The Instigator
Leaning
Pro (for)
The Contender
BlackMasquerade
Con (against)

Better to politically migrate than work with opposites

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
BlackMasquerade has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2020 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 195 times Debate No: 124082
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Leaning

Pro

If you accept this debate you accept debating with the 'spirit of what I intend by this argument.
This meaning that to either side, Definitions are a bit more fluid, Not set in stone, A bit more free to come and go. The voters, If any shall judge whether the 'spirit is kept.
Voters are free to vote however they like without having to make some intricate argument to justify their vote, Although I would appreciate it if they are good sports and honest about it.


If people wanted to demonstrate the advantage and correctness of their stances,
Surely this could be accomplished by banding together with others of similar beliefs?
This would allow them greater power to pass laws that match with their ideals.
BlackMasquerade

Con

All right. Let's get right to it. My first debate,

First of all let me reiterate what you're arguing. You are arguing that people that share similar beliefs should band together to push their agendas, And this will be beneficial to the political climate as a whole.

First of all, I hope you're not asking someone to argue against having people of similar beliefs banding together and refining their ideas, And that this is the most efficient way to go for that specific group. That is not debatable, Anyone with an ounce of sense would agree.

What I think you're rather debating is that people of similar beliefs should group together and collectively fight against an opposition.

The primary flaw in this is that isolated groups become a form of circlejerk, And leaves little room for constructive critism. Let me illustrate with an example, Assuming we all know that no agenda or idea is perfect and can definitely be improved upon.

Lets say group C and group B are rivals. Group B raises an excellent point against an argument put forward by a member of C, Lets name him A. If A was alone when he was being countered, He would've dwelled on this counterargument for the remainder of his day - which would result in either him taking a drastic decision and changing stances entirely, Or force him to reflect on his ideas and further refine them.

The problem is A is in a group. The group will stand by him and will collectively pass off group B's excellent counterargument as something to be forgotten, Further exacerbated by the bias produced because of conflicting ideals (A thinks his ideas are correct and B's are wrong, Leading to the simple but not necessarily correct deduction that B must be stupid, And any further arguments from him are trash. )

This same phenomenon replicates inside group B.

What results is two conflicting groups that are unable to improve upon their agenda because of a simple bias caused by their conflict and the need to save face in front of a bigger audience (the reason why people snap back at any insults, Regardless of whether they may be true or not, And due to the lack of a negative reaction from the audience, Deduce that the criticism was baseless). The bigger problem is that this is a vicious cycle. Neutral people are battered by propaganda and 'recruited' by either group. So neither group improves, And they just keep becoming bigger.

The ideal is where people don't broadly classify themselves in any group, And instead argue for their own unique beliefs, In this way ideas will propagate faster and better, Contrary to what seems obvious.
Debate Round No. 1
Leaning

Pro

First of all, I hope you're not asking someone to argue against having people of similar beliefs banding together and refining their ideas, And that this is the most efficient way to go for that specific group. That is not debatable, Anyone with an ounce of sense would agree.

What I think you're rather debating is that people of similar beliefs should group together and collectively fight against an opposition.


The two ideas seem rather similar to me, And I don't disagree especially with either way it is phrased.
I suppose I meant it more as an argument for The Free State Project (FSP) is a political migration movement, Or any other time people have moved to an area where they hope to governed by their own idea of what is right.

To separate ourselves into groups seems very human to me.
Seems to me something we're likely to always come back to,
Be it country, Party, Other.
But you suggest instead (It seems to me), A nation/community of independents.

That far, I do not go.
Organizations and groups, Seem to me more powerful than individuals and mobs lacking leadership and clear direction.
I only argue that in this political era where people seem unable to agree on health care, Gun laws, Climate control, And so on, Why bother agreeing?
Why live next door to someone who disagrees so heartily, Who's foolish viewpoint and vote causes city/county/state laws to be as they are.
Better to live by laws that are correct, That one wants.
Better for all to live as they see right, Without forcing or being forced by others.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Leaning 1 year ago
Leaning
Hm, Perhaps I shouldn't have been so vague and wishy washy.
Perhaps I am confusing it with flexibility.
Posted by Leaning 1 year ago
Leaning
Since I was rather vague in round one, I also don't mind the spirit/goalposts of the debate being moved in your direction either. So long as they don't move to the other side of the field.

I include that beginning italic about spirit, Mainly to try to keep people from not being genuine.
Posted by Leaning 1 year ago
Leaning
If you'd like, Feel free that we talk in comments to clarify some parts of debate, Rather than using a round to clarify a point, Before progress can be made.
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.