Argue against your own position!

Post Reply New Topic

You clearly don't. Your miserable parody didn't even manage to get the stated justification for the individual mandate.

And for the record, I'm not a fan of the individual mandate. But I am at least capable of comprehending the reason why it was put into the bill.

Oh, and also:

I hereby nominate Skafather to argue in favor of drug prohibition.

Which is not the case.

ruveyn

Orwell, the individual mandate doesn't fly because it is Unconstitutional and if it isn't ruled that way the Government can do whatever the hell it wants. While I can see both sides of the issue, it is kinda difficult to argue something that is built on lies and flies in the face of the very founding documents of the United States of America. While you can get away with certain kinds of legislation in Europe and Canada; the United States is not those countries and thank god we're not.

I know the arguments for the individual mandate and I know the arguments for single payer; that said I'm not going to use arguments that I know can be easily disproven nor am I going to sit here and spew lies and bull. Every argument I have seen for single payer and the individual mandate can be easily debunked, disproven, or drawn out to show unintended consequences.

It is far easier to argue gun control, no drug enforcement, abortion, doing away with the death penalty, etc. than it is to argue for the single payer and the individual mandate, because there is actually a legitimate argument that can be made.

I continue to be amused by your utter failure to understand the point of the thread.

But I'll humor you. You say you could do a better job arguing against one of your other positions. Go ahead. You pick one on your own so you can make the strongest case possible.

Okay off the cuff Death Penalty is too prone of killing innocent people.

Too often capital punishment is used or nearly used on people that are actually innocent of the crime they are convicted of. I would post sources for specific examples on this but right now I'm having problems with getting a connection with google.

There have been people on death row for decades that are exonerated due to DNA evidence or other evidence which exonerates them. Heck there was an incident in Illinois in which it was discovered a cop had manipulated evidence (among other things) in order to get convictions of people that were actually innocent (can't remember all the details off the top of my head, but it is pretty scary). There is no way to know if someone you convicted is going to be later proven innocent, and killing an innocent person for a crime they didn't commit is morally wrong. Better for life in prison so one can still be in the land of the living when they are proven innocent.

I would add some additional examples but as I said I'm having problems accessing google at the moment.

Do we really want to see innocent people die because someone in the justice system screwed up?

I was going to do an "argue against myself" - focused on critiquing the Arminian position on grace and determinism. Illness and my two-week distancing intervened. I could do it, and it is tempting. It is, after all, if you have the Twin's mind, easy to argue five sides to every issue. I do it all the time - on almost every issue. Because it is all in the Yin - Yang tension, the balance, the narrow band where the wireless signal is received, unheard at frequencies too high and too low, and to approximate truth - which is all we can do in this environment - one must constantly sift and whittle and test whether in light of TODAY's data yesterday's probable near-truth still stands.

But to what end?

Yes, I can argue against Arminianism. And for the proposition that true education involves socializing all children. And that Mr. Obama is a wise man for whom this country is just not ready. And that the doctrine of the Trinity is impious polytheism. And that peer review and the scientific method and the structure of academia ensure steady and unlimited progress toward truth. And that Sand is a wise philanthrope. And that none of you zombies really exist. And that I am the reincarnation of Carl Meinhof. And that religion is the greatest enemy of science. And that if ANYTHING in anyone's scriptures can be shown to be false or even slightly inaccurate or contrary to received wisdom the religions holding to those scriptures are falsified.

I could argue a flat earth or an earth seeded with life from alien planets. I could argue that Liberals are just what the word says, or that Conservatives are just what the word says. I could argue there is no reality other that what the observer, or society, or Big Brother constructs, I could argue that whatever comes out from following the rules of your discipline IS truth.

I could argue that politics should be interesting, that all violence is wrong, that the gentlepersons in Washington are there to represent and advocate the interest and principles of the people. I could argue that thought, sense, spirit are in essence determined by the physical - chemical processes that go on in the human brain.

I could, in fact, go on and on, but to what end? You do not need [nor, I suspect, do you desire] a full inventory of my stances. I have no interest in persuading you either of my view or of the opposite. Nor have I any desire to be convinced. I could - doubtless some of you could - be interested in informed open discussion of some of these. But it has been amply illustrated that that hain't a-gonna happen all that much around here.

So I will content myself with providing an admittedly minimalist statement:, summarizing all too briefly the muchness that has been written against Arminius:

Arminianism hath for centuries been opposed and exposed as a pernicious and impious doctrine, most unreasonably denying the omniscience and omnipotence of God and pretending that Man is not wholly depraved and in himself impotent. If one holds certain views of God and Man and Holy Writ, which are most clearly taught by the scriptures, then it followeth as the day the night that Arminianism is perverse and heretical. A sin which they compound by saying, but if not, not.

Oh, bull. crap. Philologos. You do realize that you have to do a lot better than that. I mean, the point isn't "Oh, I can do it", it is actually getting up to the table and making the argument.

