Interfaithforums.com  

Go Back   Interfaithforums.com > Debate Forum > Formal Debate
Formal Debate Formal debates by request

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Challenge to Mippop: Conservatism "less religious" than Liberalism
(#1 (permalink))
Old
evangelicalhumanist's Avatar

Seeking intelligent life
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,987
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Karma: 5682
evangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond repute
Challenge to Mippop: Conservatism "less religious" than Liberalism - 15th February 2010, 01:21 AM

In another thread, Mippop made the following claim:
Quote:
Conservatism depends much more on knowledge and facts and much less on the religious style ferver of Liberalism.
I think this is a very serious, and at the same time extremely dubious claim. I hereby challenge Mippop to defend that claim, in a formal debate with me, and I will accept whatever rules for the debate he cares to propose, except that it be fewer than three rounds.

I propose that the debate be upon a resolution by precisely the words than he used: Resolved: Conservatism depends much more on knowledge and facts and much less on the religious style ferver of Liberalism.

I hope that mippop will accept this challenge, and that we can find a moderator to oversee the debate.


evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.
Reply With Quote
(#2 (permalink))
Old

Senior Member
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,469
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Karma: 383
mippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nice
16th February 2010, 02:29 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by evangelicalhumanist View Post
In another thread, Mippop made the following claim:

I think this is a very serious, and at the same time extremely dubious claim. I hereby challenge Mippop to defend that claim, in a formal debate with me, and I will accept whatever rules for the debate he cares to propose, except that it be fewer than three rounds.

I propose that the debate be upon a resolution by precisely the words than he used: Resolved: Conservatism depends much more on knowledge and facts and much less on the religious style ferver of Liberalism.

I hope that mippop will accept this challenge, and that we can find a moderator to oversee the debate.
This kind of forum is a new one on me. However, I did make what I consider to be a pretty fair statement and I believe that it deserves a fair justification. However, there are a few things I'll need.

* I am not one who keep maintains ready access to facts and figures and I might need some time to prepare.

* I might need some coaching and/or forgiveness in guiding me through the rules.

* I certainly have no problems in having a dialog with EH. I would also appreciate contributions from others ...particularly of those who would help me support my position (if any exist here ). However, hopefully we can get through this without the kibitzers who have nothing to add but consternation and frustration.

A suggestion for a good starting point is the montra that George Bush was a terrible president. It seems to me that the during the most recent and previoius presidential election campaigns many Democrats were content to begin and end their arguments with "I hate Bush!". To me, this was an empty battle cry that appealed to the emotions without substantial facts to back it up. This might be a good opportunity for me to actually find out why George W. Bush was such a bad President. Care to fill in the details?

Last edited by mippop; 16th February 2010 at 02:32 AM.
Reply With Quote
(#3 (permalink))
Old

Senior Member
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,469
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Karma: 383
mippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nice
16th February 2010, 05:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by metis View Post
EH and mippop, I think there's probably already a disconnect between you two in regards to actually what is to be debated. EH, my impression is that the ballpark you want to discuss deals mostly with conservative and liberal approaches on an international scale whereas, mippop, your ballpark appears to be dealing with American partisan politics (Democrat v Republican). Since you both may be not playing in the same ballpark, you may find yourselves talking past each other.

For example, mippop in your last post on this thread mentioned an evaluation of Bush's presidency, but this has really nothing to do with conservative v liberal since Bush was a social conservative but certainly not a fiscal one nor a political (states' rights) one. That tells me that you are likely to be focusing in on American partisan politics, but I have doubts that EH really wants to get into that in any detail.

Therefore mippop and EH, let me recommend you set the focus of your debate in more specific terms.
Of course your impression is from the eyes of a Liberal. I think you should give my opponent more credit than that. He raised the challenge and I think I have offered an appropriate challenge back based on the following points.

* Let's look at EH's proposed terms:
Quote:
I think this is a very serious, and at the same time extremely dubious claim. I hereby challenge Mippop to defend that claim, in a formal debate with me, and I will accept whatever rules for the debate he cares to propose, except that it be fewer than three rounds.

I propose that the debate be upon a resolution by precisely the words than he used: Resolved: Conservatism depends much more on knowledge and facts and much less on the religious style ferver of Liberalism.
While there are similarities among liberal groups around the world in philosophy, my comment is driven by my knowledge and experience of the activities and behavior of Liberalism in the United States. I think that Gorm made some valid points about how Liberalism and Conservatism vary around the world such that a Liberal in the United States might be considered to have more conservative views than Liberals elsewhere.

* If I am to defend my claims related to the "religious style and ferver of Liberalism", examples of this behavior are certainly relevant to this debate. One prominant example of this, in my opinion, is the running of negative campaigns against George Bush in the past two presidential election campaigns even when George Bush was not even a candidate in the most recent campaign. It is my belief that this tactic was a religious style ferver stirred up by campaign leaders without much in the way of factual support. I think a logical question to follow this one would inquire about the specific points of "change" that Democrats were looking for. Was it worship of the word "change"?. Was it thousands of different changes desired by thousands of different Democrats? This is how I intend to propery defend my statement. I my opponent has different ideas, then let him express those ideas.
Reply With Quote
(#4 (permalink))
Old

Senior Member
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,469
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Karma: 383
mippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nice
16th February 2010, 06:49 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by backwrite View Post
Before we go too much farther, allow me to suggest that we (EH? Mippop? Metis? Others?) decide on whether this will be bilateral or multilateral. Perhaps there's a pre-existing rule on that for this particular forum (LK's input would help here).

