ADreamOfLiberty (PRO)fFirst a note on BoP. It's mine all mine (whauhaa). My opponent merely needs to refute every independent deductive argument I give. If I give an inductive argument he may make a negative deductive argument and win without the need to refute my inductive one.
Second, although we are arguing about India nothing in my arguments will be specific to India. It shall be understood that India, as a nation of human beings ought to adopt policies that all human societies should adopt.
Definitions:
Aggressive free market policies: Extremely loose regulations and tariffs/sales tax on trades both domestic and foreign, i.e. free trade.
Should: the ideal, what ought to be done morally or practically.
I have two arguments:
I. Appeal to morality.
II. Appeal to practicality.
I. Morality
Premise 1: Every human individual has a natural right to own the product of their effort. This is called property.
Premise 2: Every human individual has a natural right to interact with other humans so long as they consent. This is called free association.
Premise 3: Laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that fully respects the right property and to associate freely.
Conclusion: The only right system is Laissez-faire capitalism.
The combination of free association and property is a derivative right to trade, that is if two people own things; they may exchange those things (an interaction) by mutual consent.
Free trade is equivalent to a recognized right to trade, because if somebody has a right to do something, they cannot be morally prevented from doing it, even for the reason of refusing to do it in a certain way (regulation, tariffs).
If these are individuals then it follows that if any number of individuals form a group such as a company or corporation they may trade with each other. Since the borders or sovereignty of nations is not a conditional to natural rights individuals, and groups have a right to trade with each other across borders.
Therefore Indian individuals and groups have a right to trade with any other individual or group in the world. The only moral course of action for the Indian government is to recognize this right.
II. Practicality
Trade occurs almost always when both parties will benefit (profit) from the trade. They occur economically when efficiency of production is increased by the trade.
For example there are three people, and each can make one house, 100 loaves of bread, and 5 sets of clothing in a year. If one person concentrates on making houses they can make four/year. If one person concentrates on making bread (with a baking oven and big mill) they can make 400/year. If one person concentrates on making clothing (with a loom) they can make 20 sets/year.
If each concentrates on these things, and trade goods with each other there will be a surplus of 100 loaves of bread, 5 sets of clothing, and one house. The house builder can build the mill, oven, and loom for the other two.
After trading each person gets 133 loaves of bread per year. 6-7 sets of clothes per year. A house and the means to produce more.
In short trade increases efficiency, allowing individuals to produce far more value. It is not normally a predatory game where somebody gets ripped off.
If trade is so, then Indian companies and individuals who trade with other nations are increasing their efficiency. They are producing more value and increasing the net worth and production of India. This will improve the general quality of life in India (and around the world).
Given the premise that increased wealth and prosperity is a primary goal of a good government then the Indian government should not seek to impede any international trades. i.e. they should adopt an absolute (which is aggressive) free market policy.
I am surprised I didn't use the rest of the characters, but I don't want to confuse what I have down already.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-03-28 05:35:31
| Speak Round
Tophatdoc (CON)Best of luck to my opponent.
The burden of proof is on my opponent since he is advocating the proposed resolution. I do not need to defend the status quo in India nor do I need to propose an alternative to the current state of affairs in India. I as Con need only refute my opponent's points that advocate India should adopt an aggressive free market policies. The resolution of this debate already presupposes that India is not a free market country or has a limited free market. My opponent must explain why India must take "aggressive free market policies" in particular.
1. My Response to the "Appeal to Morality."
I reject all three of my opponent's premises because all three presuppose conditions that Pro has not explained.
Premise 1: Every human individual has a natural right to own the product of their effort. This is called property.
On what basis does every individual has a "right" to own the product of their effort? According to whom?
Premise 2: Every human individual has a natural right to interact with
other humans so long as they consent. This is called free association.
Again, on what basis does every individual have a "right" to interact with other humans? Who said this is a "right?"
I won't accept either of these two premises Pro has brought forth until he explains where these "natural rights" he refers to are derived from.
Premise 3: Laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that fully respects the right property and to associate freely.
My opponent must prove that Laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that fully respects the "right" to property. I don't subscribe to this belief, so I won't accept this premise. My opponent made the claim, therefore he must prove that laissez-faire capitalism is the only system that respects the "right" to property.
I reject all three premises, therefore I reject the conclusion Pro arrives at. Pro goes on to imply that all three premises are moral, I reject this too. He must show how they are moral. I will go on later to state how in the Indian context the premises Pro offers may be considered immoral and unjust. My opponent goes on to discuss the "right to trade" and how it is moral. The "right to trade" is not a free market policy in particular. Indian traded with the Soviet Union during the Cold War under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi[1]. Many years before her, Prime Minister Nehru had a very socialist vision for India and engaged in trade communist and capitalist countries. There is nothing exclusive about trade to be only a free market policy. My opponent is referring to Free Trade in particular in terms of how trade should be conducted. Pro must show how it is moral. Pro has not done this thus far.
[1]http://www.csmonitor.com/1983/1129/112929.html
2. My Response to "Appeal to Practicality"
My opponent goes on to claim his arguments are practical. I don't see how they could be considered practical when he didn't offer an evidence-based example. I can not respond to this effectively considering my opponent and I will be using theoretical examples on efficiency. I will say however, that the example that Pro offers will lead to exploitation. The Constitution of India is directly against any form of exploitation when it said Indians have the "right against exploitation[2]." The examples pro uses, one person can simply inflate the prices of
bread, clothing, or houses as they wish. One person can directly
manipulate the prices of the market since it is small.
[2]http://lawmin.nic.in/coi/coiason29july08.pdf
3. My Response to My Opponent's Arguments
My opponent has mentioned "morals" several times in this debate thus far. However, in the Indian context, there is nothing "moral" about adopting free market policies. Nevertheless, "aggressive" free market policies. The Constitution of India states that people have to the "right to equality[3]." Therefore the first premise that Pro offered is inherently immoral in the Indian context. Inequality is against the Indian constitution and the morals of the people of India. There are several other things that Pro has implied or said that are against the Constitution of India. Some of these statements were against the "right against exploitation."
[3]Ibid.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-03-30 03:28:03
| Speak RoundADreamOfLiberty (PRO)Support of Premise 1 and 2
Morality is that which deals with right and wrong. It can only arise (logically) out of values. Values and indeed self-chosen dynamic values are natural to creatures like humans, but to abstract values into a set of moral principles requires reason. When I refer to a moral being it is a being with self-chosen values capable of reason.
