Argue against your own position!

Post Reply New Topic

Perhaps I'm overestimating Xenon13, but while he has a revolutionary (indeed, sometimes, at least in rhetoric, violent) Marxian streak, I don't think he's as much of a robot as Inuyasha. That is to say I think it's possible for him to, at least loosely, drop his Marxian framework and argue based on a neoliberalistically individualist basis (in theory, holding heterodox positions contrary to NAIRU entails that you've at least heard the mainstream position).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syncretic_politics

I would agree that Xenon13 displays a bit more independent thought, though he has been an active participant here longer than Inuyasha and may have accidentally been exposed to outside ideas over the years. It's sort of interesting that they have opposite ideologies and use very different MOs, with Inuyasha favoring the copypasta approach and Xenon13 going straight for the contemptuous polemic, yet both have a similar reception by the forum at large (though I think Inuyasha draws more negative attention both for his choice of ideology and his sheer output). It does sort of illustrate my oft made point about naked partisanship eroding credibility, even people who might agree with either of the mentioned posters hesitate to do so publicly lest they be associated with blind fanaticism.

I think it is still possible to present an informed and intellectually honest skepticism of anthropogenic global warming (though its getting more and more difficult IMO). It's just that the vast majority of arm-chair climate change skeptics don't use honest or informed arguments. There are also more nuanced positions in between the most dire/alarmist predictions of the environmentalists and the complete knee-jerk skepticism of the arm-chair denialists.

Last edited by marshall on 06 Jan 2011, 11:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Xenon13's main problem is he seems to smudge the line between rational argumentation and firebrand hyperbole. Inuyasha's most annoying trait is his refusal to stay on topic and insistence on throwing up red herrings.

But I suspect that you already occupy that "middle ground," so to argue against climate change you would pretty much have to go into crazy land and deny the evidence. While we're at it, why don't I argue for young-earth creationism?

It's hard to say. We don't know what Xenon's sources are, in large part because psychotic leftist sources are a bit more obscure than psychotic right-wing sources (where do you really find Beck's counterpart?) and for all we know, Xenon13 may be repeating talking points same as Inuyasha. But even if Xenon13 is more of an independent thinker, I get the impression that the extremism will still prevent him from engaging the other side effectively.


It's not just that. There is also the recognition that a significant number of people actually share Inuyasha's views, and even at his crazier moments there are easily drawn connections to what people I personally know believe. That makes Inuyasha's brand of extremism and polemics both more frightening and more grating- while Xenon13 can be written off as an obvious fringe-dweller who no one in the mainstream of politics takes seriously, Inuyasha's views are powerfully represented on primetime TV "news" and in the government.

Did you see his thread praising Alexander Lukashenko? Read his take on the man and his recent "reelection", then google him as well as the 2010 elections. I'd say that constitutes a pretty clear break with reality, or at the very least an extreme case of ideological blinkers.

Ok, I would like a request:
I request that a poster, particularly Orwell, argue for nihilism.

I actually had a counter to visagrunt's argument but my net crashed. Anyways, the problem is more of I have problems doing purely emotional arguments, which is all the single-payer platform has to go on. I'll retype it and repost it later.

You just keep proving my point, Inuyasha.

So is this your way of stating that any resemblance any argument you might make here has to the truth is purely coincidental?

Guns should be illegal. People say that criminals will get guns whether it's illegal or not, but if an alcoholic in your family is going to drink anyways then is that an excuse to enable that person? There's another argument that people are gonna find another means to kill a person if guns aren't available. Well at least stabbing doesn't have the problem of stray bullets killing innocent people. There is absolutely no reason for people to need guns since the police protect everyone. One can say well the police take 10 mins to arrive, but in the vast majority of incidents everyone's safety is insured by cooperating with the suspect.

Why should marijuana be legalized? It's bad for the lungs, has been proven to impair people while they're driving, and it doesn't really have much medical benefits other than pain relief, which can be accomplished with pharmaceuticals. Marijuana impairs people's ability to function and since there's relatively much less side effects than other intoxicants, it will encourage much more abuse of it. Since you don't get hungover from weed, what's stopping you from getting high all the time?

Whats up with everyone opposing big government? The government is responsible for the roads, electricity, water, etc. so if we can't trust the government on things other than our basic needs, then what else do we have? Right wingers say they want freedom over security, but the whole point of a society is to secure our needs. Because of society, we can conveniently get food from the grocery store rather than hunting under the threat of starvation. Would you take the freedom to starve over the security of having society provide for you?

lol I tried my best to actually play Devil's Advocate and not make a mockery out of this, but I still can't make it convincing to myself. I could still destroy these arguments easily.

When your opponent steadfastly refuses to accept that there is any rational basis for your position then you have already won. Any successful high-school debater could have risen to this challenge. Especially an American one, given their preference for forensics over rhetoric.

Ironically, I believe that Inuyasha actually has the intellectual capacity to rise to this challenge and that it is only an emotional, pig-headed attachment to partisanship that is the impediment.

Truly, the emperor has no clothes.

The issue is many of the traditional arguments I have seen to support single payer, I know off the top of my head how to completely destroy and what items to google to find sources that completely blow the arguments to pieces. There was an incident in Oregon for starters that shows how messed up Government Run healthcare can be.

@ visagrunt

Well, depending on how much you researched the side of the argument I usually take, really effects what arguments one could even make. I am aware you need to be able to see the opposite side, and quite honestly I do.

I know all I have to do is just dig any horror stories up concerning insurance or HMOs, and one has a collection of horror stories. The fact is though, if one does the research, that argument can be negated by horror stories from single payer.

The issue here is my stance is actually there needed to be some reform, but Obamacare was the wrong approach and single payer would make the issue worse.

Fun tidbit: There are over 1,000 health insurance companies in the US, yet only 3 are allowed to compete in California.