Positions you support which are worst argued on the SDMB

Great Debates
1

Of positions you generally agree with/side with/support, which do you think people generally do the worst job of supporting in SDMB debates?

For me, there are two:
(1) Anti-Torture. On any reasonable scale, I’m anti torture. I don’t think the US should torture. I think we should have laws against torture. I think we should apply those laws and prosecute offenders. I think things like waterboarding and stress positions are clearly torture. I also think that torture is going to be nearly useless on a tactical level in most situations, and almost always a net negative on a strategic level due to the loss of moral high ground, retaliations, etc. But on the SDMB, I keep wanting to take the devil’s advocate position because of the overbroad anti-torture claims I keep seeing people make. Of all the reasons to be against torture, none of them are that it would NEVER work under ANY possible situation. I just find it utterly bizarre to propose that for thousands of years rulers and governments have been funding and training and supporting and listening to torturers and things people have said under torture and it has NEVER done them any good and yet they haven’t noticed or cared. That’s a pretty extraordinary claim.
(2) Anti-Theism/anti-religion. I’m an atheist (or perhaps a soft atheist, or perhaps an agnostic, depending on terminology), and I would certainly agree with the general statement that religion has done an absolutely enormous amount of damage over the course of human history (particularly if we’re talking gross damage as opposed to net damage). However, I’m often bothered by anti-theism and anti-religion arguments on the SDMB, for at least two reasons:

(a) again, overbroadness. For instance, right now there’s a thread in which various people are trying to claim, with utter seriousness, that the United Methodist Church is a fraudulent moneymaking organization. This involves utterly warping the words “fraudulent” and “moneymaking” until they no longer remotely resemble their common meanings, which is pretty silly; but more than that it reveals a total lack of perspective. The United Methodist Church is NOT the same as the Roman Catholic Church is NOT the same as the Church of Scientology is NOT the same as Mormonism is NOT the same as Islam. For that matter, the Catholic church of today (much as I am not a fan of it for any number of reasons) is not the same as the Catholic church of 100 or 300 or 500 or 1500 years ago.

Another example of this is that it people take some of the characteristics that certain Christian denominations (to their discredit) exhibit, and assume that all religions share those characteristics. Not all religions preach as part of their basic tenets that:
-the words from some thousand-plus-year old book are literal truth
-therefore, any of that fancy pants science talk is blasphemy
-you must believe precisely what we preach or you will go to hell
-part of your mission is to convert non-believers, who otherwise be going to hell
-all other religions are wrong
-there is certainly one (or more) God, or other supernatural things

But people frequently talk as if those were all defining characteristics of organized religion in general.
(b) The other issue is that anti-religious people are, quite frankly, frequently jerks. Now, you certainly have a right to be a jerk, but it raises the question of why you are arguing in the first place. Goodness knows that if your objective is actually to get people who disagree with you to think about what you’re saying and honestly consider the points you’re making, being an ass might not be a very productive first step, even ignoring the general issue of common human decency. That’s why I’m somewhat torn about the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” rhetorical device. On the one hand, I think there’s a crucial point that it’s important to communicate to believers which is that even though to THEM it seems totally natural and normal to believe that a guy who died 2000 years ago is the son of a supernatural being and you eat his flesh every Sunday, to an outside observer that seems no more natural and normal than a flying spaghetti monster/invisible pink unicorn/whatever. On the other hand, however wrong I find people’s beliefs to be, those beliefs are incredibly important and sacred to them, so why not be polite about it? It’s possible to be polite without glossing over fundamental disagreements. Telling them that something that is very central to their entire world view is comparable to “invisible sky pixies” or some other condescending phrase isn’t likely to lead to meaningful exchanges.

One example of the opposite: I’m generally on the pro-Israel side of things, and I’m usually quite impressed by the level of knowledge and perspective that people arguing the pro-Israeli perspective generally display on the SDMB, to the extent that I never really feel like I have anything to contribute to those threads that others haven’t already said better.

2

This (your argument) is the one I find incredibly frustrating, because it misrepresents both the argument against torture, and the reasons people have tortured through history.

