to_hobbes

Intro:
Here is a game I thought of. I am usually not too good at inventing games, so forgive me if this turns out to be a bad idea. This was actually an idea I started on a different forum, but I thought it would be nice to try it out here.

Motive:
In philosophical debate, people can create very long posts. If people respond, they often write an equally lengthy post, quoting the original and breaking the comment text to insert comments. Threads can become very long, and often arguments are repeated or re-started by those who didn't read the entire thread.

This is all very well and good, but it does take a very long time for me to read a single thread, and I usually do it in two or three sittings, or just avoid the thread. So, I thought it might be good to put some constraints on our discussion forum habits for the sake of some creative writing.

Object of the game:
I will pick a topic (actually two or three in hopes of getting more participants), and anyone can post arguments over one or both of those topics. There is no scoring, there is no end to the game unless a moderator thinks the thread should be closed. Be creative, and think carefully about your responses.

Rules:
I'm not a moderator, so I can't enforce any of these. For the game to work, we must rely on the honor system, which I don't think will be a problem here.

1. Each post must have NO MORE THAN 2 SENTENCES. This is the most important rule. Of course, it is possible to fit a lot of information in a single sentence, using semicolons, multi-sentence quotes of notable persons, parenthesis, and lots and lots of commas. But I hope anyone playing will simply not do that, please. Lets make this an exercise in good writing style.
2. Each post may contain only two quotes, one sentence per quote. Since each post is limited to two sentences, limiting the content of quoted posts will force participants to maintain no more than two parallel threads of dialog. You can have two quoted sentences from the same person, or one from one person, and another from another person. Lets also limit famous quotes, Bible verses, etc. to one per post.
3. Reply only once to any single post. That is to say, don't post ten times in a row just to clarify yourself, that defeats the purpose of keeping replies brief. If you make a post, it should quote someone or address an argument someone else has made.
4. Only one new argument per day. To prevent yourself from rambling, limit the rate at which you express ideas. If a post that you have written does not address any other post in the thread, it is a new argument. Don't make too many new arguments in too little time.
5. Quotes must reference only other posts within this thread. I think it would be OK to allow links to articles or other web pages, but I am hoping this thread keeps dialog limited to the arguments posted in this thread.
6. Straying from the original topic is acceptable. This need not be confined to a single line of thought. Bring up new things to argue about if you think it would be a good idea. But please, try to make the arguments you post somewhat connected to the present discussion. It might be a bit annoying to post a declaration of your love of Star Wars in the middle of a debate over the works of Friedrich Nietzsche.
7. Be polite.
8. Be creative.

Final notes:
Constraining your writing will force you to be clever in making a point. If you think someone is not getting it, try asking a question to get them to elaborate. Your elaborations must be well-crafted in order to address a critic in as few words as possible.

Reading this thread will hopefully be easy for anyone who wants to join in because each post is very short. I do hope this thread turns into a real dialog. In the worst case scenario, it will turn into a chat room with people talking like 12-year-olds. Best case scenario: we end up with a contemporary version of Plato's "Republic"... (OK, probably not that good.)

I wouldn't be surprised or disappointed if this goes nowhere. There might be too many rules, and maybe the game is just too difficult. But I've never tried something like this before (at the other forum, I only just started the idea and have had no responses yet). Anyway I think it could be fun.

Finally, I am aware that this may be better posted in the "Water Cooler" section, but I really would like to see some philosophical debate, so I am putting it in the "Philosophy" section. My apologies to the forum admins if this is a problem for you.

So, any takers?
Please see the example posts below, followed by the posts which begin the game.

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

to_hobbes

Example Post 1:
1. The 2nd Matrix movie was the best.
2. The action scenes were a hundred times better than anything from the first movie.

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

to_hobbes

Example Post 2:
1. What good is the action if there was no story?
2. You are the first person I have ever heard say that they liked the 2nd matrix better, therefore you're crazy.

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

to_hobbes

Example Post 3:
1. It was an action movie, so the action was the most important thing, not the story (though I did like the first movie's story better).
2. I think if we are going to argue about whether or not I am crazy, I am at least entitled to hear how you define the word "crazy".

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

to_hobbes

Begin the Game!

If you are really interested, don't forget to subscribe to this thread so you get E-mails of responses to posts.

1st topic of discussion:
1. Modern society is irrevokably dependent on computers controlling every aspect of life, from money, to medicine, to security.
2. An artificial intelligent government controlled by a massive computer network that watches your every move -- this may be just around the corner, even as close as 20 or 30 years away.

2nd topic of discussion:
1. Belief in God may actually be an important developmental stepping stone for children.
2. Teaching your kids about God as they are young while also emphasizing a scientific world view may be beneficial to allowing your kids to discover for themselves, with their own critical thinking, just how wrong belief in God really is.

3rd topic of discussion:
1. Every living thing dies; from single-cell bacteria to an entire ecosystem, whether we self-destruct, or evolve into nothingness, or are unable to escape the exploding sun, it all must end eventually.
2. What is the point of humanity to even try to keep on living?

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

shadowind

3RD,argument

so if we can not go on forever, we shouldn't go on now?
we all end in the same place, its the journey thats the fun part.

__________________
remember "for mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescirbe to oursleves is liberty"-rousseau: the concept of the general will "if we can not reconcile all opions, then let us endeavour to unite all hearts."-?"to be is to be perceived"-? "‘We can be as honest as we are ignorant. If we are, when asked what is beyond the horizon of the known, we must say that we do not know’-Robert G. Ingersoll

to_hobbes

3RD argument
But what if an comet, or a huge asteroid, or a black hole were about to hit the earth?
Should we try to defend ourselves, or just calmly say, "Ok, it is now humanities time to end." ?

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

Bjarki Dalsgarð

We die and become extinct when we are supposed to, nothing is going to change that, death is ineviteble.
We should defend ourselves, but we will still be blindfolded and up against the wall with our last smoke in our mouth.

__________________
Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art.

The bitternes of life may consume you, otherwise it teaches you how to live for real.

to_hobbes

3RD argument
I would try to defend humanity if it were facing extinction, but I would wonder if doing so would be "unnatural".
So I guess humanity is supposed to do nothing more than just stay alive for as long as it can, like a tree or something?

__________________
---

(By the way, it's all in your head.)

Bjarki Dalsgarð

It is not unnatural trying to ensure your survival at any cost.
yes, and at one point in time we should be able to colonise the stars, though I fear extinction at our own hands before that.

__________________
Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art.

The bitternes of life may consume you, otherwise it teaches you how to live for real.