Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shade-o]

Indeed, you need to practice symmetrical warfare. Instead of focusing on winning through superior reasoning, you need to keep your opponent off-balance, confused and unable to respond correctly. Even if you're not actually pushing a coherent view, as long as you look good while doing it and make the enemy look bad, you win.

[de5me7]

http://www.adamsmith.org/

 I hate the adam smith institute, but if you look through their publications and arguements, you might find some stuff you can steal.

the economy regulates its self via supply and demand. The rules of supply and demand will solve........ etc

i agree with other posters in this thread, in general it is far easier to attack than defend in a debate. Pick holes in your opponents arguements and only pitch your own arguements when you have too.

did i mention that i hate adam smith

[Darvi]

did i mention that i hate adam smith

That's good, because he hates your guts too.

[Cthulhu]

So how far left is the opposing viewpoint?  If you have to go hardline Social Darwinist Libertarian and they get somewhere middle-left that's kind of unfair, especially since you're playing Devil's Advocate

[Siquo]

Quote some Gordon Gekko.

[Zrk2]

Use Objectivist rhetoric. It looks very good in theory, and you can start off moderately right, lead into freedom, then whip it out, and leave them in your wake. Also, use good diction to make them look like uncultured louts.

[nenjin]

Really, just skim through Atlas Shrugged, that should give you all the ammunition you need to entertain the whole class.

[Sir Pseudonymous]

did i mention that i hate adam smith

From what I recall, Adam Smith didn't actually support the sort of unbridled capitalism that get's attributed to him. His ideas amounted to "the government shouldn't tell businesses what to make, how to make it, from whom to buy, and to whom to sell; the role of the government is caring for its people, not running an economy," or something like that. I distinctly remember something like that attributed to him, but I can't remember where. I'm also too lazy to look it up.

Use Objectivist rhetoric. It looks very good in theory, and you can start off moderately right, lead into freedom, then whip it out, and leave them in your wake. Also, use good diction to make them look like uncultured louts.

Already covered that:

Or just quote Ayn Rand, but you have to be smoking while you do so otherwise her vengeful spectre will devour your soul and sell your body. If a proper offering of tobacco is made, however, she will manifest and turn your opponents into literal strawmen, which you can then light on fire with your cigarette.

[Shade-o]

So Adam Smith wasn't a proponent of free capitalism, he just wanted no government control or influence in the economy?

[Earthquake Damage]

So Adam Smith wasn't a proponent of free capitalism, he just wanted no government control or influence in the economy?

I'm pretty sure Adam Smith wrote his famous treatise under a backdrop of mercantilism.  Context is everything.

[nenjin]

Indeed. It's just current economic theory hasn't evolved since his time, in the face of global economic realities. It's high time for some revision.

[Flare]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I've been asked to play devil's advocate to a debating team. I have to argue in favour of far right-wing economics (to laymen: this is basically laissez-faire, hands off, no support for the poor, every man for himself kinda thing). I can pick any of it's strengths that I like and can use anything possible to beat them.

But... I can't work find any real strengths that I could use in a debate. :| Just looking over everything I've got written down and it basically boils down to this:-
- Allows the top dogs to reach the top. (Amazingly easily debated against.)
- Capitalistic model has driven world technological progress.
- That's... About it.
- I have a final one that I will never say in this debate because it's basically instalose: "Rich people can make themselves richer."

I cannot find a single real strength for the model. :| They're arguing far left, and I think that - if I don't rely on ad hominem attacks and other logical fallacies that are sadly the best ways to win debates - I'm going to get verbally raped.

Any help, guys?