Most of our values are subjective, that means they only have objective existence when the scope of our person is specified. Meaning most of our values are personal as well. Abstract principles can be derived from these values, and this will produce personal morality. For instance if I really like canines, I can (and should) create a personal moral principle to be nice to them (or something). However I can't say anyone else is bound by this principle.
Some of our values are objective, that means that they have objective existence for every moral being. One way this can be is if they are logically implied by the definition of a moral being. There is one thing value that cannot be denied logically by a moral being, namely the value of their own judgement. It is a contradiction in terms to say you choose to ignore your own choices.
Self-determination is thus an objective value. In other words you want to do, what you want to do.
Either someone believes this universal value should be respected in others, or they don't. If they don't then they can't logically expect the same from others. If they do they must respect it in others. Respecting the self-determination of others is respecting liberty.
So we have only two logical groups. Those who don't have a valid moral complaint if you lock them up, and those whose own values require that they respect liberty.
This is the origin of the objective morality, a right to liberty.
The right to free association derives from the fact that if association is free, it is not violating rights and thus one cannot morally violate liberty to prevent it. The right to property derives from self-ownership and the fact that to respect a mind's judgement in some abstract world of ideas but not to allow someone to pursue their values on earth with themselves and the product of their effort is absurdity. It is included in "respecting the self-determination of others."
Support of Premise 3
Laissez-faire capitalism is defined as "a doctrine opposing governmental interference in
economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of
peace and property rights"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laissez-faire
To support a negative right is to advocate non-interference with it. Free trade is an economic negative right.
"The "right to trade"
is not a free market policy in particular. Indian traded with the Soviet
Union during the Cold War under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi[1]."
Just because a trade occurred did not mean there was a recognized right to of every Indian group or individual to trade with any other group or individual in the world.
"My opponent goes on to claim his arguments are practical. I don't see how they could be considered practical when he didn't offer an evidence-based example."
The evidence will not exist until India adopts aggressive free market policies. Instead what I believe you are asking for is a study that free markets are more productive. My opponents must know there are quiet a few for and against such a proposition, however if we are going to have a little source duel so be it. https://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=476
"My opponent goes on to claim his arguments are practical. I don't see how they could be considered practical when he didn't offer an evidence-based example."The examples pro uses, one person can simply inflate the prices of
bread, clothing, or houses as they wish. One person can directly
manipulate the prices of the market since it is small."
Incorrect, they can only raise the price till the point where people would rather start doing it themselves. Furthermore even in a true monopoly consent is a barrier if competition is not.
"Therefore the first premise that Pro offered is inherently immoral in the Indian context. "
Con started this debate with no BoP. However if he wishes to contend that there exists some unique Indian morality that contradicts my claims that does incur a BoP.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-01 03:23:39
| Speak RoundTophatdoc (CON)"Morality is that which deals with right and wrong. It can only arise (logically) out of values. Values and indeed self-chosen dynamic values are natural to creatures like humans, but to abstract values into a set of moral principles requires reason."
"Most of our values are subjective, that means they only have objective existence when the scope of our person is specified. Meaning most of our values are personal as well. Abstract principles can be derived from these values, and this will produce personal morality."
"Self-determination is thus an objective value"
"Either someone believes this universal value should be respected in others, or they don't."
"If they do they must respect it in others. Respecting the self-determination of others is respecting liberty."
"This is the origin of the objective morality, a right to liberty."
The statements listed above are only from Pro's perception of what morality is. A number of which he claimed are objective or he implied that were absolute and that we must accept them. He has not offered any reason why we have to accept a single one of his claims. Pro claims self determination is "objective," I will claim it is subjective from my point of view because I don't have to accept what he claims is moral and what he is determined to do.
Why do I have to accept Pro's morals? More importantly, why do the people of India have to accept Pro's morals? Under who's authority does anyone have to accept such morals?
You will notice that my opponent didn't invoke Divine Command theory or something similar claiming a justification for his morals to be absolute or objective. Pro has made numerous statements which have only been backed by his opinions and his values. I reject his assumptions altogether. Therefore, I reject his concept of morals because it is simply my morals versus his. It is the Indian people's morals versus his. There is no reason that anyone has to accept his view of morality at all.
"To support a negative right is to advocate non-interference with it. Free trade is an economic negative right."
Agreed.
"Just because a trade occurred did not mean there was a recognized right to of every Indian group or individual to trade with any other group or individual in the world."
Of course trade occurred but Pro was referring to "Free Trade," not just the "right to trade." Therefore, we must throw away the assumption that the "right to trade" does not exist."
"The evidence will not exist until India adopts aggressive free market policies. Instead what I believe you are asking for is a study that free markets are more productive.My opponents must know there are quiet a few for and against such a proposition, however if we are going to have a little source duel so be it."
Correct, I wanted pro to offer me an example of aggressive free market policies in former socialist countries because India is a former socialist country. If one claims something is practical, then they must show how it is practical.
"Incorrect, they can only raise the price till the point where people would rather start doing it themselves. Furthermore even in a true monopoly consent is a barrier if competition is not."
That is only true in theory. I can name several countries immediately where firms have inflated the prices exceptionally and manipulated the prices of the market. Pro assumes that the people who purchase have access to the same resources as the firm selling it. This is certainly not true because there are many resources in the world that are owned by a few firms(for example, diamonds).
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-02 21:16:25
| Speak RoundADreamOfLiberty (PRO)He has not offered any reason why we have to accept a single one of his claims."
That entire section was meant to be an argument with the conclusion being the root of morality. Reasons were offered, I will ignore this.
"I will claim it is subjective from my point of view because I don't
have to accept what he claims is moral and what he is determined to do."
In other words, you'll choose for yourself? <- hint hint
"Why do I have to accept Pro's morals? More importantly, why do the people of India have to accept Pro's morals?"
The answer is the same for each, they are in your nature; and nature offers you only two choices. Accept my code of morality or reject any code of morality not founded on might makes right.
"You will notice that my opponent didn't invoke Divine Command theory or
something similar claiming a justification for his morals to be absolute
or objective."
The justification is my argument. All truth is absolute and objective. If I had invoked Divine Command how would I prove that a deity exists much less that he/she is a more objective or absolute arbiter of morality than you or I? I would either fail or I would prove the deity is right by independent argument.
Objective truth can only arise out of sound logic so do not claim that I cannot rely on sound logic alone. An appeal to authority, even one like a God is nothing more than a delaying tactic in the end.
