I just want to say that debates around issues that the debaters will find silly or insignificant will only appeal to their sophist-nature, or, that is, argumentation without particular conviction treated as a competition or means of proving yourself.
So, rather than that, I suggest that you pick topics on which people have an opinion, and then set them up according to natural beliefs, which should give them a motive, and etcetera.
This would mean that people would not only (maybe) learn how to debate, but also learn something new about something that they knew something about, that is not something completely silly, and even be convinced by their opposite’s point.
And this is the point of true intelligence; recognizing truth when you see it and choosing to stop resisting it. By resisting to prove themselves, people often only prove that they are idiots.
Everything should be towards some particular aim, no?
And besides, what you suggest with skyr is completely silly, as it is already being traded outside and sold out, which supports Icelandic culture and economy pretty well as far as I can tell.
Thank you for your comment, but I think you are completely missing the point.
A debating union has a dual purpose, it is to educate and it is to entertain. However it is not meant to press one policy over another, it is not intended to convince someone of anything and it is not meant to be a place where people are to be divided along the lines of party and personal opinion.
The format, the stydle of debating, the experience of speaking in public, the challenge of standing up and making a statement, that is what this is all about. It is about students coming together, across party lines, despite differences of opinion and making eachother better.
Several debating unions abroad that we model ourselves on, such as the McGill University Debating Union use even less concrete and more abstract topics than we do, exactly to avoid it becoming one group against another. It is about the art and fun of debate, not necessarily the clash of opinions and emotions.
And yes, we have a particular aim, and it is to educate and entertain our fellow students, to make a positive and constructive contribution to our student society, and hopefully avoid self-satisfied, arrogant, sophistic, intellectually-masturbating hypocrits.
This is your vision of debating, based on the visions of others before you. Sure sure.
So, as for my vision, debating is more or less about expressing your opinions in a reasonable way, and trying to help/make others understand and even agree with these opinions.
It is not about using rhetorics as tools for everyone to be amazed, and stop to speculate just who well articulated a person is, but rather about the argument that one makes. Yes, it is about finding and making a very good argument, in an environment where people don’t care about who you are, or what your past is, what your opinions are, but rather just about the argument itself.
In this a person who is arguing would never be competing with anyone else but themselves, because they would either press to understand or improve some given article, if not to disprove something by the way of argumentation.
In this there would really just be one ‘team,’ for this reason, and this one team would only be dedicated towards greater understanding.
You seem to think a lot in ‘Parties’ as if they define minds and so on, but any person who understands debating understands that there is no room for emotional outbursts in a rational argumentation, and that there will always be people that will have different opinion than you, and that this is actually a very good thing, because this gives you a chance to get to understand the mind which disagrees with yours.
But yes, this is your project, and I feel that it is rather ambitionless, but I can promise that as a ’self-satisfied, arrogant, sophistic, intellectually-masturbating hypocrite,’ I will be easily avoided.
Lets have the death penalty next, there are arguments for and against it
other suggestions:
Scandinavism-all the nordic countries be united as one
Alcohol prices in Iceland
Free market and globalism
Stem cell research-attack on life?
Abortions-the right of the father
Some of these are old ideas, some of them most of us agree on and some are a bit
political
Forum Politica is a debating union for the University of Iceland.
It is formed in cooperation between the student organizations Politica, Orator and Magus, and also cooperates externally with the IceMUN society. Its goal is to provide students with a place to come together and enjoy and learn debating.
September 16, 2006 at 8:49 pm
What should we have as a topic for the first meeting? These are the suggestions so far!
- plastic surgery
- death-penalty
- Icelandic TV-shows
- SKYR
- selling alcohol in supermarkets
As you can see, a wide range of topics – anyone have any other suggestions?
September 17, 2006 at 7:06 pm
I go for selling alcohol in supermarkets and skyr. I think both would be very interesting topics to discuss, but for very different reasons
September 18, 2006 at 10:15 am
Selling alcohol in supermarkets….