In the first place, most people argue that while torture may obtain results, other methods are more effective, more moral, and provide more reliable results. If people are making the argument that it is impossible for torture to provide information of value they are wrong, but that isn’t what i see.

Moreover, for your argument to work it presumes that rulers and governments have funded and trained and supported torture for the purpose of extracting information. It is certainly one of the goals, and, as stated above, people don’t tend to deny it can extract information (though whether you can rely on that information or not is a different question). But torture has always had another purpose, and in many if not most cases it is the primary one - to punish the person being tortured. And it is incredibly good at doing that. Often any information is a bonus, and the people torturers don’t care about its accuracy. The Gestapo, for example, probably weren’t overly concerned if the Resistance member tortured turned in real comrades or random names. Real names were good, but if innocent people were arrested and punished, it wasn’t high up on the list of bad things to happen that month.

As to the OP directly, I get very frustrated at how people argue both the legalization of marijuana argument (I don’t care if it is bad or good for people, it is a self regarding action and the government has no business butting its head in) and opposition to the death penalty (the deterrence/non-deterrence argument is usually totally blown - that Texas has a higher murder rate than Maine, for example is not proof the death penalty is no deterrent). But those poor arguments occur everywhere, not just here.

3

I do not think anyone has said torture never ever worked. Indeed cases have been cited where it did work. It has just been shown it is a flat out horrible means to question people with the goal being getting actionable intelligence.

Torturers throughout the ages were not unaware of this. It is an excellent means for gaining false confessions and indeed that is why it was probably most often done (Inquisition and so on). Sometimes they are just evil regimes. Some people like brutality. Some people may want to send a message to anyone who would cross them what awaits them.

In other cases it may simply be a lack of an ability to do anything else. If you are a half-dozen soldiers behind enemy lines and capture an enemy soldier I doubt anyone will have experience in interrogation techniques. The guy probably won’t talk so they set to beating the guy to get info.

That said we showed Napoleon viewed torture as worthless to get info. Germany’s “Master” interrogator in WWII absolutley forbade violence. Indeed he treated his captives very well indeed. He had an incredible success rate. So much so the US brought him over after the war to teach his methods here. Compare that to the Gestapo who depopulated a town to catch three people (in one notorious instance).

I would say that the anti-torture crowd has done one of the most thorough condemnations of an alternate point ever seen on the SDMB. Unfortunately many people cling to a knee-jerk reaction of “bad guys, don’t coddle them, our safety is paramount” despite overwhelming evidence that is not what is at issue and their way is worse in every respect.

4

I’ll echo what others have said. Torture is primarily a tool of intimidation and punishment. If your goal is to break the spirit of a captive, or cow a population into submission, or terrorize your enemies with evidence of your ruthlessness and brutality, it works great! And through most of history, that’s how it was used. The Inquisition wasn’t interested in extracting useful intelligence from the heretics it tortured. The goal was just to have them confess and repent.

So when we say torture doesn’t work, we don’t mean it doesn’t work for ALL PURPOSES, merely that it doesn’t work as a way to gather intelligence.

5

I’ll argue in favour of the laws of thermodynamics, but they are sometimes misrepresented here on the board, in the general form of:
*
The energy output from process X cannot ever exceed the energy expended (Y) in creating process X.*

That’s true in a closed system, but it’s not necessarily true when process X is the ongoing function of a wind turbine, (Y being the fossil hydrocarbons used in manufacturing and processing the materials to make the turbine) - there has been an energy input from the wind.

And it’s not necessarily true when process X is the manufacture of biofuels, where Y is the fossil fuels used to run the tractors for harvesting and subsequently processing them (there has been an energy input from the sun)

6

I’d say that the concept / belief in free markets is one that, while very adequately and eruditely explained to people with the correct background, isn’t one that’s explained well at all to people without it.

We end up with a lot of people who seem to go off the deep end and say that free markets are bad and say things that imply that they’d want planned economies and other ridiculous crap, because they don’t really understand the concept of a free market, or because they don’t like some of the implications (economies of scale, for one).