"Of course trade occurred but Pro was referring to "Free Trade," not just
the "right to trade." Therefore, we must throw away the assumption that
the "right to trade" does not exist."
You misunderstand. It is not free trade as a policy unless the people are free to trade, i.e. their right to trade with whom they will is not violated either by design or happenstance. Just because the Indian government approved some trade with the USSR under free conditions does not mean there was free trade.
To make such a claim is to claim slavery can't exist because you've got to let slaves be free to chew their food.
"Correct, I wanted pro to offer me an example of aggressive free market
policies in former socialist countries because India is a former
socialist country."
http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist
"If one claims something is practical, then they must
show how it is practical."
I thought I did, insofar as one can do when writing a couple paragraphs instead of a book.
"That is only true in theory. I can name several countries immediately
where firms have inflated the prices exceptionally and manipulated the
prices of the market."
In my book it's only manipulation if they are doing it by force and fraud.
"Pro assumes that the people who purchase have access to the same
resources as the firm selling it. This is certainly not true because
there are many resources in the world that are owned by a few firms(for
example, diamonds)."
The claiming of natural resources is a different issue from free trade. Obviously my analogy isn't applicable on the individual scale to everything in a modern economy. There is no way one person could ever build themselves a computer from scratch (and that's not the only thing).
Such is a perfect example of how much would be beyond our capabilities without the production boosting effect of trade.
If the Indian government lets one company, or a cabal of companies take total control of a natural resource (like diamonds) that is a failure on a more fundamental level than trade. They did not trade for those resources; they just planted a flag as all land claiming is.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-04 20:06:45
| Speak RoundTophatdoc (CON)"That entire section was meant to be an argument with the conclusion
being the root of morality. Reasons were offered, I will ignore this."
"In other words, you'll choose for yourself?"
If I can choose for myself, I see no reason why the Indian people should not be able to choose for themselves no take on "aggressive free market policies." The Indian people have not chosen a path of "aggressive free market policies" thus far and I see no reason why they must now.
"The answer is the same for each, they are in your nature; and nature
offers you only two choices. Accept my code of morality or reject any
code of morality not founded on might makes right."
It is in my nature, according to whom? Pro must provide the biological evidence to back the statement up that is in our nature since it is the same for each according to him. I reject the idea that there are only two choices as well because this is the first time I have even heard there were only two choices according to nature. Pro said it, therefore he has the burden of proof to back up such claims.
"The justification is my argument."
I see no reason why I must accept Pro's argument. There is no reason why the Indian people must accept Pro's argument either.
"You misunderstand. It is not free trade as a policy unless the people
are free to trade, i.e. their right to trade with whom they will is not
violated either by design or happenstance. Just because the Indian
government approved some trade with the USSR under free conditions does
not mean there was free trade."
I said that in the comment Pro responded to. I don't know why Pro repeated it. Free Trade is different from "the right to trade."
"http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist"
"How China became capitalist" is the name of the article Pro provided. But who decided to take this stand and move towards capitalism, was it the Chinese people? No. It was the Chinese Communist party, let us not forget the Tiananem Square protests in 89' was the result of Deng Xiaoping's plans[1]. The people rose up in protest against the changes of the Communist Party. India is a democracy unlike China. The Indian people can not be forced into doing the bidding of a one party totalitarian state.
[1]http://www.forbes.com/2009/11/10/communism-capitalism-democracy-china-taiwan-opinions-columnists-robyn-meredith.html
"There is no way one person could ever build themselves a computer from scratch (and that's not the only thing)."
Yes they can[2].
[2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv2TxiwAquM
"If the Indian government lets one company, or a cabal of companies take
total control of a natural resource (like diamonds) that is a failure on
a more fundamental level than trade. They did not trade for those
resources; they just planted a flag as all land claiming is."
But that is the will of the free market in that scenario because one company or a cartel happened to be able to monopolize a resource. If it is a failure, should the government do something about it?
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-06 17:00:43
| Speak RoundADreamOfLiberty (PRO)"If I can choose for myself, I see no reason why the Indian people should not be able to choose for themselves"
If you agree that you should choose for yourself [and you cannot logically do otherwise], and the Indian people [or to be more specific each Indian] should choose for themselves, then you have ceded the premise of my moral argument which you claimed was subjective. So to for every voter and every rational being with self-chosen values out there.
"Pro claims self determination is "objective," I will claim it is
subjective from my point of view because I don't have to accept what he
claims is moral and what he is determined to do." - Tophatdoc in round two
The identification of the value of choosing for yourself is the identification of the value of self-determination. You deny my moral argument yet cannot help but accept its premise.... because that is human nature, because it is pure logic that you must value what you seek to achieve, realize, and know.
"I said that in the comment Pro responded to. I don't know why Pro repeated it. Free Trade is different from "the right to trade."
Free trade is to the right to trade, as free speech is the right to speak. Free trade is to the right to trade as free movement is to the right to move.
To adopt aggressive free market policies is to more perfectly protect if not recognize a right to trade.
"But who decided to take this stand and move towards capitalism, was it
the Chinese people? No. It was the Chinese Communist party, let us not
forget the Tiananem Square protests in 89' was the result of Deng
Xiaoping's plans[1]."
This is a red herring. In round two you made issued an evidential challenge: "I wanted pro to offer me an example of aggressive free market
policies in former socialist countries." This is indeed an economically former socialist country that switched to capitalism (of a sorts) as Con cedes by saying "move towards capitalism". For this point we are operating under the context of appeal to practicality. Clearly the protests died down with relatively little economic or political harm, so without a moral objection to the fact [which I do not contest at this time] that the people of China were not generally supportive of the shift is irrelevant.
In other words, even if it was immoral to force the Chinese people to be capitalist (which is a statement which inherently commits the collectivist fallacy in my opinion) that doesn't mean it was impractical economically, nor are the results necessarily non-analogous.
If Con means to win this argument by saying that whatever the Indian people vote for is what ought to happen, then it seems neither he nor I have much to do. We would merely be saying to each other (hidden by some rhetoric perhaps) "yea you just wait till the Indian people make their decision, then you'll see!"
Rather, we are debating what the Indian people should decide.
"Yes they can[2]." - Con referring to the construction of a computer from scratch.
This is indeed impressive, and far more 'from scratch' than most people will ever get. However it is not truly and completely 'from scratch.' If he were to attempt to build those 'low level logic' chips manually with a soldering iron and basic electronic components each one would be the size of a bus and it would take him twenty years to do it.
