May I have your opinion...?

[Devotion]

Answer = War always?

 

[Lilith]

that's not really a very good bush impersonator

[Dintiradan]

Violence is never the answer.

 

It is the question. The answer is "yes".

[Triumph]

No, Dinti, to be or not to be, THAT is the question.

[Dantius]

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

 

...you knew I was going to say that, didn't you?

[Alorael at Large]

No one with any shred of sanity has ever declared war to be the answer to everything. The better question, and the one that gets pacifists, ethicists, and others prone to moral ponderings to pondering, is whether war is ever the answer.

 

—Alorael, who isn't sure that war is never the best option. He will, however, say that it is the best option far less often than it is exercised.

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

No, Dinti, to be or not to be, THAT is the question.

Well, my friend. I think, therefore I be.

[Monroe]

I don't know, sometimes I feel like we should go to war far more often.

 

Economy collapsed thanks to Goldman Sachs? War.

 

Gulf of Mexico ruined by BP? War.

 

Sarah Palin? War!

 

Think about all the problems we could solve simply by annihilating the cause. But no, all those things I've listed are, sadly, still around and not being attacked with the full might of our military forces like they should be.

 

Plus think of the non-partisanship it would promote. Democrats want to see these problems dealt with by big government. Republicans want to destroy things with the army. Everybody wins!

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Monroe

Stuff

I hope that's a joke.

[Lilith]

look who doesn't know who monroe is

[tehpineapple]

violence never accomplishes anything positive above and beyond what the threat of violence accomplishes.

[Alorael at Large]

You can't make credible threats if you never back them up. Sooner or later someone will call your bluff, and if you don't have the will or the material to make good a lot of people will call a lot of bluffs.

 

—Alorael, who sees that as the primary reason nukes are a less effective way of deterring just about anything than good old guys with assault rifles. Nobody likes the idea of nuking anybody and everybody knows it. Not a credible threat. Shooting people in the head? Morally clear, and therefore a distinct possibility.

[Student of Trinity]

I have sometimes thought that a good competitive entrance exam for some kind of elite think tank or college or something would be an essay on one of two topics, randomly assigned to all entrants. Half of the participants would have to argue in favor of the strategy "eat the rich" as a good solution to the world's big problems. The other half would have to support "nuke the poor".

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

I have sometimes thought that a good competitive entrance exam for some kind of elite think tank or college or something would be an essay on one of two topics, randomly assigned to all entrants. Half of the participants would have to argue in favor of the strategy "eat the rich" as a good solution to the world's big problems. The other half would have to support "nuke the poor".

You aren't thinking clearly enough on this- almost, but not quite. A better solution would be to have those two questions be successive questions on the same exam. Both essays would then be graded by the same person so they could best evaluate how skillfully the applicate argued two completely opposite points, despite having argued in opposite of what they were trying to prove not five minutes ago.

[Triumph]

Dantius, are these exams intended to encourage EVERYONE become run-of-the-mill politicians? Do we really WANT that?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Dantius, are these exams intended to encourage EVERYONE become run-of-the-mill politicians? Do we really WANT that?

They are to encourage you to have the mental flexibility to be able to argue against or for point and positions that you may or may not support using a wide range of techniques including, but not limited to: falsification of data, obfuscation, manipulation of statistics, logical fallacies including argumentum ad populum and ad hominem attacks, and my personal favorite, perjury. These skills will have a wide range of applications in careers and career alternative including law, medicine, science, politics, engineering, business, teaching, manual labor, journalism, incarceration, and welfare queen/king, serving you well regardless of your career career path.

In a word, yes. Very much so.

[Student of Trinity]

But I don't want debaters, who can make any position look good. I want the opposite of this. I want doctors without spin — people who can argue a position without trying to make it look good. I think I might be able to identify such people equally well in two ways: either force them to appreciate a repugnant position, without the opportunity of turning the argument around afterwards; or force them to advance their own position in gruesome terms, without the opportunity to show that the other side can be just as extreme. So for this I think it's important that there be only one essay.

[Triumph]

Either I'm not understand what you seek to achieve, SoT, or I'm not understanding your reason for it, or both. Argue a position without trying to make it look good? What is arguing a position if not trying to persuade others to accept it (and thus in some sense make it "look good")? If they appreciate a "repugnant position," how is it still repugnant? As for advancing one's own in "gruesome terms," how would that really be "advancing" the argument?

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Triumph

Dantius, are these exams intended to encourage EVERYONE become run-of-the-mill politicians? Do we really WANT that?

They are to encourage you to have the mental flexibility to be able to argue against or for point and positions that you may or may not support using a wide range of techniques including, but not limited to: falsification of data, obfuscation, manipulation of statistics, logical fallacies including argumentum ad populum and ad hominem attacks, and my personal favorite, perjury. These skills will have a wide range of applications in careers and career alternative including law, medicine, science, politics, engineering, business, teaching, manual labor, journalism, incarceration, and welfare queen/king, serving you well regardless of your career career path.

