Comment: I think in terms of ideas

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Josf...The Benefits of Debate (see in situ)

I think in terms of ideas

I am self taught in the area of political economy and I have learned a way of seeing things that is not well understood by anyone else I know, and as I read things I frame things from my principled viewpoint.

Before I tell you, or anyone else willing to hear a competitive viewpoint, which is not an "argument" in the generally known sense, I will tell you, since you asked so kindly, and since I assume that your question was honest and therefore you care to hear the answer, and I assume that you do not care to hear a false answer.

I read all the way down to Number 11 before an Idea struck me as to how I would respond to your question concerning the debate link, with all that home-school debate information.

A topic for debate is my idea:

Is the acting out of "might making right", where deceit is allowed to be invented, or employed, in reaching a goal of gaining in some measurable way by someone upon someone: is that way a competitively productive way to do things compared to the obvious competitive alternative: whereby deceit is not allowed to be invented, or employed, in reaching a goal of some measurable way by someone upon someone?

I looked for a rule, of any kind, whereby the rules of debate do not specifically allow deceit, also known by many other names, such as libel, slander, fraud, wrong, not nice, criminal, deceitful, crooked, fraudulent, slanderous, base, and even uncivilized, but, perhaps more importantly, the rules do not forbid deceit either, as far as I read, so far.

The idea of that debate topic popped into my head, as often may be the case, since I started down this path to educate myself on political economy: since that idea first popped into my head.

I will look further for such a rule, do no harm by way of lies, to forbid the use of deceit in this "argument" of mimicking, or merely being, normalized human behavior.

Everyone lies, and the pay-off is handsome.

Monkey see, monkey do, may be a statement that conveys what I think, in ways that leave way too much room to read between the lines. I do not, ever, desire to employ deceit to gain at the expense of some innocent person, the idea has yet to pop into my brain without immediate rejection, not just for lack of specialty, talent, or training in such things, but because it is morally wrong to do so, it is uncompetitive to do so, it is unproductive to do so, even if in the short term, certainly not in the long term, and certainly not compared to the competitive alternatives.

I do not wish to gain at anyone's expense, by my word choices.

Monkey see, monkey do, is unkind, and I admit it, but it is a sound bite, of some notability, and it can possibly convey an intended meaning, without prejudice.

If you think I mean something, but you can't know if I mean what you think I mean, then there is a tried and true method of finding out, if, by chance, we both avoid any resort to deceit.

So, while thinking, I can rephrase the Idea concerning a Debate Topic as such:

Which is more productive: 1 or 2.
In the longer term, such as, which is more survivable for a species of living beings, when comparing two types of human interactions such as the two described below?

Argument whereby the combatants are perfectly willing, able, and well trained at the art of deception.

Discussion whereby the resort to deception as a means of accomplishing the goal of having the deceiver gain at the expense of the deceived is strictly judged to be wrong and therefore not acceptable during discussion.

I can read further into the link on debate, the merits, and rules, to find any references concerning what happens when anyone, including the teachers, the rule makers, or anyone, resorts to deceit, by inventing it, or by merely parroting it uncaringly or without thought otherwise.

Meanwhile the iron is still hot in an ongoing discussion I've managed to find after many decades of looking for ongoing discussions.

It seems to me that there are problems worth solving and then there are problems that have to be solved soon because the competitive alternatives can't measure up: since our species merely ends without those solutions.