If he had to make the base electronic components (transistors, capacitors, inductors) by himself triple the time. Now imagine he has to mine and refine the copper himself. Build the generator to power the soldering iron. Etc...
When working completely alone [zero trade except of information], it would be impressive for a human to make an iron tool after years of work.
This is not the case for a nation like India with a billion people in it. They could do 'fine' without trading with the rest of the world, but they would not do as well as they could; and that is the key to my practicality argument. Furthermore I did not specify that benefit to India is the only factor. I consider the benefit India gives the rest of the world in trade a point as well.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-08 04:20:53
| Speak RoundTophatdoc (CON)"If you agree that you should choose for yourself [and you cannot logically do otherwise], and the Indian people [or to be more specific each Indian] shouldchoose for themselves, then you have ceded the premise of my moral argument which you claimed was subjective. So to for every voter and every rational being with self-chosen values out there."
I agreed with the premise of Pro's argument long ago when I said it was subjective. In fact Pro even stated this in Round 1: "Most of our values are subjective"
If it is subjective why do I need to accept his view on the matter? Pro has yet to answer this and I have asked multiple times. Therefore, I don't accept his morals and neither have the Indian people.
"The identification of the value of choosing for yourself is the identification of the value of self-determination.You deny my moral argument yet cannot help but accept its premise.... because that is human nature, because it is pure logic that you must value what you seek to achieve, realize, and know."
It is very clear to the readers of this debate that I accepted the premise to the argument long ago when I chose not to dispute your claim that "values are subjective." I see no reason why Pro brings it up now when it does not validate why anyone has to accept his morals.
"This is a red herring. In round two you made issued an evidential challenge: "I wanted pro to offer me an example of aggressive free market
policies in former socialist countries." This is indeed an economically former socialist country that switched to capitalism (of a sorts) as Con cedes by saying "move towards capitalism". For this point we are operating under the context of appeal to practicality. Clearly the protests died down with relatively little economic or political harm, so without a moral objection to the fact [which I do not contest at this time] that the people of China were not generally supportive of the shift is irrelevant."
If it is a red herring, I think that the example of China is a hasty generalization of socialist countries that move toward capitalism[1]. Pro must prove how China is representative of socialist countries that move toward capitalism in order to validate his claim that China is representative.
[1]http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/hasty-generalization.html
"Rather, we are debating what the Indian people should decide."
This statement is wrong without question. Pro is arguing what the Indian people should decide not I. I am merely arguing what the Indian people should not do which means inaction having "aggressive free market policies."
"This is not the case for a nation like India with a billion people in
it. They could do 'fine' without trading with the rest of the world, but
they would not do as well as they could; and that is the key to my
practicality argument. Furthermore I did not specify that benefit to
India is the only factor. I consider the benefit India gives the rest of
the world in trade a point as well."
Let the readers of this debate remember that this is a debate not about trade but "aggressive free market policies."
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-09 09:17:16
| Speak RoundADreamOfLiberty (PRO)"It is very clear to the readers of this debate that I accepted the
premise to the argument long ago when I chose not to dispute your claim
that "values are subjective." I see no reason why Pro brings it up now
when it does not validate why anyone has to accept his morals."
I am not claiming all values are subjective. I am claiming that one value is objective, namely the value of one's own judgement and self-determination, i.e. the value of one's freedom to pursue one's values.
Indians can decide garam masala is a better set of spices than mesquite BBQ but they cannot decide they do not value their own values and their ability to choose and pursue those values.... not without self-contradiction.
Con's objection to my moral argument was "why should anyone value self-determination" he never demonstrated the problem with my argument that it was logically necessary, and here he attempts to evade the fact that he appealed to self-determination to make his case. He can't have it both ways.
If my values don't give me the right to dictate Indian policy, why do the majority values of India or the values of the Indian government dictate minority Indian values? The most perfect minority is the individual, and the idea of natural human rights is just that; that no matter how many people don't like you, no matter how different you are from them you are an end in yourself and so long as you do not harm others they ought to leave you in peace.
"If it is a red herring, I think that the example of China is a
hasty generalization of socialist countries that move toward
capitalism[1]. Pro must prove how China is representative of socialist
countries that move toward capitalism in order to validate his claim
that China is representative."
I made no generalization. I answered a challenge issued by Con. If he has nothing to say about the answer I gave, I have no intention of pursuing any comparisons between India and socialist turned capitalist nations.
It is my standing claim that all trades made in full awareness of what is being traded and with mutual consent (which trade implies by definition) are beneficial to both parties. As such all regulation and hindrance of trade is baseless, immoral, and impractical. I used generic cause-based arguments to support this position and did not claim that I could prove it by China's apparent economic successes, or the fairly ubiquitous success relative to non-capitalist countries throughout the world for the past 200 years.
"This statement is wrong without question. Pro is arguing what the Indian people shoulddecide not I. I am merely arguing what the Indian people should not do which means inaction having "aggressive free market policies."
In other words... you have no BoP which means we are arguing about what I assert.... and I assert the Indians should adopt aggressive free market policies.
"Let the readers of this debate remember that this is a debate not about trade but "aggressive free market policies.""
It behooves me to ask what free market policies are if not policies which aim towards the absolute minimum regulation and taxation on trade, internal and external. I hope readers realize that the word 'market' in this context refers to an abstraction of offered and sought after trades.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-09 18:44:47
| Speak RoundTophatdoc (CON)"I am claiming that one value is objective, namely the value of one's
own judgement and self-determination, i.e. the value of one's freedom to
pursue one's values."
What proof did Pro offer to show that this one value is objective?
"If my values don't give me the right to dictate Indian policy, why do
the majority values of India or the values of the Indian government
dictate minority Indian values?"
I did not mention "rights" at all in this debate so I don't know what Po is getting at. If Pro thinks he has a "right" in India to dictate policy, he must provide proof of this "right." I also don't have to answer "why do the majority values of India or the values of the Indian government
dictate minority Indian value." I never said who had the "right" to dictate policy in India. Nor did I mention who did not have the "right." That burden of proof is on Pro, not me because I never said who has "rights" and who doesn't have "rights." Therefore, that is a straw man fallacy on the part of Pro for misrepresenting my arguments.
"The most perfect minority is the individual, and the idea of natural
human rights is just that; that no matter how many people don't like
you, no matter how different you are from them you are an end in
yourself and so long as you do not harm others they ought to leave you
in peace."