In a word, yes. Very much so.

The purpose of this kind of institution is to encourage the development of skills that promote the common good, not identify people who already have skills that can only be used in self-interest. Having somebody do the latter may be useful in the context of preemptive self-defense, but that's outside the scope of most colleges.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

But I don't want debaters, who can make any position look good. I want the opposite of this. I want doctors without spin — people who can argue a position without trying to make it look good. I think I might be able to identify such people equally well in two ways: either force them to appreciate a repugnant position, without the opportunity of turning the argument around afterwards; or force them to advance their own position in gruesome terms, without the opportunity to show that the other side can be just as extreme. So for this I think it's important that there be only one essay.

First, I'd like to open by saying that I'm not really clear on what you are looking for. Are you looking for someone smart enough to argue a position without acknowledging the opposition? Protip: These people make bad debaters. Or are you looking for someone who can argue a position despite its moral repungancy? Because that's just a matter of finding something worse that's related to what you're arguing to and pointing to it while saying "This is what happens if we don't __________".

But I will assume that you want people able to accept that a position is morally repugnant and still argue it without resorting to the "well the other side is more badder, nyer nyer!" line of reasoning.

In that case, what I would do is still administer the two essays. Administer the first essay on a very, very controversial topic on something there is heated disagreement in the field about and on which people would have very contested opinions. Have them choose one, and then write the essay. Then have the second essay given to the after they've finished the first one be "Write an essay arguing in favor of the position that you didn't support". Only consider the second one in their application, since that would be the position that they don't support (most people would first choose to argue the position that they like), as this would be indicative of their ability to advance the position they don't like without arguing against thee position that they do like, since most people aren't willing to rationally deconstruct and argue against a position that they hold dear.

Boom, you have the person most suitable for your think tank.

[Randomizer]

Everyone should know that people that have made it to the point where they are writing that type of essay already know that honesty isn't the best policy to get admitted. Whatever they write is designed to get ahead and all that you see is how well they can write an essay.

 

Anyone with morality is unlikely to make it that far.

[waterplant]

Maybe SoT is talking about advancement of the discussion rather than one side trying to prove their point alone. Real-world debate would be much more effective if facts/opinions were presented coherently and the primary objective of all involved is to further their own knowledge of the issue and perhaps find some conclusions/consensus.

[Dintiradan]

Here's a somewhat relevant essay on ... essays ... by Paul Graham. Among other things, it discusses how the "introduction with thesis > first point > second point > third point > conclusion" model is inherited from the first English universities' focus on producing lawyers, and the model isn't as applicable for other areas.

 

A good defence of a position should do more than just present arguments that support it -- it should also anticipate the opposition's arguments and rebut them.

 

(Don't take my word for it, though. I tried reading some John Raulston Saul a while back. After he made a rambling point, he would pause and bring attention to an opposing argument -- and then dismiss it as 'not being worth considering'. Made for an irritating read.)

 

Anyway, I wouldn't in good faith be able to write a defence of a position that I do not hold, because I wouldn't be able to rebut arguments I believe (if I could, why would I believe them?). The best I could do is present a catalogue of arguments for the position.

 

EDIT: Yeah, what Randomizer said.

[Student of Trinity]

One of the things I learned about in the army was shining boots. I never actually got very good at it, but I did absorb the basic theory of it. Leather doesn't shine: polish shines. The point is to get a layer of polish to stick to the leather, and then make that smooth. You can't do anything to the leather itself by polishing, except cover it up. But of course it is the leather that makes the boot.

 

My concern is to distinguish substance from presentation. There are many ways to say the same thing, many proposals whose practical implementation and consequences would be identical. Some sound nicer, some sound uglier. I feel that too many people get distracted by these presentation issues, and waste time effectively arguing, not about substance, but only about who is most entitled to use the nicest sounding words to express their ideas.

 

I want people who can argue, but call a spade a spade. People who are even willing to accept their opponents' labels and language, and still argue their points. I don't want people who are all polish and no leather, but I want people who know that leather doesn't shine.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Student of Trinity

I want people who can argue, but call a spade a spade. People who are even willing to accept their opponents' labels and language, and still argue their points. I don't want people who are all polish and no leather, but I want people who know that leather doesn't shine.

In that case, why not have your applicants argue in syllogisms rather than standard English? You can't polish a syllogism.

[Triumph]

Interesting suggestion, Sarachim. Even within a syllogism, one can choose to use more or less appealing terminology, but it certainly does strip away many of rhetorical tricks and emotional appeals that clutter many arguments.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

In that case, why not have your applicants argue in syllogisms rather than standard English? You can't polish a syllogism.

Part of the problem is that syllogisms are only useful for deductive logic, while a lot of the premises they rely on can really only be demonstrated inductively.