I ask because I can be all over "Bush was a terrible president" like a cheap suit, but I don't want to get in the way if we decide to keep this to two people.
How about semi-multilateral? If we have full multilateral, then this debate is going to go in any number of multiple directions. In a semi-multilateral discussion, others can contribute only in timely conjunction with issues that only I or EH raise. How does this sound to you and, of course, to EH?

Last edited by mippop; 16th February 2010 at 08:37 PM.
Reply With Quote
(#5 (permalink))
Old
evangelicalhumanist's Avatar

Seeking intelligent life
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 10,987
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Toronto, Canada
Karma: 5682
evangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond reputeevangelicalhumanist has a reputation beyond repute
16th February 2010, 07:02 PM

The reason I put this in the "formal debate forum" is so that it would be a controlled debate between two people. Normally, what happens in this forum is that the debate rules are worked out in this thread "Challenge: Conservativism less religious than liberalism." Then the debate happens in another thread called "Debate: Conservatism less religious than liberalism" according to the rules agreed to in this thread, and finally, a third thread is set up called "Bleachers: Conservatism less religious than liberalism" where other interested members can comment or throw brick-bats at the debaters.

You can see all of this in the "rules" post: Formal Debates: Introduction and Rules


evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.
Reply With Quote
(#6 (permalink))
Old

Senior Member
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,469
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Karma: 383
mippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nice
16th February 2010, 08:20 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by metis View Post
Huh? You certainly don't know me well enough to make such a statement. If you did, you would be aware of the fact that I'm liberal in some areas, conservative in some others, and moderate in probably most.
There is a significant irony in this debate. Though my comment was leveled at Liberalism in general, the comment itself is not directed at Liberal policy per se, but at the typical behavior of Liberals. The irony here is that regardless of EH's politics, he personally does not exhibit the behavior described in my comment. Regardless of your (Metis) political views, your behavior is, in my opinion, very typical of the behavior described in my comment.

Quote:
You have established my point quite well, namely that the above has literally nothing to do with liberal/conservative but much to do with Democrat/Republican.
One of the most applied forms of defense of Liberalism is chaos, particularly in language. First, there is Democrat, there is Liberal, and there is Progressive. (I don't think that right/left are really all that meaningful.). Then there are a host of other words in their glossary which are in constant flux. Your Liberal behavior is actually being exhibited right here in this debate in your attempt ot manipulate the parameters as kind of a dodge of the real issues. In contrast, I can rely on EH's intentions to be what he says they are. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he also sees some irony in the matchup for the particular issue of this debate. Perhaps his perspective of Liberalism is somewhat localized to his own political environment as my perspective is localized to mine and perhaps he may discover that I have a valid argument in my environment that might not apply to his. I think that U.S. Liberalism is really at risk in this debate and I think you know it.
Reply With Quote
(#7 (permalink))
Old

Senior Member
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,469
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Karma: 383
mippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nice
16th February 2010, 08:28 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorm_Sionnach View Post
Just a technical point, but when one is discussing the political parties of Canada, they are the Liberal and Conservative parties.

When one is discussing the political philosophies, they are liberalism and conservatism.

It's a niggling detail, but it does help differentiate between the two in conversation, albeit I'm not sure how much the former will be discussed.
I understand your point and I think it is a valid one. My understanding is that we are discussing the related behaviors of the groups that subscribe to the philosophies rather than discussing the political parties. The names of the political parties really are meaningless anyway. When you consider the difference between a republic and a democracy, I think it will be clear, at least in the U.S., that the Republicans want a more democratic form of government and the Democrats want a more Republican form of government. Go figure!

Last edited by mippop; 16th February 2010 at 08:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
(#8 (permalink))
Old

Senior Member
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,469
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Karma: 383
mippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nice
16th February 2010, 08:35 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by metis View Post
Mippop, I think I know what I believe far more than you do, and it's truly unfortunate that you so much resort to nonsensical stereotypes, and then you attach rather stereotypically bizarre motives to the stereotypes you create. It's like Strawman City.

And, especially as Jews, we should be well aware of the danger stereotypes can pose.

Anyhow, I'll bow out here and let you and EH have at it.
I am saying nothing about your beliefs. I am describing only what I observe to be your behavior, and it is, in my opinion, to be very stereotypical of the kind of behavior addressed in this debate. Please do not be insulted. If I am wrong, then let that come out in the discussion.
Reply With Quote
(#9 (permalink))
Old

Senior Member
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 1,469
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Simi Valley, CA
Karma: 383
mippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nicemippop is just really nice
16th February 2010, 09:04 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by metis View Post
OK, but I thought the debate was just between you and EH? I'm confused, which is my middle name, btw.
If you didn't add any of your own perspective, it might have been. It still can be! Shhh!
Reply With Quote
(#10 (permalink))
Old
Lightkeeper's Avatar

Admin
 
Status: Offline
Posts: 14,085
Blog Entries: 1
Join Date: Apr 2005
Karma: 3900
Lightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond reputeLightkeeper has a reputation beyond repute
16th February 2010, 10:18 PM

This is a formal debate between EH an Mippop only. All outsider posts have been moved to the Bleachers thread for this debate. Only EH and Mippop post in this thread. All outsider posts will be removed from this thread.


All paths lead to awakening.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On





INTERFAITHFORUMS aSTORE





GoDaddy.com - World's No.1 Domain Name Registrar






vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com
Copyright 2005-2014 Interfaithforums.com. All Rights Reserved


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0