Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Oh gosh I'd love to do this but since I just took a week of school there's no way I'll have time to after all the catching up I have to do! Sign me up for the next one though!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to join in the debate but am worried I wont be able to make it this weekend. If i am free It will probably be in the evenings and I would be willing to debate for either side
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to take part and argue for. I am free on Sunday...for most of the times. I am a newly joined member and this seems pretty interesting :3 ...
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to participate and argue for, and mostly free on Sunday from midday onwards
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by miser)
    Welcome to D&CA's First Debate Competition

    This has been an idea long in the making and I'm pleased to finally announce D&CA's first debate competition!

    The motion of debate will be:

    Do the ends justify the means?

    The debate format will be as follows:
    • Two teams will take turns to advance their position and rebut the opposition's arguments
    • Each team member will be allocated one or more two-hour time slots when they should submit their post(s)
    • The debate will run for the duration of the weekend of the 14th and 15th of November
    • At the end of the debate, the D&CA support team will discuss the quality of discussion and announce the winning team
    • The number of time slots each participant will receive will depend on the number of overall participants


    If you'd like to participate, please post in this thread by 12pm noon on Friday 13th November saying you're interested. Please include the following information:
    • Whether you would like to argue for or against the motion
    • What your preferred time to post in the debate is (morning, afternoon or evening)


    If the debate is a success then there will be the opportunity for future debates, so if you're interested please post below!

    (Also, a big shout out to lustawny for helping get this off the ground!)
    I'd love to join -- hopefully there will be fewer people with closed minds participating than in most TSR debates.

    Evenings are best for me because my sleep schedule is kinda wonky these days so I don't wake up early enough to guarantee my availability in either morning or afternoon.

    As for which side position I'd like to argue for, I'm a little torn. There don't seem to be many takers for arguing in favour of the motion, which makes me inclined towards that, but ultimately I think I'm best suited to arguing against the motion (and I second a noble chance's comment that the question is rather vague and this may affect the quality of the debate)... :dontknow:

    Really looking forward to it. It'll also be nice to have the loser of a debate actually declared the loser for once, rather than everybody proclaiming themselves the victor and ending the debate on fairly bitter terms.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    great idea. I don't want to partake BTW.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I'd love to join -- hopefully there will be fewer people with closed minds participating than in most TSR debates.

    Evenings are best for me because my sleep schedule is kinda wonky these days so I don't wake up early enough to guarantee my availability in either morning or afternoon.

    As for which side position I'd like to argue for, I'm a little torn. There don't seem to be many takers for arguing in favour of the motion, which makes me inclined towards that, but ultimately I think I'm best suited to arguing against the motion (and I second a noble chance's comment that the question is rather vague and this may affect the quality of the debate)... :dontknow:

    Really looking forward to it. It'll also be nice to have the loser of a debate actually declared the loser for once, rather than everybody proclaiming themselves the victor and ending the debate on fairly bitter terms.
    Haha, you again! Seems we're on the same side this time, tho...

    (Oh, and, for the sake of not being on bitter terms, I'll just say you won against me, although if it's ongoing, I can't speak for the other contestants)

    Btw, as a general question, are people on the same side allowed to discuss the debate privately? Don't know if I will this time, but it's good to know!
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    Btw, as a general question, are people on the same side allowed to discuss the debate privately? Don't know if I will this time, but it's good to know!
    The OP can probably answer that one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This what professional philosophers would say:

    Lean toward: deontology 149 / 931 (16.0%)
    Lean toward: consequentialism 130 / 931 (14.0%)
    Lean toward: virtue ethics 117 / 931 (12.6%)
    Accept: deontology 92 / 931 (9.9%)
    Accept: consequentialism 90 / 931 (9.7%)
    Accept more than one 78 / 931 (8.4%)
    Accept: virtue ethics 52 / 931 (5.6%)
    Agnostic/undecided 48 / 931 (5.2%)
    Accept an intermediate view 37 / 931 (4.0%)
    Accept another alternative 33 / 931 (3.5%)
    Insufficiently familiar with the issue 31 / 931 (3.3%)
    Reject all 25 / 931 (2.7%)
    The question is too unclear to answer 17 / 931 (1.8%)
    There is no fact of the matter 10 / 931 (1.1%)
    Other 8 / 931 (0.9%)
    Reject one, undecided between others 8 / 931 (0.9%)
    Skip 6 / 931 (0.6%)


    ..there's absolutely no consensus as you can see. The best place to start any ethical journey is understanding the difference between Consequentialism and Deontology . In the most basic sense, Consequentialism supports the notion that the ends justify the means - as long as there is a net positive outcome, the means to get there are largely irrelevant. Deontology focuses on the type of action, such that if the action falls within a category of bad actions then no end could possibly justify that action.There are many further developments in the field of ethics that complicate the matter. If you're interested in some light reading, check out the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

    (some reading material; have no time for this debate myself)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'd like to argue against

    Evenings

    :mwuaha:
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    The OP can probably answer that one.
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    x
    Yes, there's no rule against discussing the debate. Actually, we'll be running a companion thread for everyone to discuss the debate so far.