Argue it from a rights perspective. Make sure you know the constitution of the country you take to be an example or your own country. What laissez-faire does is make all the subjects who operate it in an atomistic individual, which is to say that the majority of the arguments will be individually based and very little of it will be beneficial to the community. One of their arguments is that it's incredibly hard to justify actions through social goal, especially at the expense of personal freedoms.
Take for example, their view on taxes- it's all theft according to them. Money is taken from an individual to be spent somewhere else on someone else who did nothing to earn that money. A common response to this is that's for the greater good, or make society better. The libertarian banana would then say that while this can be true it is nonetheless violating the tax payer's (natural rights*point is debatable and is great to derailing arguments when you feel you're in a corner) right to property. They don't like income tax at all either since they see being employed as the basic means of living and therefore unemployment- long term unemployment- is philosophically synonymous with death to them allowing them to argue that you're basically being taxed to breath or some such.
The Right wing economist will also point out how terrible *ALL* (this point is contentious, some libertarians would say that all governmental activities are essentially wasteful, and that everything the private sector can do, it can do better than the government, therefore the government shouldn't spend beyond basic necessities like the army) governmental services are wasteful. Education, one has argued, is better served through private schools funded by the parents entirely than the state funded ones. Keep in mind, the person who said this was from the US, my impression of the school system over there is pretty bad, but this does not mean that it would necessarily be a better choice. Avoid this point if you know anyone in the education industry or anyone who knows something about it.
Finally, there's a point you must avoid or at least take it on as a last resort. The thing about rights is that the libertarian would see nothing wrong if Rupert Murdoch bought all of the grocery stores in your town and replaced them with vegetarian stores and all the newspapers and placed giant pictures of meat on the front page. It's important to note that your opponents might seize the opportunity and declare that you've merely shorn off the tyranny of the government (_{I don't know why this is such a popular statement, you probably shouldn't use it, it doesn't help you}) to live under the tyranny of the rich.

For more, I'd like to reference this thread: http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,100451.msg2545299.html#msg2545299

The correspondence between Wheem and Swadius is more or less the debate you're going to give, if you hadn't already, except your positron is much better argued for.

[Earthquake Damage]

The thing about rights is that the libertarian would see nothing wrong if Rupert Murdoch bought all of the grocery stores in your town and replaced them with vegetarian stores and all the newspapers and placed giant pictures of meat on the front page. It's important to note that your opponents might seize the opportunity and declare that you've merely shorn off the tyranny of the government (_{I don't know why this is such a popular statement, you probably shouldn't use it, it doesn't help you}) to live under the tyranny of the rich.

What a silly example.  Clearly someone will step in to satisfy the town's demand for meat by opening a butcher.  There's not exactly any competition to worry about, as R.M. apparently doesn't sell meat to that market. 

[Flare]

The thing about rights is that the libertarian would see nothing wrong if Rupert Murdoch bought all of the grocery stores in your town and replaced them with vegetarian stores and all the newspapers and placed giant pictures of meat on the front page. It's important to note that your opponents might seize the opportunity and declare that you've merely shorn off the tyranny of the government (_{I don't know why this is such a popular statement, you probably shouldn't use it, it doesn't help you}) to live under the tyranny of the rich.

What a silly example.  Clearly someone will step in to satisfy the town's demand for meat by opening a butcher.  There's not exactly any competition to worry about, as R.M. apparently doesn't sell meat to that market. 

We're talking about a RM that will buy out anyone who would set up a  butcher's shop there. Aside from that, buying up all the livestock farms, or making their own butcher's shop with ridiculously low prices and higher quality than the independently owned shop can drive them out of business pretty quickly.

[Earthquake Damage]

We're talking about a RM that will buy out anyone who would set up a  butcher's shop there. Aside from that, buying up all the livestock farms, or making their own butcher's shop with ridiculously low prices and higher quality than the independently owned shop can drive them out of business pretty quickly.

If you mean he will always, without fail, offer enough money to buy out anyone who sets up a butcher's shop, then he'll go bankrupt and the townsfolk will get rich.

Here's how it'd go:
1.  Dude gets loan, which bank will gladly give out because it's a certainty that RM will pay enough to cover the interest
2.  Dude sets up shop
3.  RM buys shop for a sum large enough to cover loan interest plus substantial profit to dude (because why accept the offer otherwise?)
4.  Dude laughs all the way to the bank

Lather, rinse, repeat.  Your hypothetical scenario fails. 

Also, the same would go for livestock farms, unless he literally owned every edible animal on the planet.  In that case, he has a monopoly, thus market failure.  If he hoards them, market forces don't apply.  Either way it breaks down.