Mahollinder's Debates: [clear]
All Debates
You are browsing through all debates. You can refine the results by using the drop-down boxes above. You can view more information about each debate by clicking Show Details at right.
Winning Position: Possessing a Value of Human Life
3
Possessing a Value of Human Life
I have always contended that to be civilized is not to be nice. It is to always find new and creative ways to not kill someone else. In your opinion, what does it mean to be civilized?
Winning Position: Yes Skills and Knowledge
4
Yes Skills and Knowledge
On the website, Digg, the statement "...only markets can successfully determine the value of a job." was made in the comment section of the story: tax hikes on the rich: will Dems blink?
Is the statement true, can the market properly evaluate the worth of a job? And to follow up, how does it make that evaluation, and is the evaluation representative of the importance of that job to the survival of the market itself and the society within which that market exists? Are these questions meaningful (in the sense that the use of "the market" makes it somewhat separate from the people and their individual wills and aesthetics)?
Winning Position: Pretty much
I was recently viewing an article on People en Espanol that catalogued a number of celebrities who have - or have been rumored to have - had cosmetic procedures performed to augment their appearances. Ever since I viewd that article, I've been mulling over a question (geared towards men, primarily) that I want to bring up now. Data collated by The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery shows that in 2009 alone, there were just under 10 million cosmetic procedures performed. And the largest market is still women. So, in the course of a conversation or a relationship, should it now be considered appropriate and necessary to ask a woman if she has had (a) cosmetic procedure(s) performed on her? A quick digression: the implications for surgery and other non-surgical procedures for mating selection seem particularly relevant and important here.
Winning Position: Hyperbole is unnecessary
2
Hyperbole is unnecessary
Rachel Maddow recently appeared on The Daily Show with John Stewart (April 13, 2010). Near the end of their discussion (~19:00), she promoted the increasingly tense and hyperbolic political rhetoric in America as good for the democratic process (as well as TV). Her words carried a hint of facetiousness, but there was an even more underlying seriousness to her point. Now, I firmly believe that the democratic process can only be legitimately resolved through honest and tempered discussion. I go even further: that democracy itself can only be legitimate in the face of tempered, honest and educated discussion. So, is Rachel Maddow correct? Is passionate rhetoric democratically constructive, does it have a place in democracies and what kind of role does it or should it play? If you don't think it has a place, why is this the case, and what kind of national narrative ought to replace it?
Winning Position: people are afraid of thought
2
people are afraid of thought
This question is primarily pointed towards those living in America.
John Stewart of The Daily Show recently pointed out that there seems to be a tragic disconnect between conservative pundit Greschen Carlson's apparent "dumbness" and her academic history. He noted that she has a fertile academic record and speculated that she might be playing stupid to appease the viewers of her programming. But I use Greschen Carlson, not necessarily because she *appears* to be stupid, but because she exemplifies a growing dearth of critical thinking, not only in the American polity and consequent politics, but in the American public as well--as well as a need to appease this lack of critical thinking.
The pedagogical approach of the general American school system up to the undergraduate lelvel has played a major role in this, especially as academics has increasingly concentrated on facts as they pertain to test taking and little else. Democracy thrives on an educated population, but not one that simply knows facts, but one that can critially think about these facts and make historical and analytical connections between them. To the question: should critical thinking take a more prestigious place in academic curricula, and if so, what might it do for citizens and their participation in a functioning Liberal Democracy like America?