There's no desire to make a Federal Case about this, but I'll try to answer your question.
The customary exchange in debate is that a proposition and its sub-points are discussed, and each agreed, refuted, or found to be irresolvable (agree to disagree).
The reasoning behind the arguments can be inductive, deductive, inferential, etc. Arguments can be pure reason, or reason supported by valid evidence. Opponents can agree to accept evidence, and expect acceptance of statements borne of observed truth (Rain creates wet surfaces).
It's linear. Rules differ; here's an example:
saskdebate.com
Generally speaking, in the spirit of fairness and honest resolution, one hopes participants will try to minimize trickery, though sometimes innocent mistakes occur:
don-lindsay-archive.org
csun.edu
In informal debate, it's good form to acknowledge a mistake, or a poor argument, and then either -
{a} Concede the point
(b) re-argue it more effectively
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's obvious that the process requires honesty from participants, if it's to be successful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Example:
"At some point, oil will cost $500/bbl - and then, the cost of hauling fill for new dams, steel for transmission towers, concrete for new reactors and so on, begins to strain the capital resources of those who need new capacity."
Response: "Oil won't get that expensive (esp. in real terms) over night, or in a year or two. It will become more expensive over time."
EVASION - The point was that in time, the price of oil will naturally escalate, since it's a non-renewable resource. At some point, there will be NO more oil. At the same time as he disagrees, he also concedes: "It will become more expensive over time." So which is it?
STRAW MAN: That's where you refute an argument that was never made. It was never stated (at that point; later it was) that it would happen "overnight". So he invents a statement that was never made, to dress up a weak argument, and smear the opponent: a common rhetorical trick.
---
NON SEQUITUR, STRAW MAN: "As it becomes more expensive alternatives will make more sense and will be used more, its not like we will start when oil is $500/bbl.
Nobody said we would "start" at $500/bbl. That's a STRAW MAN, again.
Re: "...alternatives will make more sense and will be used more." But what will they cost? The point is cost, not whether they "make sense".
When oil costs $300/bbl (and one day it WILL) lots of alternatives will "make sense" - but only because they're competing with OIL AT $300/bbl.
So how does he refute the argument that it might be wise to act now when oil and oil-equivalent prices are low (or in '74 as France did) to produce equivalent energy at $20/bbl? Answer: He doesn't.
Instead, he makes an illogical argument proposing to wait until the price of oil-equivalent energy is higher. Then, we can use "alternatives" that cost just as much as oil they replace, to construct new dams, reactors, steel and concrete. And, we can haul it all with equally costly oil "alternatives".
Does that follow?
---
"[A] Please show us where the word "subsidy" was used. Ever"
RESPONSE: "You didn't use it, but any really rapid transition would be likely to happen only with subsidies (unless its happening AFTER your $500/bbl oil scenario)"
FALSE ATTRIBUTION, STRAW MAN, DIVERTED TOPIC, UNPROVEN ASSERTION WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
---
"[B] Please describe what is meant by "... adjust mostly by itself..." - as opposed to completely by itself?
RESPONSE: "If you want it to adjust all by itself, that's fine with me. You want to get rid of all barriers, interventions, subsidies etc. in this area, fine, you have my vote. But I don't think it would give the results you seem to be pushing."
EVASION, PERSONALIZING THE ISSUE, MIS-STATING THE DEBATE:
He was asked to describe what he meant. He refused to make the description, and chose to characterize the matter as "what his opponent would do". His opponent wasn't the issue: the issue was clarification of his remarks. He gave no clarification. He attributed to the opponent imaginary ideas of what his opponent was "pushing", and sought to place these imaginary ideas in a bad light.
---
"[A] The time horizon for a new hydro dam is +100 years; a new nuclear plant, + 50 years, and billions of dollars. That's the time from concept, through construction and use, to retirement. A minimum of 10 years lead time is required before benefits begin.
Please explain how "the market" is providing sufficient capacity and security of supply for cost and demand in 2019"
RESPONSE:"Higher prices encourage supply, and discourage demand.
If you leave things to the market, the higher supply part works out better. If instead you have political restrictions, shifting patterns of subsidies and penalties etc. than the situation is more problematic, but its hardly the fault of the market when the politicians decide to distort it."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's it then. Leave it to the market, and when 2019 arrives, we'll have everything we need. No need to plan. No need to anticipate. Increased population and demand? Hit 'em with higher prices.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
STRAW MAN, FALSE ATTRIBUTION, PURE INVENTION: "Political restrictions, subsidies, penalties, and let's not forget "etc".
Where did he get this stuff? This is the SECOND (but not the last) time he responds to statements that were never made.
"... but its hardly the fault of the market when the politicians decide to distort it."
What does that have to do with anything? A little speechifying in praise of "free markets", to justify what, exactly?
---
Enough. Perhaps the tradition of honest debate is dead.
Jim |
