Philosophical Vegan Forum

Red wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 6:36 pm Again, libertarians. I would have kicked some of them in the eye when they laughed at Bennett, but as @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said, MUH NUN AGRUSHUN PRENSIPL!

Do you disagree, you filthy statist?

Red wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 6:36 pm I think he did pretty well for the most part. His weaker parts were when he was responding to questions and such, and made appeals to authority (not that he was wrong; to a rational, scientifically literate person, it can be a very compelling case to make in regards to a hard science like this), but people are morons, especially in a place like this. Not only is ideology going to get in the way, but they're libertarians.

Bennet probably wasn’t qualified to debate the topic at hand.

This is a good example for why debate in itself is not necessarily the answer. Should you happen to be charming, charismatic, or confident (or your audience incompetent on the subject) it’s likely you can convince people of anything. @Jamie in Chile said it well somewhere earlier in this thread. It’s an irresponsible use of that platform to hold a debate on something so important and well established in the scientific community. Clearly 22% of the room was persuaded of objectively harmful ideas as a result of the debate.

Red wrote: ↑Mon May 20, 2019 6:36 pm Again, libertarians. I would have kicked some of them in the eye when they laughed at Bennett, but as @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz said, MUH NUN AGRUSHUN PRENSIPL!

You should’ve posed a challenging question during the Q&A session.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:22 pm Should you happen to be charming, charismatic, or confident (or your audience incompetent on the subject) it’s likely you can convince people of anything.

Absolutely. The continued popularity of the likes of Ben Shapiro is proof of that.

Clearly 22% of the room was persuaded of objectively harmful ideas as a result of the debate.

I might have misread some of your earlier posts, but isn't it 11% who changed their mind, with the other 11% already convinced of those ideas? I can't find the original poll as it now links to the veganism debate poll.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:22 pm Bennet probably wasn’t qualified to debate the topic at hand.

Totally agreed. He's an astrophysicist, so he may have some authority on the subject matter, but it is not his area of expertise. I wouldn't call him downright ignorant on the subject, he's definitely very intelligent, (and again, did quite decent given the circumstances), but he's just not someone who you'd call for a debate like this. A climatologist or atmospheric physicist would definitely have been able to shoot down those arguments as they came. When I read that an astrophysicist would be debating there, I was like 'Are you sure someone like that is qualified?'

I'm not sure how the Soho Forum finds people to debate. Do the people approach them, or they go out and search for them? If it's the former, then Bennett is just going out of his expertise. If it's the latter, then that would be a pretty sketchy move. Maybe it's a combination of the two, where they ask people to participate, then they choose who comes to debate. That would also be quite sketchy. Hell, any of these would be sketchy.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:22 pmThis is a good example for why debate in itself is not necessarily the answer.

I think it's more of a problem if the people listening to the debate are close-minded blokes to listen to ideology. Certain debates are extremely productive given the right context and setting, but when it comes to politics (which an issue such as climate change unfortunately has come to), it's usually a lost cause.

I'm not too sure about this Oxford Styled debate either. I think it's more useful if there is more time to be debating head on, but I don't know. Here it might be useful if people are willing to listen to science, but sadly, rather not. Maybe we can start a thread on this?

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:22 pmShould you happen to be charming, charismatic, or confident (or your audience incompetent on the subject) it’s likely you can convince people of anything.

Hell, you don't even have to be that. Idso was about as charismatic as a plank of wood, and Bennett was pretty outgoing. It's all about the idea you're siding with. Is it a coincidence that already conservative people listen to conservative pundits? Same goes for liberals.

Also take into account Gish galloping. In a debate like this, there is no opportunity to gish gallop (in the traditional sense, at least), but in other settings, spew enough bullshit and rhetoric that your opponent can't reasonably refute in a reasonable manner, you basically win.

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:22 pm@Jamie in Chile said it well somewhere earlier in this thread. It’s an irresponsible use of that platform to hold a debate on something so important and well established in the scientific community. Clearly 22% of the room was persuaded of objectively harmful ideas as a result of the debate.

It depresses the hell out of me. To be honest, shit like this just makes me ask 'What's the fucking point?' Of course, I don't always have that mindset, but it affects me from time to time, this hopelessness of changing the world for the better.

You might become more depressed when you see the results of the debate about veganism (which I'm sure you'll enjoy since you loved the climate change one).

Lay Vegan wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 7:22 pm You should’ve posed a challenging question during the Q&A session.

I was actually going to ask a question (that likely would have started a riot). I was going to ask if climate change denial is an issue that is divided more by politics than science. My teacher who brought me along said it was an excellent question too, but he thought the question may have been too controversial. I didn't get a chance to ask it anyway, since they only allow a few people to ask questions so as to not waste too much time.

@Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Here are the results: Note that 'Yes' means you agree with Idso, 'No' means you vote agree with Bennett.

Red wrote: ↑Thu May 23, 2019 8:12 pm @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Here are the results:

Ah. I stand corrected.

The debate was uploaded (that was pretty fast).
Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aCPdvvVMtk
Wasn't uploaded to Soundcloud yet, I'll post it when it's uploaded.

@Lay Vegan Give it a listen when you get the chance. I'm curious to hear your thoughts (although given how you thought the previous debate was cancer, this one will be Stage 4).

OK, so they removed the video for whatever reason. I'm sure they'll put it back up soon, I just don't understand why they can't upload it as soon as they can. Maybe there should be a government regulation on that?

They uploaded it back to YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qDYl4zHmAg

@Red Thanks, will give it a listen.

I'll have to read this debate from the start, but at least people are talking about Libertarianism.
I mean, the American President is a reality star, Democrats don't seem to have a clear message about anything without infighting, but my party are the "crazy" ones.