According to whom? On what basis is this statement made by Pro? I reject it entirely. Pro has the burden of proof to show what "natural human rights" are and who determine who is "the perfect minority." Pro has made several objective claims above to which I reject all of them.
"I made no generalization. I answered a challenge issued by Con. If
he has nothing to say about the answer I gave, I have no intention of
pursuing any comparisons between India and socialist turned capitalist
nations."
Pro avoided his burden of proof to show China is representative of socialist countries turned capitalist. I also reject the idea that China was socialist. Pro must show how China was socialist rather than "Communist" as their administration once claimed to be.
"It is my standing claim that all trades made in full awareness of
what is being traded and with mutual consent (which trade implies by
definition) are beneficial to both parties. As such all regulation and
hindrance of trade is baseless, immoral, and impractical."
This is nothing but conjecture on the part of Pro, I reject all of it.
"It behooves me to ask what free market policies are if not
policies which aim towards the absolute minimum regulation and taxation
on trade, internal and external"
If this were a mere debate about trade, wouldn't the resolution have been "That India should adopt free trade policies?" Free market refers to the amount of government regulation, not just in relation to trade as Pro would have us believe. The free market refers to taxes, subsidies, trade, and regulations[1]. To which Pro only glossed over one, trade.
[1]Free market: "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government
control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market
economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e.
buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state
intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."
[1]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp
To the voters, I have ten questions to ask you about Pro's arguments and his burden of proof.
1. Pro has made several objective claims throughout this debate, is there any reason for us to believe they are "objective?"
2. Pro focused majority of his arguments on morals, is this not a debate about policy?
3. Pro only mentioned only one free market policy, Free Trade, but Free Trade with whom?
4. Has Pro even mentioned what the results of "aggressive free market policies" would be?
5. Did Pro address a single reason why India must adopt "aggressive free market policies" based on the current situation of India?
6. Did Pro address a single policy that India has currently?
7. How can Pro argue for more "aggressive free market policies" in India when he explicitly stated he would not address anything specific to India?
8. Has Pro offered a thorough knowledge of the economic system of India?
9. Why should I and the other readers of this debate accept Pro's opinions?
10. More importantly, why should the Indian people accept Pro's opinions?
These are the following reasons why the voters should consider voting Con on the resolution.
1. Pro has failed to address policy.
Is this not a debate about policy? Pro spent his entire argument on morals. Morals has no relevance to policy[2]. Perhaps ethics relates to policy but Pro did not argue about that according to him. Pro stated multiple times that he was making "moral" and "value" claims. Policy decisions are based off of facts and statistical data[3]. Policy making comes about as the result of a problem that exists in society. Did Pro show the problems existent in Indian society? No, Pro did not point out a single reason why the Indians should move their policies to "aggressive free market policies" other than his own morals. According to Pro's reasoning, we should negate statistics and facts to accept his opinion. Therefore, I think majority of Pro's claims should be dismissed for being inappropriate to the debate resolution.
[2]Policy: "A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/policy
[3]http://www.ushistory.org/gov/11.asp
2. Pro ignored the fact that "aggressive free market" policies are against the Indian Constitution.
I mentioned in the first round, that "aggressive free market policies" were against the Indian Constitution. Pro's response was "[if Con] wishes to contend that there exists some unique Indian morality that contradicts my claims that does incur a BoP." I had already made the statement, therefore I did have a burden of proof to it already relating to the Indian Constitution. Therefore, Pro had no intention at all of recognizing the Indian Constitution and the morals associated with said document that are against "aggressive free market policies."
3. Pro's three moral premises at the beginning of this debate were based on conjecture. Therefore, let it be dismissed appropriately.
The readers can go back and read what was the basis of Pro's claims.
4. Pro wants the Indian people to trust him but didn't offer a single reason to be trusted.
Pro did not offer a single shred of evidence about the existing policy in India. So how can Pro argue for "aggressive free market policies?" Nevertheless, Pro did not offer what would be the result of said policies. If this resolution was brought up in the Indian parliament, would the Indian parliamentarians base their arguments on their personal opinion or on the facts and statistics that are readily available. Remember, this is a policy debate, not a debate about morals as Pro would have you believe. In a debate about policy which affect an entire country, opinion based on opinion is an inadequate basis for enacting policies. Pro wants the Indian people to trust him. Pro wants the readers to trust him. With little data offered by Pro, why should he be trusted enough to dictate the future of a country?
Thanks to my opponent for engaging in this debate and thanks to the people who took the time to read this debate. I challenge the readers to go back and look at every single claim Pro made and attempt to deny the fact that he based majority of those claims off of his own opinion. Is the world flat merely because I say so? Therefore, I can reject Pro's opinion, the Indian people can reject it, so can you the readers of this debate too reject it. If the readers of this debate have come to the conclusion that Pro has failed to reach his burden of proof, Vote Con.
own judgement and self-determination, i.e. the value of one's freedom to
pursue one's values."
What proof did Pro offer to show that this one value is objective?
"If my values don't give me the right to dictate Indian policy, why do
the majority values of India or the values of the Indian government
dictate minority Indian values?"
I did not mention "rights" at all in this debate so I don't know what Po is getting at. If Pro thinks he has a "right" in India to dictate policy, he must provide proof of this "right." I also don't have to answer "why do the majority values of India or the values of the Indian government
dictate minority Indian value." I never said who had the "right" to dictate policy in India. Nor did I mention who did not have the "right." That burden of proof is on Pro, not me because I never said who has "rights" and who doesn't have "rights." Therefore, that is a straw man fallacy on the part of Pro for misrepresenting my arguments.
"The most perfect minority is the individual, and the idea of natural
human rights is just that; that no matter how many people don't like
you, no matter how different you are from them you are an end in
yourself and so long as you do not harm others they ought to leave you
in peace."
According to whom? On what basis is this statement made by Pro? I reject it entirely. Pro has the burden of proof to show what "natural human rights" are and who determine who is "the perfect minority." Pro has made several objective claims above to which I reject all of them.
"I made no generalization. I answered a challenge issued by Con. If
he has nothing to say about the answer I gave, I have no intention of
pursuing any comparisons between India and socialist turned capitalist
nations."
Pro avoided his burden of proof to show China is representative of socialist countries turned capitalist. I also reject the idea that China was socialist. Pro must show how China was socialist rather than "Communist" as their administration once claimed to be.
