Re: Debates & Debating

From: formerly known as 'cat arranger' (goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 09/13/04 

Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:08:49 -0700

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7Kdnf6-2s7Gf9ncRVn-sw@comcast.com...
:
: "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea1950SPAM-SPAM@hotmail.com>
wrote in
: message news:0a31d.293876$Oi.37072@fed1read04...
: >
: > The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
: > causes without the conviction of truth.
:
: Are you saying that the pursuit of 'debate' is ALL cases learing to argue
causes
: and in ALL cases without the conviction of truth?

Asking people to argue things which they don't believe in
and then rewarding them on their proficiency instead of
the results of a search for truth is wrong.

Very few things are 'all' or 'none'. Good point.

: > It is the
: > rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their
: > clients in dishonest ways against the interest of
: > the harmed parties and against society and extends
: > into the board rooms with the rationalization that
: > boards of directors have to have the bottom line
: > of companies in the elevated position that does
: > not take into consideration society as a whole
: > or the harm done to individuals.
:
: Is it such a rationalization at ALL times or SOME times?

ditto ditto

: I'll wait for you to clear up these quanitfications before proceeding
because
: they are crucial to your argument.

I don't know if they are crucial. I'm not condemning debatea in toto,
or todo or to do... : -) I just see lawyers who have learned the loopholes
and become godless smartpants who live in a world that I wouldn't
want for anyone.

: > "We have to take
: > care of the stockholders. It is up to the courts to
: > find us in error, if that is the case. Being fair is not
: > our job."
: >
: > Saying that one can argue one side of an issue
: > while depending on the other side, a judge, or
: > anyone else to uphold the other side while knowing
: > that one is wrong, is what debate means and it
: > is a negative with a rationalization that does not
: > stand scrutiny.
: >
: > Debate is the indoctrination of lawyers who will
: > eventually harm society and businessmen who will
: > become the leaders of the companies that are like
: > the ones who have recently stold the pensions and
: > life savings of millions of Americans.
: >
: >
: >
:
:

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Debates & Debating
    ... The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue ... rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Debates & Debating
    ... Are you saying that the pursuit of 'debate' is ALL cases learing to argue causes ... > rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Debates & Debating
    ... > The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue ... > rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their ... Debate no longer even exists. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Debates & Debating
    ... >>The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue ... >>causes without the conviction of truth. ... debate is one of the most useful means of testing ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Moonie Times Commentary: Evolution debate needs even chance
    ... and logic are much better at leading you to truth. ... debate and does not bring us closer to truth, ... expense of the scientific process, the traditional way to reveal what ... most traditional evolutionists are nervous about this as the ...
    (talk.origins)