The problem is, the same people like things like cheap electronics, inexpensive gasoline, and today’s vast variety in food and drink, none of which would have come about without free market mechanisms to allow people to try to make a buck bringing you stuff like genuine prosciutto di parma, or Ethiopian coffee.

7

No, the problem is that too many of the pro-free-market people

1 : Refuse to admit that there’s a valid position between Communist style centrally planned economies and everything-goes dog-eat-dog free market capitalism.

2 : Want to pretend that the government is the only thing that can manipulate the market.

3 : Take the attitude that any amount of suffering, injustice and death are preferable to tampering with the Holy Free Market. They make it not only into a moral instead of a practical issue, but tend to regard it as the ONLY moral issue.

4 : Insist that the Free Market is ALWAYS better than the government, regardless of evidence otherwise.

8

I mostly agree with what you’re saying, although I think there’s a big difference between a blanket statement like “it doesn’t work as a way to gather intelligence” and “it doesn’t work WELL as a way to gather intelligence”. I think what mainly set me off was post #7 in this thread and the fact that no one (aside from me) even seemed to blink an eye at it.

9

Okay, I’ll agree with you on this for the most part. You describe yourself as a “soft atheist” or perhaps an agnostic “depending on the terminology.”

Now, right there, understand this: I will absolutely admit that I am a jerk that broadstrokes all religions. I will also admit that no matter who or what tells me the differences between Methodist or Catholic or Christian or Scientology I will only dismiss it as being the same.

I am a hard atheist. I believe that the first country that can claim itself civilized is the first one that says “no religious worship is allowed in public or at home within our borders.” I will preach over and over about “flying sky pixies” because I feel it IS exactly on par with believing “that a guy who died 2000 years ago is the son of a supernatural being and you eat his flesh every Sunday, to an outside observer that seems no more natural and normal than a flying spaghetti monster/invisible pink unicorn/whatever.” I feel this type of argument is the most necessary. The more stupid of an example I can think of to taunt and tease the believer, the better because I feel believing in ANY of it is childish and can only promise a future of underdeveloped humanity. To KNOW this, I simply turn on the news. I have told parents in my neighborhood that I feel making a kid wear a yarmukle is a perfect example of child abuse, and facts tell us there is no such thing as Jewish blood or christian blood. I feel that no bibles should EVER be shown to anyone under the age of 18, because there is nothing to learn from it.

The one important thing about Atheism, (at least to me) is to be louder than any preacher, any nun, any pope. It is more than necessary to write comments to organizations like Fox News reporting a story about bones belonging to St. Paul saying that this is not news, does not matter and I’m offended for them reporting it. It is important to send information about the missing link to iamsecond.com. It is important to debate the religions but never debate what history shows us.

Shit, you might be thinking, Locrian is finally gonna pop! No, not yet. I STRONGLY believe agnostics are above and beyond the dumbest of the believers. Simply because they DO believe. I hear “well, it’s always possible we came from SOMETHING, just not the god most people believe in. I just don’t like organized religion.” I feel the only reason an agnostic THINKS there is a possibility is because of all the unanswered questions we all face of a god or gods they’ve heard about for years. I feel they are just as riddled with a bogus story as a nun is.

Let me remind everyone: Great Debates on SDMB is “For long-running discussions of the great questions of our time. This is also the place for religious debates and (if you feel you must) witnessing.” And so, I am witnessing as an atheist just as a devout JW could.

(Whew! exhales)

Damn that felt so good, I… I think I really AM blessed! By the flying spaghetti monster, that is. :smiley: (Didn’t capitalize that god either.) If you are truly Atheist, speak up so we can get the respect that religions in this country do. According to the guidelines, we’re invited here.

10

I don’t think this is a good place to promote anything new, especially about government, fiscal policy, the two-party system, etc. Say anything at all and the first person who answers will assume you are on one side or the other of an ongoing and endless debate. And absurdly attack you for it. The next person will believe him and support you for it. The concept of new positions or new policies is not well appreciated here. IMHO. I see a lot more respectful consideration on newspaper op-ed blogs.

11

I’m sure that’s very personally satisfying, but it’s hardly an “argument.” I assure you that you will never, ever convince one single person of the error of their beliefs with this kind of “argument.”