"It is my standing claim that all trades made in full awareness of
what is being traded and with mutual consent (which trade implies by
definition) are beneficial to both parties. As such all regulation and
hindrance of trade is baseless, immoral, and impractical."
This is nothing but conjecture on the part of Pro, I reject all of it.
"It behooves me to ask what free market policies are if not
policies which aim towards the absolute minimum regulation and taxation
on trade, internal and external"
If this were a mere debate about trade, wouldn't the resolution have been "That India should adopt free trade policies?" Free market refers to the amount of government regulation, not just in relation to trade as Pro would have us believe. The free market refers to taxes, subsidies, trade, and regulations[1]. To which Pro only glossed over one, trade.
[1]Free market: "A market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government
control. A completely free market is an idealized form of a market
economy where buyers and sellers are allowed to transact freely (i.e.
buy/sell/trade) based on a mutual agreement on price without state
intervention in the form of taxes, subsidies or regulation."
[1]http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp
To the voters, I have ten questions to ask you about Pro's arguments and his burden of proof.
1. Pro has made several objective claims throughout this debate, is there any reason for us to believe they are "objective?"
2. Pro focused majority of his arguments on morals, is this not a debate about policy?
3. Pro only mentioned only one free market policy, Free Trade, but Free Trade with whom?
4. Has Pro even mentioned what the results of "aggressive free market policies" would be?
5. Did Pro address a single reason why India must adopt "aggressive free market policies" based on the current situation of India?
6. Did Pro address a single policy that India has currently?
7. How can Pro argue for more "aggressive free market policies" in India when he explicitly stated he would not address anything specific to India?
8. Has Pro offered a thorough knowledge of the economic system of India?
9. Why should I and the other readers of this debate accept Pro's opinions?
10. More importantly, why should the Indian people accept Pro's opinions?
These are the following reasons why the voters should consider voting Con on the resolution.
1. Pro has failed to address policy.
Is this not a debate about policy? Pro spent his entire argument on morals. Morals has no relevance to policy[2]. Perhaps ethics relates to policy but Pro did not argue about that according to him. Pro stated multiple times that he was making "moral" and "value" claims. Policy decisions are based off of facts and statistical data[3]. Policy making comes about as the result of a problem that exists in society. Did Pro show the problems existent in Indian society? No, Pro did not point out a single reason why the Indians should move their policies to "aggressive free market policies" other than his own morals. According to Pro's reasoning, we should negate statistics and facts to accept his opinion. Therefore, I think majority of Pro's claims should be dismissed for being inappropriate to the debate resolution.
[2]Policy: "A course or principle of action adopted or proposed by an organization or individual"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/policy
[3]http://www.ushistory.org/gov/11.asp
2. Pro ignored the fact that "aggressive free market" policies are against the Indian Constitution.
I mentioned in the first round, that "aggressive free market policies" were against the Indian Constitution. Pro's response was "[if Con] wishes to contend that there exists some unique Indian morality that contradicts my claims that does incur a BoP." I had already made the statement, therefore I did have a burden of proof to it already relating to the Indian Constitution. Therefore, Pro had no intention at all of recognizing the Indian Constitution and the morals associated with said document that are against "aggressive free market policies."
3. Pro's three moral premises at the beginning of this debate were based on conjecture. Therefore, let it be dismissed appropriately.
The readers can go back and read what was the basis of Pro's claims.
4. Pro wants the Indian people to trust him but didn't offer a single reason to be trusted.
Pro did not offer a single shred of evidence about the existing policy in India. So how can Pro argue for "aggressive free market policies?" Nevertheless, Pro did not offer what would be the result of said policies. If this resolution was brought up in the Indian parliament, would the Indian parliamentarians base their arguments on their personal opinion or on the facts and statistics that are readily available. Remember, this is a policy debate, not a debate about morals as Pro would have you believe. In a debate about policy which affect an entire country, opinion based on opinion is an inadequate basis for enacting policies. Pro wants the Indian people to trust him. Pro wants the readers to trust him. With little data offered by Pro, why should he be trusted enough to dictate the future of a country?
Thanks to my opponent for engaging in this debate and thanks to the people who took the time to read this debate. I challenge the readers to go back and look at every single claim Pro made and attempt to deny the fact that he based majority of those claims off of his own opinion. Is the world flat merely because I say so? Therefore, I can reject Pro's opinion, the Indian people can reject it, so can you the readers of this debate too reject it. If the readers of this debate have come to the conclusion that Pro has failed to reach his burden of proof, Vote Con.
Return To Top | Posted:
2014-04-11 17:04:09
| Speak Round
Judge: nzlockie
Judge: admin
"I did more than raw assertion"
Agreed. Which is why I felt like his point started failing.
"Got to disagree completely there. Such is the only way to correlate the response with the points made. Perhaps this explains the lack of a good quoting system?"
First of all - what would you consider a good quoting system? As always things can be arranged, I just need to know.
There are other ways - paraphrasing being the easiest and usually the best. The thing you want to avoid is putting too much emphasis on your opponent's points. That reduces the emphasis you can put on your own points. For comments and such it matters little, but in a debate where you have to be mindful of characters (or time) it matters a lot.
"Not sure what you mean. Liberty as I defined and derived it is a discrete moral principle, one of many many possible moral principles."
I'm not criticizing your argument itself. I just would have framed it differently to give you a bit more scope for argument. You framed it as "India should because it's moral, it's moral because of liberty, and it encourages liberty because property rights etc". Nothing wrong with that logic, but I would have framed it as "India should because liberty is great, liberty is great because morality (and note how there's much more scope here for other reasons liberty is great not exactly to do with morality), and this model encourages liberty because property rights etc". Subtle, small thing really.
"For instance they would read the example with the bread, houses, and clothes and try to start debating how accurate those numbers were. Challenging the scope of the example, etc.."
The tactic for beating this kind of thing, I've found, is to not elaborate too much on your narratives (once you realize they are this way, of course). Pointed rhetorical questions with these kinds of little stories in them are great because you can bet that this kind of opponent will spend like 10 sentences refuting something you only asked in 1 sentence. That gives you 9 sentences of analysis they can't refute because they got so caught up on the one.Posted 2014-04-15 18:10:34
@admin
"Once again his argument for the round could be summed up by "why". "
Which is perfectly fine for a position that incurs no BoP responding to a raw assertion, but I did more than raw assertion. I presented an argument, and at that point even someone without an original BoP is bound to explain why the positive argument failed.
