Yes. Some say that 90% of Philosophical problems would resolve by themselves, if they managed to establish valid definitions of the concepts.

Philosophy is often seeking definition.

And perhaps we should call debate moderators "arbiters" so as to save on typing. — Banno

An arbiter actually decides an outcome, or is someone whose opinion in a matter is considered preeminent, unsurpassed (e.g. Petronius, who wrote The Satyricon and was called elegantiae arbiter, the judge of elegance), So unless that's the role being taken by Hanover or anyone else in his position in a debate, I wouldn't use it. How about another nice Latin word, magister? The magister ludi was the master, or chief or director of the game(s), gladiatorial and otherwise. The magister didn't compete, but ran the show; matters of propriety and decisions on rule disputes were his to make.

Nice. But I hear a rumour that @Jamalrob may have preempted us.

How about The Grand Trismegistus.

Well, we could put something like that to a vote. I'm not married to a number, 2 is what I'm used to as a lawyer and if life and death situation can be decided in 4 rounds...

Another idea could be to have debaters submit their opening positions blindly and then have them start a debate. But this has benefits and disadvantages. Main benefit will probably be that differences in definitions and usage of terms will be laid bare early on. — Benkei

I do like the judicial approach of submitting an argument, a response then filed, and then a final reply. The judge (or, better yet, a panel) then holds a hearing, peppering both sides with questions, followed by a ruling. If not a unanimous ruling by the judges, the dissenters may also file their opinion.

This, of course, will result in a decision that isn't entirely determined by the debaters, bit also by the objective strength of the position.

That decision is then appealable to me, at which time I'll let everyone know who was actually right.

That decision is then appealable to me, at which time I'll let everyone know who was actually right. — Hanover

I'll accept your decision as long as you danced around a fire all night long with a rattle.

That is, step 1, we pass rules, step 2, we interpret those rules, step 3, we use past interpretations for future cases. — Hanover

What about enforcing the rules. The debate moderator is the judge and executor?
Who are "we" that pass rules? and who are "we" in the subsequent steps?

Yes. Some say that 90% of Philosophical problems would resolve by themselves, if they managed to establish valid definitions of the concepts. — Corvus

The Logical Positivists said all could, using this method. Wittgenstein showed it can't be done. Hence, Post-Modernism.

I think philosophical problems of different opinions would only get resolved if words had the power of action. For instance, "FU", or "go to hell" stuck. Barring that, no go. No end of debates. Debates end when a question successfully becomes the topic of science... enough evidence to not doubt an opinion by humans.

I'll accept your decision as long as you danced around a fire all night long with a rattle. — frank

Your requirement is unorthodox, but reasonable.

the desire for power is greater than the desire for truth

therefore debating often descends into fighting

and there is nothing wrong with that. wake up and smell reality you silly idealists — MikeListeral

This is so true! But I shan't embrace it, because it impedes me in my quest to garner power.

In the Darwinian sense, truth is strangely less conducive to survival than power is.

------------------

Those who make rules will make rules that help maintain their power, or help them attain it. If two debating opponents are asked to make rules, the debate will never end over what rules to make and how to apply them.

For some people yes.
Still a poor debate. — Protagoras

Truth can't be debated. Theoretically.

If two debating opponents are asked to make rules, the debate will never end over what rules to make and how to apply them. — god must be atheist

What about when that doesn't happen, like when rules are agreed upon and then there's a debate?

It is people's perception of what truth is that is debated. And truth (a precise description of reality) can't be found, much less described. Humans' ontological or epistemological arsenal does not include tools that could help us get to the truth with any degree of certainty.

There are only two empirically true statements that have the strength of a true a priori knowledge: 1. Cogito ergo sum, and 2. Geometrical space, which is the same as the space of which a part we occupy, is infinite. There may be a third but intuitively I think it's false: in an infinite space, all configurations of possible non-infinite existences must occur infinite times.

What about when that doesn't happen, like when rules are agreed upon and then there's a debate? — Hanover

Then it was a third party that made the rules and the debating partners agreed to heed to them.

Then it was a third party that made the rules and the debating partners agreed to heed to them. — god must be atheist

Unless it wasn't.

But the main crux is the debaters themselves should have some sort of goodwill and charity just as a point of pride.
— Protagoras

And how will you enforce that? — Banno

By detecting prior to the debate if the debating candidates have pride. If they lack it, they are not a good match in a debate, and shan't be allowed to participate in one.

Unless it wasn't. — Hanover

You are doing an Apollonius. Or however he spells his name. Reducing an argument to bare naysaying.

You are doing an Apollonius. Or however he spells his name. Reducing an argument to bare naysaying. — god must be atheist

I'm only pointing out that debaters aren't always so disagreeable that they can't even agree to a debate. It's not always that hostile. It really depends upon the personalities.

:up: Magister works even better than arbiter. Or less elegantly, there's MC (master of ceremonies) ...

The Logical Positivists said all could, using this method. Wittgenstein showed it can't be done. Hence, Post-Modernism. — god must be atheist

Post-modernists would just deconstruct everything - even reasoning. To me they are not philosophers. Post-Modernists are art critics. Their interest is not in truths, but in desconstruction. When you deconstruct something, indeed truths vanishes, and things end up in some possible world.

When you deconstruct something, indeed truths vanishes, and things end up in some possible world. — Corvus

Deconstruction is a method of isolating the assumptions and biases of a text. Are you suggesting that we get closer to the truth by neglecting these, or rather that it feels like we do?

Deconstruction is a method of isolating the assumptions and biases of a text. Are you suggesting that we get closer to the truth by neglecting these, or rather that it feels like we do? — Kenosha Kid

Maybe your definition of deconstruction is different from mine. I understand it as interpreting thoughts, texts and systems from many different aspects. It is not act of "isolation", but rather interpretation.

As good a place to post the following as anywhere else (but Mods feel free to relocate as you see fit).

If you realise that philosophical/scientific materialism is fallacious, then what are the alternatives? — Wayfarer

In two years, with almost as many repeated requests for an explanation that have been ignored almost as many times as Wayf has merely stated this canard, I've heard nothing that remotely warrants asserting "philosophical / scientific materialism is fallacious" – certainly nothing from the resident woo-mongering idealist himself. :smirk:

So in the spirit of this thread and recently less than adequate debates which have given rise to reforms proposed (mostly by @Banno) on this thread,

I challenge Wayfarer to affirm the proposition (or very close to it): "Both philosophical and scientific materialisms are fallacious" in a formal debate against either myself or someone else in opposition to the proposition.

"Magister" (MC, arbiter, whatever s/he is now called) & other format details tbd.

What say you @Wayfarer? Versus me or some other anti-idealist / realist (I can recommend a few in my place if that'll be helpful). Negotiations via PM of course.

:up: :100:

The p0m0s traffic in stylized, rhetorical, "observations" (or polemical anecdotes) in lieu – at the expense – of conceptual analyses, valid arguments & defeasible reasoning as a matter of course. Onanistic sophistry, or (more generously) bad / pseudo philosophy.

In two years, with almost as many repeated requests for an explanation that have been ignored — 180 Proof

Nonsense. I have answered your objections on a number of occasions, only to be told that my response is 'woo', when from my perspective, you've simply failed to grasp the point. And no, I have no interest in debating you.

I didn't think so, but what about someone else?

I see myself a very newbie in the subject, so am just happy reading and learning only for a while.

:cool:

I didn't think so, but what about someone else? — 180 Proof

I suppose I might be willing to give it a go. At worst, it will make me do some work.

I will request a debate when completed my first reading of The Critique of Pure Reason. Could take a few years, if not infinity :D