Say then that the governmnet team supports this, and the opposition opposes it… what would be the arguments?
And also, Skyr… Everybody should be obligated by law to eat so and so much of it to support Icelandic culture and economy;-)
September 19, 2006 at 10:56 am
I just want to say that debates around issues that the debaters will find silly or insignificant will only appeal to their sophist-nature, or, that is, argumentation without particular conviction treated as a competition or means of proving yourself.
So, rather than that, I suggest that you pick topics on which people have an opinion, and then set them up according to natural beliefs, which should give them a motive, and etcetera.
This would mean that people would not only (maybe) learn how to debate, but also learn something new about something that they knew something about, that is not something completely silly, and even be convinced by their opposite’s point.
And this is the point of true intelligence; recognizing truth when you see it and choosing to stop resisting it. By resisting to prove themselves, people often only prove that they are idiots.
Everything should be towards some particular aim, no?
And besides, what you suggest with skyr is completely silly, as it is already being traded outside and sold out, which supports Icelandic culture and economy pretty well as far as I can tell.
–Sophist, hypocrite extraordinary.
September 19, 2006 at 11:24 am
Thank you for your comment, but I think you are completely missing the point.
A debating union has a dual purpose, it is to educate and it is to entertain. However it is not meant to press one policy over another, it is not intended to convince someone of anything and it is not meant to be a place where people are to be divided along the lines of party and personal opinion.
The format, the stydle of debating, the experience of speaking in public, the challenge of standing up and making a statement, that is what this is all about. It is about students coming together, across party lines, despite differences of opinion and making eachother better.
Several debating unions abroad that we model ourselves on, such as the McGill University Debating Union use even less concrete and more abstract topics than we do, exactly to avoid it becoming one group against another. It is about the art and fun of debate, not necessarily the clash of opinions and emotions.
And yes, we have a particular aim, and it is to educate and entertain our fellow students, to make a positive and constructive contribution to our student society, and hopefully avoid self-satisfied, arrogant, sophistic, intellectually-masturbating hypocrits.
September 19, 2006 at 12:22 pm
This is your vision of debating, based on the visions of others before you. Sure sure.
So, as for my vision, debating is more or less about expressing your opinions in a reasonable way, and trying to help/make others understand and even agree with these opinions.
It is not about using rhetorics as tools for everyone to be amazed, and stop to speculate just who well articulated a person is, but rather about the argument that one makes. Yes, it is about finding and making a very good argument, in an environment where people don’t care about who you are, or what your past is, what your opinions are, but rather just about the argument itself.
In this a person who is arguing would never be competing with anyone else but themselves, because they would either press to understand or improve some given article, if not to disprove something by the way of argumentation.
In this there would really just be one ‘team,’ for this reason, and this one team would only be dedicated towards greater understanding.
You seem to think a lot in ‘Parties’ as if they define minds and so on, but any person who understands debating understands that there is no room for emotional outbursts in a rational argumentation, and that there will always be people that will have different opinion than you, and that this is actually a very good thing, because this gives you a chance to get to understand the mind which disagrees with yours.
But yes, this is your project, and I feel that it is rather ambitionless, but I can promise that as a ’self-satisfied, arrogant, sophistic, intellectually-masturbating hypocrite,’ I will be easily avoided.
Having said that, good luck and good fun.
September 19, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Well, Mr Anonymous, for one who wishes us good luck, you have a very interesting way of doing so…
But good luck to you as well:)
Intellectually yours
Endre Lunde
September 20, 2006 at 10:31 am
ugga buggaba
September 25, 2006 at 12:58 am
Lets have the death penalty next, there are arguments for and against it
other suggestions:
Scandinavism-all the nordic countries be united as one
Alcohol prices in Iceland
Free market and globalism
Stem cell research-attack on life?
Abortions-the right of the father
Some of these are old ideas, some of them most of us agree on and some are a bit
political
September 26, 2006 at 6:28 pm
[...] Please feel welcome to ask questions about the conference either by email or by using the Cyber Debate. [...]