If I said "the sky is blue" and he said "why" and that was the 'debate' he wins.
If I said "the sky is blue because water is blue and there is water in the sky and anything with a blue thing in it becomes blue" he needs to explain why that argument failed no matter how silly it is.
"Use consistent formatting. Large swathes of bold text is hard to read."
Yea.... I was going to do the bold thing because he did it (just trying to be consistent) but then I got distracted by the pretty colors you allow
"Avoid point-for-point rebuttals if you can. Longer to read, bad structure, less room for your analysis."
Got to disagree completely there. Such is the only way to correlate the response with the points made. Since you can simply ignore any point you find irrelevant or repetitive, the only thing to gain by avoiding this is confusion about what someone is referring to in a giant bloc of analysis.
Perhaps this explains the lack of a good quoting system?
"Don't argue in the comments. At best you're just wasting your time."
That's what my friends say about my presence on debate sites
"I felt like your moral point was mislabelled. If you call it liberty and define liberty as the end goal then it's harder to attack on subjectivity grounds."
Not sure what you mean. Liberty as I defined and derived it is a discrete moral principle, one of many many possible moral principles.
A moral principle is merely a principle dealing with right or wrong, the name alone doesn't mean its correct.
The value of liberty is no more or less subjective because I avoid calling it what it is, namely something implying a code of ideal or proper behavior.
They may not be very common in this day and age in civilized countries by one can say "screw liberty" and many do so by their actions if not their words. If disagreement made something subjective then objectivity doesn't exist.
"When summarizing stuff, the point is to condense it. You somehow managed to expand your analysis in the final round."
Yea that's because he went back and started objecting to things in round 1.
"Especially with the moral argument, massive missed opportunity. You could say, for example, 'Is it really moral that we are preventing thousands of small exporters in India from selling their goods at a fair price?' "
You are absolutely right, I routinely underestimate the importance of stories and examples. I consciously decided to give an example for the practicality appeal and stick with pure categorical logic for the moral appeal in round one. I was going to mix it up next round (you know trying to cover all the bases) but I kinda forgot
I find that when an opponent (not Con in this case) is "out to get you" and doesn't care about being honest, giving examples, analogies, illustrations is often just giving them ammunition to commit well camouflaged red herrings.
For instance they would read the example with the bread, houses, and clothes and try to start debating how accurate those numbers were. Challenging the scope of the example, etc..
In the end I know that I have to present airtight abstract (categorical or conceptual) logic or else I will always be relying on rhetorical devices rather than argument... as such I sometimes slip into thinking those are a waste of time.Posted 2014-04-15 17:53:40
"I'm sorry about that, but I think it'd be fair to say that I've judged this based on how clearly you both presented your cases to me. " - nzlockie
That's why I quoted the actual contents of the debate word for word. If I had to clarify after the fact I would not have considered it a problem, but the meaning of what was written remains. The only thing I could have done different would be to repeat the same thing over and over again.
"I can still change my judgement and if both sides would like me to, I'll be happy to withdraw it." - nzlockie
Don't withdraw it unless you are withdrawing your own judgement. The truth of the debate is more important to me than your judgement of it, but your judgement of it is more important than the record of your judgement.
"What I was saying to ADOL is that if you guys both agree that you don't want me to be the deciding factor on who wins this debate" - nzlockie
I would never have considered you to be that. Again this is nothing personal or specific to this debate, I see debate primarily as a contest of logic and evidence and convincing people as a potential but not guaranteed benefit. Therefore to me, votes or judgements, or whatever you would like to call them never have decided the winner of a debate and never will.
In other words, no matter how the fans cheer; the number of times the ball flew into each goal is what matters.
I see your vote as empirically no different than a comment with the exact same text, after all it is just text with a HTML radio option next to it. The only thing I would prefer is that everyone be willing to support what they assert, I believe I won the debate but not for the reasons you think I did; so funnily enough it was your support that gave me reason to object
So it turns out I'm doing this debate now too... http://www.edeb8.com/debate/secret-topic-13/Posted 2014-04-14 22:01:12
"Edeb8 does not allow someone to give an RFD and not vote. Strange, considering you can do that on DDO."
Deliberate. In RL judges always need to pick a winner. If there is "no clear winner" then con wins on pro missing their BOP. DDO's non-vote RFDs are usually just comments anyway.Posted 2014-04-14 12:14:50
I would assume many of the people who come to the site to debate don't expect the vast amount of time consumption in online debating. That is why I only log on once or twice a day or maybe not at all.Posted 2014-04-14 11:53:08
I felt like there WAS a decisive winner - for the reasons I wrote out. I hate sitting on a fence, it takes a lot to get a tied vote from me.
What I was saying to ADOL is that if you guys both agree that you don't want me to be the deciding factor on who wins this debate, (something that looks like happening since there's less than 48hrs to run on voting time) then I'm happy to withdraw my vote.
Everyone can vote on a judge's decision regardless of whether they participated in the debate or not. I think that's a good thing since it communicates to the judge in question how their votes are being perceived.
As for why they would do that without voting on the debate themselves? No idea. I know some people really take a lot of pride in how far up the leaderboards they are and by submitting an RFD they open themselves up to be brought down... maybe that has something to do with it?
I'm still trying to work out why people come to a debate site and don't debate!
You're right that the participants can't vote for the winner. But they can (and should) rate the judges.
Posted 2014-04-14 10:19:16
I also noticed two people rated nzlockie's vote. Why would someone vote on a judge's RFD but not a debate? Unless one of those people is ADOL, then he can't vote on the debate(I think?).Posted 2014-04-14 08:53:42
If you feel that there was no decisive winner, feel free to withdraw your vote. Edeb8 does not allow someone to give an RFD and not vote. Strange, considering you can do that on DDO. Posted 2014-04-14 08:51:38
All good bro, the whole point of the system is to rate it appropriately! I appreciate the clarification but I don't mind the vote either way.
I spent a LOT of time trying to follow both sides of this debate and trying to take on board only the information presented based on the way it was presented. My role was to be communicated to and I felt like for me personally, some of the points didn't translate. I'm sorry about that, but I think it'd be fair to say that I've judged this based on how clearly you both presented your cases to me.
