USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20011117.1806 (Crew, this is the Captain): A "blog debate" is where two people with their own web logs disagree with each other, and use their web logs to post their arguments and responses. It has unique characteristics over other kinds of debates. Over any kind of real-time debate, it doesn't require that the debater think on his feet. Since each debater controls his own ability to transmit his message, he need not fear being suppressed. Given that the debate is constructed in HTML, footnotes and supporting evidence can readily be cited or included. Pictures can be used (an advantage over news-group debates). All the powers of the medium are available for use by the debaters, who will thus be limited only by the strength of their case. And others will have the ability to observe the process, and just as with two soapboxes in the town square will be able to listen to both sides and try to decide who made the most convincing case -- or to decide that they're both full of shit. (Which has been known to happen.)

Public debate is essential to a liberal democracy, which is why freedom of expression is sanctified in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. And this is never more true than in time of crisis, when the government is forced to respond to extreme challenges and the form the response should take is not immediately obvious -- such as in time of war.

There has been a great deal of punditry about this war, in the press and online. I am no-one important but I've contributed my share on the pro-war side of the debate. I've taken several published anti-war arguments and tried to demonstrate why they're wrong. In some cases the arguments I evaluated approached the ludicrous, while others have been less flawed. But I have not yet seen what I consider to be a single convincing argument against this war, because they all had the same fundamental flaw: none of them would work in the real world. None of them would actually solve the problem we face.

Things like "Instead of spending money on bombing Afghanistan, why not spend that money on bringing clean drinking water to the Third World?" That sounds like a noble goal, but how exactly would that make al Qaeda stop attacking us? Other examples abound, but there's no sense in rehashing them. (Take a look through the archives; you won't have to look far.)

But in the course of doing this, I've been accused more than once of fighting straw men. That's not an accurate characterization; technically a "straw man" is where I invent a fictitious argument and put it in the mouths of my opponents. In actuality, I've been responding to real writings which I've cited with links. But the spirit of the criticism is that I'm selecting egregious examples from the left to criticize, and that the ones I'm selecting are not typical. The idea is that if I were to take on a more worthy opponent I would not do so well.

I'm game. I've issued an open challenge to MetaFilter's anti-war left to a blog debate on the subject of the war:

Resolved: The United States is correct to be fighting this war and should not stop doing so.

The rules of the game are as follows: Rebecca Blood specifically, and the first two other people who contact me by email, will engage in open debate. I will post my arguments here, they will post theirs on their own sites. I will permit each of my opponents to either make the first statement or to choose that I should do so. (If more than one want me to do so, I'll probably only write one such.) I will maintain a summary page here for each such debate which contains links to each entry in the debate so that readers who wish to can follow it if they wish to. My opponents are welcome to do the same. Entries in the debate may be blog entries or separate pages entirely at the option of the writer. Anything which the writer wishes to include will be permitted; they own their own pages and can post what they wish; the only limit is that whatever you post must be linkable. Each party will inform the other by email after writing their latest entry. Third parties may participate if they wish (on their own pages) but no primary debater will have any obligation to link to third parties (i.e. you can't invite yourselves in, though we can link to you if we wish).

Here's what I won't accept: I will not play by Berkeley rules. I have an incisive mind and encyclopedic knowledge and I have blood in my eye. I will not accept any concept that all points of view are equally valid (they aren't) or that I should honor what someone else says as a matter of courtesy (I won't). Ideas in this debate must stand or fall on their own merits. If I think you're wrong about something, I'm going to say so and do my best to prove it.

My contention is that the reason that Berkeley liberals try to suppress debate is because they know that their concepts would not survive the process. I refuse to accept that it is rude to tell someone that they are wrong; on the contrary, I think that it is an essential aspect of free speech. If my debating partners can construct a case I cannot knock down, then they will win the hearts and minds of those who follow the debate, and have a real chance of making a political difference. And by the same token, I'm going to try to make my points as well as I possibly can, and I fully expect criticism by my opponents. I will answer their criticisms as best I can.<