual. One cannot "measure" knowledge with any sort of "ruler," it is not as simple as seeing if someone knows how to add or subtract. (As a sidenote, I must note that the reasons behind Kerry's support are not "flip-flop" but a response to additions to a bill, what is often called "pork-belly," calling for additional spending he disapproved of. And about the pro-con stance on the war, wasn't there a lapse of a few years or certain happenings that Kerry would change his views based on? Vulkar himself wouldn't qualify to be one of these knowlegeable voters by his own criterion, though I persay wouldn't think so.) Contention 2: Assuming that my opponent only wishes to define "knowledgeable" on that which can be clearly defined as positive data, such as knowledge of party associations, history and such, I pose a question: what is the significance of such knowledge? Who is to say that voting for a party member because they are consistant with one's beliefs is wrong? Clearly, the values of people vary immensely, and thus their reasons for voting for someone often vary as well. Contention 3: When my opponent states that illegal immigrants voting is wrong, they fail to support their contention with any sort of evidence, nor do they state why in fact it is wrong. Furthermore, they do not provide any basis on which it is "wrong." When my oppenent states that "I don't want my future in the hands of a homeless drug dealer who has been in jail twice and has a large criminal record," I'm inclined to think that they are in fact saying that everyone should follow his/her idea of "wrong." This of course would be completely illogical. "Wrong" much like "knowledge" is not something that is consistant from person to person. My idea of what is wrong may be different from yours: "wrong" is normative and subjective, as opposed to positive and objective. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. | |