I can still change my judgement and if both sides would like me to, I'll be happy to withdraw it. I respect how hard you both worked on this and considering there wasn't much time left for voting, I thought I'd do at least one. Let me know if you'd rather I withdraw it. No problem!Posted 2014-04-13 23:16:18
I have some comments on your judgement nzlockie:
I do have a big issue with it namely that you did not seem to understand the moral argument. You say "as it really just laid the ground work to say that India was ENTITLED to pursue AFMPs."
You assume a conclusion applying to collectives when it was categorically impossible for that to be the case. Note in round 1 "Therefore Indian *individuals* and groups have a right to" - Pro
The moral argument was not that India was entitled to pursue AFMPs but that every individual IN India was entitled to trade so long as they weren't violating other people's rights.
The argument allowed the individual to trade or not to trade at their whim (hence free trade) but it placed an absolute constraint on India the government, and India the majority of Indians.
It claimed they are entitled and REQUIRED to adopt AFMPs because the one and only way to fail to adopt those policies de jure and de facto would be to impede consensual trades between individuals.
Whether you thought the argument succeeded or not is another matter, but if you understood it you could not have ignored it while judging as you did. This extends to 3) where you dismiss the criticality of Con's investment in defeating the moral argument as well as the first paragraph of your feedback to me.
"I also feel like you didn't really hammer the resolution down as well as I was expecting you to. CON was right when he mentioned several times that you were referring to Trade rather than Market."
I gave a definition of AFMP in round one, Con did not dispute that definition in his response (nor explicitly thereafter), there really was nothing to hammer out. A market is a sum of potential trades by definition.
Could you give me an example of any free market policy that is not also a free trade policy?
"Finally, you almost lost the whole case for me when you continued the argument in the comments section. There was no need for that..... I didn't read your responses"
There is no need for any of this, but I am a person who desires to voice (or type) his opinions from time to time or I wouldn't be on here. If you had read my comment you might have realized I wasn't arguing, nor did I imply that anyone had to read the comment before voting.
You can't have it both ways. If you are not judging the comments as part of the debate then I couldn't lose (or even contribute to losing) by making a comment no matter what the content was. If you consider the comments a potential extension of the debate, then you cannot complain that someone else forced to treat it that way.
Finally you say in the feed back to Tophatdoc: "The worst part was that until you posted that, his original point wasn't even that important!"
He cannot alter the importance of the original point by being wrong about it. If we were arguing about car fuel efficiency and I make some unrelated point about decals, it doesn't matter how wrong he is when he says decals are condensed demon essence. That does not make my comment about decals more relevant to the resolution. This doesn't follow and illustrates a problem with your judging process (no offense).
I am partly writing this because I had some trouble when I went to rate the vote. I didn't detect anything that I would describe as bias in your RFD, but I thought the criteria for "biased" and "good" both fit your RFD and it occurs to me that they are not mutually exclusive. You clearly read the debate, and caught many details; but that isn't a guarantee that your vote was fair to both debaters (or what I would care about, the truth of the exchange).
When in doubt give the benefit of the doubt (pun intended) so I rated it good.
P.S. I realize that it may seem ironic to be so critical of a vote in my favour. I can only say that with the way I view debate; and the value I see in my interactions on sites like these it makes perfect sense. It is because of those views that I felt compelled to make this comment as a RFD about a RFD
Just answering some questions as I would vote.Posted 2014-04-12 10:58:52
Arguing in the comment section? Wow.Posted 2014-04-11 23:17:59
I have to be honest, I find the last round rather shabby attempt to offer voters an alternative to reading the whole debate. Con offers some questions to voters and I would like to answer them as if I were voting on this debate:
1. Pro has made several objective claims throughout this debate, is there any reason for us to believe they are "objective?"
His arguments, which Con did not address.
2. Pro focused majority of his arguments on morals, is this not a debate about policy?
The assertion that policy and morality have nothing to do with each other is wholly absurd. The morality of a policy is a moral issue, there is no 'should' without a goal and constraints and an implicit constrain of all human behavior is moral correctness.
Towards what end is policy aimed? Are we to sacrifice little children for its purpose if we have the slightest inclination that it might be effective? No? Then do not tell me morality has nothing to do with it.
If this was seriously one of Con's objections I would expect him to bring it up when he knew Pro was making a moral argument [abundantly clear in round 1 notice giant 'morality' heading], yet he waited till the last round. This strikes me as moderately dishonest.
3. Pro only mentioned only one free market policy, Free Trade, but Free Trade with whom?
His arguments were abundantly clear in their implications, everyone within and without the nation of India; that's what makes it free.
4. Has Pro even mentioned what the results of "aggressive free market policies" would be?
Indeed he did, in the first round 'They are producing more value and increasing the net worth and production of India. This will improve the general quality of life in India (and around the world).' - Pro
5. Did Pro address a single reason why India must adopt "aggressive free market policies" based on the current situation of India?
Pro addressed why the 'current situation' in India is irrelevant implicitly by making arguments which had no circumstantial requirements except that humans are trading and living.
6. Did Pro address a single policy that India has currently?
Current policy is irrelevant to ideal policy. The right answer remains the right answer no matter what you have on the paper now.
7. How can Pro argue for more "aggressive free market policies" in India when he explicitly stated he would not address anything specific to India?
This question was explicitly answer in round one before it was even asked. Again the fact that Con waits till the last round to make an issue of it seems dishonest.
"Second, although we are arguing about India nothing in my arguments will be specific to India. It shall be understood that India, as a nation of human beings ought to adopt policies that all human societies should adopt." - Pro
8. Has Pro offered a thorough knowledge of the economic system of India?
Sub point of 7 and 6.
9. Why should I and the other readers of this debate accept Pro's opinions?
His arguments, presumably the same reason they should accept Con's opinions.
10. More importantly, why should the Indian people accept Pro's opinions?
His arguments, presumably the same reason they should accept Con's opinions.Posted 2014-04-11 18:51:40
Posted 2014-04-08 03:54:41
Tough topic, decent debate so far.Posted 2014-04-07 14:07:17
This debate was tweeted too it seems.Posted 2014-04-07 14:06:09
That was unexpected, why do you say this debate has been one of your favorites?Posted 2014-04-07 14:04:36
This would have to be one of my fav debates on the site.Posted 2014-04-06 11:45:39
Good, I will probably post my arguments tomorrow morning.Posted 2014-03-28 05:51:49
I'm here, I've got four hours and I will try.Posted 2014-03-28 03:51:10
I may accept this debate to play devil's advocate. It depends on if anyone accepts my current debate.Posted 2014-03-25 11:10:34