Why is it that in almost every single thread at one point or another we have to have a “battle of wits” between people who just WILL NOT admit to being wrong… even if it means utterly leaving the subject matter and taking the conversation where it does not belong… ?
Well, I propose that whenever a disagreement is about to turn into one of these “battle of wits”… we no longer beat around the bush… and challange the other to a dual… right here… on this thread… seems like the gentlemanly sort of thing to do… we dont have guns or swords… but boy do we have sharp tongues… and even sharper wits!
before proceeding with the dual the contestents are asked to post their statistics… conformed to the following model:
IQ:
Philosophical knowledge: (basic knowledge, moderate, Advanced student, educated, or expert.)
Cunning: (a brief assesment of how well versed you are in the art of deception and wordplay)
Age:
(this is so those of us who like to gamble can set apropriate odds for the event)
the battle is over if a contestent yields… or if spectators were to name a winner… the first 5 votes are the only one’s which count… any vote counts only if both contestents agree to hear the vote of the spectator…
I hope this idea will take hold and that all of you will make good use of it…
and if all goes well… then maybe… just MAYBE… we can have intelligent conversations on other threads… WITHOUT bruised Ego’s clouding the issue…
I’d like to call out Sabrina, before anyone else gets a shot.
LIFE DOES NOT BEGIN AT CONCEPTION!
My stats
IQ: I dunno. Is IQ even a valid measure anymore? I got a 1440 on my SATs (out of 1600, they’ve since changed the scoring), and a 164 on my LSATs, if that helps.
Philosophical knowledge: I hold a B.A. in Philosophy from Pitzer College.
Cunning: I’ve been deconstructing syllogisms since you were sucking at your mothers teet!
Age: 23
Regardless of how many wish a shot at me here, I will, of course, decline.
I simply don’t qualify as a legitimate motivation for the creation of this thread.
You do realize that the nature of this thread’s challenge will provoke you to choose a topic perspective that is really a stumbling block of your own denial.
Another reason I decline to participate – it wouldn’t be a fair fight.
According to the translator near the bottom, your SAT score would suggest your IQ to be around 152 … further confirmation that it would be unfair of me to take advantage of you.
And?
A battle of wits will require more of you than an oral addiction to philosophy.
The only thing we have close to sharing in common.
If you want to simply give your money to the track, as this is my last post in this rather philosophically meaningless thread.
So you concede? Great! I was dreading having to find judges we can both accept.
I’m also glad to hear you accept the reality of the obvioustruth that life doesn’t begin at conception, and the pill isn’t abortifacient, and neither abortion nor the pill are murder. Glad is a feeling, you know.
Actually, I think this thread is a great idea, but I don’t know if a thread is the right way to do it. Maybe a certain forum that has a scoring system built-in, so that people could vote for who is making the more convincing arguments. After all, message-board philosophy is a spectator-sport.
