Malaclypse the Younger

These are all acceptable ideas.

Phrase a resolution in the form of an assertion: e.g. "Resolved: Moral value subjectivism is bankrupt" or "Resolved: Eating meat is morally wrong." You can phrase it either so that I take the pro or con position, so long as it is obvious that you would take the opposite position.

Do you insist on a free-form debate? Or would you be willing to negotiating a structure?

My proposal would be to start with opening statements of some maximum word length (e.g. 1,000 words), a series of rebuttals limited to some smaller word length (e.g. 300-500 words each), followed by a closing statement of the same length as our opening statement.

These posts could either be concurrent (i.e. we commit to composing them independently) or sequentially (i.e. one can see the other's statement before composing one's own). If we go sequentially, it is your choice to go first or second.

As to limiting the number of rebuttals, we can either agree in advance to a limit or subject the limit to a mutually agreeable referee.

These are merely suggestions. You may modify these suggestions, or suggest something completely different. I am eager to conduct any kind of debate, and I would agree to any fair structure; if necessary, I would agree to a completely free-form discussion.

Malaclypse the Younger

I will, of course, accept a free-form discussion.

However, I believe that a structured format would have some advantages:

• It would force us both to focus our respective arguments, for greater clarity
• It would be more readable to our mutual audience
• It would render the debate publishable, without editing or abridgement

All I ask is that you consider these advantages. If you insist on a free-form debate, however, I will definitely accept.

emphryio

Excuse me, Malaclypse. You may want to check page 6 of the last thread.

I was accepting your challenge. Please don't get me all worked up for nothing.

emphryio

I've spent a few hours going over my points already. A bit annoying that you would switch to another thread and accept a challenge from someone else.

Automaton

Actually arguing two vaguely related assertions might simply confuse the issue, and would probably best be suited for seperate debates. In this case, I believe I will choose to argue one: The position that killing animals for meat is morally wrong. Okies?

And I still propose we do it free-form style, because:
1. It's true that this format does tend to degenerate into minor tangents and nitpicking, but it doesn't matter. The nature of our topic will probably prevent this.
2. Our mutual audience don't seem to mind viewing the vast majority of other arguments and discussions that go on here, so I doubt any formal restrictions will make that much of a difference.
3. As for publishing, is that really necessary? I don't know about you, but I won't be making any profound advancements in ethical philosophy that hasn't been already covered by a thousand other thinkers before me, I'll just be stating and defending my position as accurately as I can. If you really want to, don't forget Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (although ficticious) was free-form and that didn't do too badly.

spin

tronvillain:
---------------
Are you saying that you are being abused, or that you are abusing people?
---------------

It was a reference to Monty Python. I fear you are culturally deprived.

tronvillain:
---------------
You aren't really doing much for your position by avoiding the challenge.
---------------

As I thought I had pointed out elsewhere, moral subjectivism to me is simply having no morals (but living on the mores of the archipeligo of ideas that the individual is burdened with as one growns into consciousness.

Turn that down, tronny, turn that down, or I'll call the police. He used to cut my lawn...)

One doesn't debate about morals with someone who one thinks has none.

spin

PB:
-----------
You have eaten meat in the future? Was it at that restaurant at the end of the Universe, by chance?
-----------

Malaclypse:
-----------
This sentence should read "I have eaten meat in the past."
-----------

Naturally, it should, but I would have thought that there would be no doubt about it, until our mate PB came along. Because of the obviousness, I have to conclude (hoping) that PB's response was humour.

spin

Why not deal with the resolution:

Moral subjectivism can justify any human action whatsoever.

Pomp

spin,

Naturally, it should, but I would have thought that there would be no doubt about it, until our mate PB came along. Because of the obviousness, I have to conclude (hoping) that PB's response was humour.

It was a reference to Douglas Adams. I fear you are culturally deprived.

Pomp

spin,

Why not deal with the resolution:

Moral subjectivism can justify any human action whatsoever.

Now, this I'd like to see.