Again, I’m sure that’s all very personally satisfying, and that you feel all brave and bold after you tell off some mom pushing her yarmulke-wearing kid in a stroller, but basically it’s juvenile and obnoxious (and comes off as anti-Semitic), and again unlikely to win over any converts. By the way, where and to whom exactly do you do this “witnessing”? I’m betting it’s to the aforementioned moms with strollers, and not in, say, Williamsburg, within earshot of the Shomrim.

12

So this is a debate about debates then?

Arguments are down the hall.

13

Could you please cite all the above?

That is to say, please provide the quoted text where free-market advocates on the SDMB have stated clearly that [ul][li]there is no possible position between Communist style, centrally planned economies and complete libertarianism []the government is the only entity that can manipulate the market []any amount of suffering is preferable to government regulation, and [*]the only possible moral position is that the government may never act to regulate, for any reason, at any time.[/ul]Because I think you are projecting. [/li]
Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Shodan

14

But that is exactly the argument you get when you discuss this with people who have an instinct against torture and don’t have the chops to discuss the issue. They simply say it doesn’t work so tehre is absolutely no reason to use it.

The argument I have the most problem with is the Israel thing. I see the gross human rights abuses, the rationalization of Palestinian subjugation, the use of lethal collective punishment, the rewriting of history, etc. and then some suicide bomber kills a dozen innocent shoppers, it just undercuts all the arguments for pressuring the israelis to do the right thing. The position would be a lot easier to defend if the Palestinian movement was led by someone like Gandhi.

15

The argument I have always seen is that it isn’t the best way to extract information, and that the information it extracts is inherently unreliable. I haven’t seen here the “torture cannot extract information” argument used here, because its patently absurd.

16

I don’t know how much of this I see on this board but off this baord the common refrain seems to be that any movement away from pure free market principles are march of an irreversible slide towardsd socialsim and government control of everything.

There free market fanatics seem to have kneejerk reactions to regulation that seem to ignore the ways that market participants can distort markets.

I don’t know where they are getting the rest of that stuff unless you listen to fox news.

17

Oh we have the chops and have done so here. Indeed it is the pro-torture crowd who confuse the issue by saying torture can get information. As has been noted elsewhere a broken watch is right twice a day. That does not make a broken watch a useful timekeeping device even though it technically is right here and there.

Yes, torture has extracted useful information on occasion. The point is it is a terrible means for doing so as it produces far more bad information than good like the watch above. I mentioned the Gestapo depopulated a town looking for “bad guys”. Is that a success? If I torture you, your family and friends and a few hundred other people and I produce one bad guy would you deem that a decent method of achieving the aim of catching bad guys? I mean if I keep at it sooner or later I am bound to catch torture someone who deserves it right?

It has been cited over and over and over from people who actually perform interrogations that torture is lousy as a means to gather information and far better methods exist for that purpose. If you want to get a false confession great, probably nothing better for that purpose. As regards the US the stated purpose was to gain information so the US was egregiously wrong in this instance.

I have been looking for a long time now for a PBS show I saw that traced the history of Israel and the Palestinians (I thought it was a Frontline episode but having checked I do not think so). Anyway, it was very well done and very even handed. Bottom line there is a lot of blame to throw at both sides. Each has made serious attempts at reconciliation and each has seriously fucked things up.

In the end seems there are some hard liners on both sides (often helpfully proded by outside interests) who find it all too easy to destabilize any delicate peace that is sought.

In short, all sides are to blame and TBH I cannot foresee any peace there for generations to come.

18

That pretty much sums up my position. If the Palestinians had used peaceful means of protest then there would be a Palestinian state now. The PLO came to prominence by kidnapping and killing unarmed atheletes at the Olympics. Then it was downhill to training teen-age boys to strap on bombs and blow up busses full of civilians. The fact that there are so many apologists for the groups that uses such tactics is mind-boggling, and I think that in the end it hurts the very cause that they advocate.

19

I think the poster who said that the anti-torture crowd just says that torture doesn’t work was probably referring to the world in general and not this board.

Not even with Barack Obama
/duck and cover

20

No.

(emphasis added)