That being said, your small statement is less of an argument, and more of a bit of rhetoric against your belief. Nothing in that statement really allows us to even understand where the author is coming from, much less providing an attempt to obligate us to that position.

Ah, there's the rub. Who am I, and to whom speaking? The prime datum requisite before any attempt at communication?

Am I Herr Professor Doktor Philologos of Keinplatz University addressing senior students on their way to a doctorate in theology?

Am I Jake Philologos, missionary to the Abazimu [call me Bwana Uluyu], explaining an important concept to the newly converted?

Am I Philologos the Wrong Planeteer working to persuade MasterJedi and Sand that Arminianism is unreasonable?

Correct answer, none of the above. I quit the U though it may not always be apparent from my style. I am in no CONVENTIONAL sense [at least 91 and AngelRho know what I mean] a missionary. I have no interest in PERSUADING anyone of anything, and if I had certain of those here would be the last I would target.

What I am is Phil King Log [we KNOW who here is King Stork] having a pleasant discussion with people of reason adequately versed in the matter to care about Arminianism and aware that the majority of what we decide here is shifting shimmers on a tarnished copper mirror.

So consider the above - which admittedly briefly summarizes the issues most important to those concerned - a proffering in the postulated pleasant discussion. If you choose to pursue the matter, I would be most glad to point you to some of the prime scriptures tending to deflate Arminius.

Not a copping out, my debate style does not go encyclopedic in the first volley when talking to peers.

But if the assignment was to CONVINCE - well, I for one am unlikely to convince others of a position out of which I have argued myself, nor, I suspct, will examination of the thread show that anyonde much has bdeen convinced. I learned long ago I cannot convince ANYONE that it is raining even as the Ark is starting to float off the chocks.

Oh, goodness, philologos, you did a worse job than Inuyasha, and Inuyasha had people outright attack him for the kind of job that he did. You're saying that this strategy is honest, that it upholds to the ideal of the thread? Bull. s**t. I created this thread. This thread is for making a substantive argument, designed to both persuade, and to attack your position at length if possible. You wrote 2 sentences without any actual argument in there, but rather just a vague appeal to Calvinist theology, and you expect that to be considered well??

Now, you can take whatever "Who am I, and to whom speaking", you WANT. The point is constructing an argument that is strong, ideally as strong as you can consider it to be. This could mean the "senior students of theology", this could mean MasterJedi and Sand.

I don't need to "pursue the matter", I know my own arguments against Arminianism and I have argued against it for years at this point.

This is a total cop out, and anybody who has paid attention to this thread recognizes this, as you didn't even present an argument, but as I stated, a "vague appeal to Calvinist theology". If you don't recognize, just from comparison to other things people have written on this thread, that what you wrote is gravely inadequate, I don't know what to say.

^^^^

He is in no way obliged to post in this thread. He is just explaining that he is not out to convince anyone. This is different to assuming that no argument against his position exists.

Well, other than that he openly STATED that he would post in this thread. Generally speaking, if you say you are going to do something, which he did, you are obligated to follow-through.

That being said, if you look at all of the other arguments, philologos does the WORST. We got on Inuyasha's case for bad job here, so why not philologos?

For the reasons I just stated. Inuyasha assumed there was no decent argument for the other side. Philologos has simply stated that he is not out to prove anything. One is a statement of arrogance the other of humility. And I actually think Philologos made some interesting points, it was at least a better read than Inuyasha's spiel.

91, I know what Inuyasha did. Inuyasha at least presented an argument. I don't care what "virtues" you can ascribe to one or the other, as the point is not to show how virtuous one is, but rather to present an argument.

As for interesting points, you mean in his argument? Here's his argument again:


This is an informal logical fallacy if we take this to be an argument. If we are charitable, then we can choose not to take it as an argument though, and just progress with it as rhetoric.


Either false or in need of elaboration. Arminianism is a form of classical theism, and it tends to uphold God's omniscience and omnipotence. So, either this is an outright false statement or it needs elaboration. It still is not an argument, as some theisms DO deny these characteristics.


A false statement or one needing elaboration. Arminianism is not Pelagianism. Arminians hold that God offers man a choice, not that man has the ability to choose on his own strength. It is a variety of synergism, like a lot of historical theologies.


Not an argument at all, as it is an appeal to the contents of Christian scriptures, these scriptures being ones that we know are debated on this particular affair, and where Arminians have their own arguments. As such, this has to be considered rhetoric, as it fails to be an argument due to a lack of substance.

Philologos doesn't meet the bare minimum requirements. Inuyasha DOES though:


In short, single payer health care will decrease the diversity of forms by reducing the number of players in the matter, thus simplifying the industry.


It will get rid of the market power of drug companies, and it will reduce perverse incentives for doctors, thus saving on cost.


It will eliminate an unnecessary middle man.

Now, we can argue that Inuyasha should expand his arguments somewhat, and we can argue that Inuyasha does a terrible job of arguing, BUT he actually really presents an argument to a much higher degree than Philologos does, making Philologos the worst contributor.

Ok AG, let's argue about how people argue shall we.