    I suppose that a team that coordinated their answers might produce a more cohesive argument, which could make for a stronger argument overall.
    Offline

    18
    I wonder if we could exclude the pompous, self-proclaimed 'professional philosophers' from this debate. They've derailed quite a few interesting discussions elsewhere with their 'you need to have a Bachelor's degree in philosophy to have an opinion that's worth as much as ours' attitude. For all the supposed argumentative expertise, avoiding appeals to authority doesn't seem to be their forte.
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    It's a very vague question which may lower the quality of the debate as people will be debating different definitions and examples etc. If there is another one I would suggest making the question more specific or about a current issue
    To a certain degree, it's intentional. How able each team is to directly argue against the other team's opinions will be an interesting facet of the debate.
    • Section Leader
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Section Leader
    Okay, thank you everyone who has signed up for the debate! Both teams are now filled.

    The teams are:

    For
    a noble chance
    Millie-3
    viddy9
    Ilovelegends
    Valyrian
    Personinsertname

    Against
    Kalail
    yasaminO_o
    Imperion
    Treblebee
    CatusStarbright
    Hydeman

    The debate will commence on Saturday morning at 9pm and continue until Sunday evening at 9pm. See you there!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I have a question about the debate itself , is this a tester or are future debates a lady in the pipe line.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by garfeeled)
    I have a question about the debate itself , is this a tester or are future debates a lady in the pipe line.
    Apparently the former -- if it's successful, then there are likely to be future debates of this kind.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I wonder if we could exclude the pompous, self-proclaimed 'professional philosophers' from this debate. They've derailed quite a few interesting discussions elsewhere with their 'you need to have a Bachelor's degree in philosophy to have an opinion that's worth as much as ours' attitude. For all the supposed argumentative expertise, avoiding appeals to authority doesn't seem to be their forte.
    I'm not sure what this is a reference to, but 'professional philosophers' in my case would refer to faculty members all of which would presumably have some form of PhD/doctorate. Considering the level of qualifications required, I would be surprised if anybody active on TSR would possess this -- certainly not to a large extent.

    avoiding appeals to authority doesn't seem to be their forte.
    Appealing to authority doesn't need to be a poor tactic. If a large number of philosophers / relevant experts support an argument, then it's not unreasonable to assume they have some solid evidence for believing in it and that the position itself might be sound (as we saw from the survey above though, there's no clear consensus on anything). Obviously this shouldn't be used as a sole argument to just dismiss the opponent, however it's worth considering nonetheless. And in my experience, it's generally when the person asks what the consensus among the professionals is, or alternatively used as a retort when the opponent speaks with authority on the subject, rather than debating it maturely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Assassin)
    Appealing to authority doesn't need to be a poor tactic. If a large number of philosophers / relevant experts support an argument, then it's not unreasonable to assume they have some solid evidence for believing in it and that the position itself might be sound (as we saw from the survey above though, there's no clear consensus on anything). Obviously this shouldn't be used as a sole argument to just dismiss the opponent, however it's worth considering nonetheless. And in my experience, it's generally when the person asks what the consensus among the professionals is, or alternatively used as a retort when the opponent speaks with authority on the subject, rather than debating it maturely.
    I cannot see that an appeal to authority is ever worthwhile in the context of a debate. The argument should be sufficient, and if you are aware that such a consensus exists then you should be able to incorporate the reasons for this consensus into your argument. In every case it is a sign that the person using it is losing the argument
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a noble chance)
    I cannot see that an appeal to authority is ever worthwhile in the context of a debate. The argument should be sufficient, and if you are aware that such a consensus exists then you should be able to incorporate the reasons for this consensus into your argument. In every case it is a sign that the person using it is losing the argument
    which is what I said really. If somebody offers an argument with reasoning, you cannot just say 'but Y number of philosophers disagree therefore you are wrong'. If you use it as a supplement to show that the argument might be considered sound, that's fine - as long as it's not the sole argument. Further, to clarify -- appealing to authority isn't a fallacy. Appealing to an irrelevant authority is a fallacy. If the testimony of your authority gives reasonably warrant to the claim the appeal is meant to support, it's a perfectly reasonable thing to appeal to for support of that claim.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I have now got to go to a weekend conference. Therefore, it is with deep apologies that I have to drop out
 
 
 
Poll
“Yanny” or “Laurel”
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.