Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Highest posts
- 30/11 21:14 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 30/11 11:57 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 22:49 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 11:43 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 28/11 22:50 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:46 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:28 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 25/11 00:42 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 23:47 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 14:04 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Latest posts
- 30/11 21:14 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 30/11 11:57 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 22:49 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 29/11 11:43 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 28/11 22:50 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:46 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 27/11 12:28 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 25/11 00:42 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 23:47 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
- 24/11 14:04 +1 Re: PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
[top-politics] Re: But Bob could be.
-
04/11/06 22:37
PageRank is *Fractional Approval Asset Voting* with unlimited proxy depth.
Lomax wrote:
> Mark wrote: > > >-M: SD2-S is RD, which can handle participatory democracy. > >Here is an example of the lemming algorithm which DD uses: > >Bob recieves the equivalent of 500 votes from others, > >but his own vote is still worth only one, until he is in legislative > >office , where he may have winner take all vote equivilency.
>L: Mark is not describing DD (Direct Democracy) here, he is describing > Representative Democracy with elected representatives, which has the > known defect.
-M: I am describing the lemming-algorithm which DD uses. Both DD and L-RD use the simple direct counting of votes,
- this empowers the lemmings.
>L: We all agree that this is a defect of standard elected representative > democracy, and this is the reason why we prefer non-elective proxy > democracy, which is also direct democracy if direct votes are allow. > In the systems we envision, Bob casts one vote. If others have > authorized Bob to vote for them, these other votes are cast with > Bob’s. If they have not authorized him, or if they vote directly, he > does not cast their votes.
-M: That is accumulative voting. With multiple proxies and with unlimited proxy-to-proxy layer depth, you will need an algorithm like PageRank, like what SD2-S uses.
>L: The only difference with Mark’s system is that he would not allow > voters to vote directly.
-M: There still is DD features for holding decisions in deliberation. And with multi proxies, it is concievable that a majority of the voting population could become proxies/representitives.
>L: So his system is pure RD. Even though he uses proxies to create it.
-M: SD2 allows for pure RD, but I don think that SD2-S is pure RD.
>L: […] In Asset, in the simplified Fractional Approval Asset Voting method > that I proposed, voters use a standard ballot. Mark one or more > candidates. If you mark one, that candidate gets one vote as an > asset. If you mark more than one, say you mark N, each candidate > marked gets 1/N votes.
-M: PageRank already has this feature. Didn’t you know this? PageRank is Fractional Approval Asset Voting with unlimited proxy depth.
This is how SD2-S works.>L: If the quota for election is Q votes, and candidate receiving Q votes > or more is elected. Excess votes received by such candidates, > together with the votes of candidates who did not receive Q votes, > are distributed at the discretion of the candidates who hold the > assets.
-M: This is a proxy-to-proxy layer. And this is strange, because the candidates already should of voted for others.
And with SD2-S, there would be no election.
Offices simply get filled in real time where the higher ranked get their choice.>L: This is Delegable Proxy in that the elected members, some of > them, have received delegated votes.
-M: With SD2-S, anyone can recieve delegated votes.
>L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each member having one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pure DP, but Asset could be a step along the way.
-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter. And, in a manditory RD environment, it forces all of someone’s vote to be given to a single other person.
By contrast, with SD2-S, the most that a single person can give another single person is 50% of their voting power.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
At 04:37 PM 11/4/2006, Mark wrote:
> >L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each member > having one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pure > DP, but Asset could be a step along the way. > >-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter.
I’m not sure that Mark understood the proposal. It creates a standard peer assembly, with each member of the assembly having one vote. That one vote actually represents Q votes, where Q was the election quota.
>And, in a manditory RD environment, it forces all of someone’s vote to >be given to a single other person. >By contrast, with SD2-S, the most that a single person can give another >single person is 50% of their voting power.
Asset Voting is very close to traditional concepts of electoral democracy, but it results in every voter having cast a vote that ultimately goes to a representative who gains a seat.
(Almost every. Some votes may be wasted if they are given to candidates who are not willing to reassign them. But in this case, there is someone responsible for the waste, and a voter can hold that person accountable for the fact that the voter ended up with no representative.)
(I’ve proposed on the Range Voting list that when a candidate transfers a block of votes, that the candidate assign these votes according to precinct. The total of precinct counts would not need to exactly match the block size, it would be enough that a voter’s vote substantially went to a particular candidate. The idea is for voters to know that their vote specifically, together with others, resulted in the election of a specific representative. Their vote counts.)
The system which the candidates use to distribute the votes they receive is not a part of the method of Asset Voting. They could use delegable proxy, as one example. They could use simple negotiation and bargaining, if their numbers were relatively few. They could use some system, perhaps, as SD2-S, though it seems to me that SD2-S has some constraints that they might not like.
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Lomax wrote: >Mark wrote: > > >L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each member > > having one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pure > > DP, but Asset could be a step along the way.
> >-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter.
>L: I’m not sure that Mark understood the proposal. It creates a standard > peer assembly, with each member of the assembly having one vote. That > one vote actually represents Q votes, where Q was the election quota.
-M: Sure, initial voting power of one vote. I mean the limit of having only one proxy.
> >And, in a manditory RD environment, it forces all of someone’s vote to > >be given to a single other person. > >By contrast, with SD2-S, the most that a single person can give another > >single person is 50% of their voting power.
>L: Asset Voting is very close to traditional concepts of electoral > democracy, but it results in every voter having cast a vote that > ultimately goes to a representative who gains a seat.
-M: ‘…seat’ – with the unlimited proxy depth of SD2-S, almost all voting strength would flow upward to the highest ranked anyway. To have a secondary step of redirecting proxy votes to the highest ranked seems:
- arbitrary
- additional trouble
- opposed to the principles of continuous voting
- marginalizing of political activists who don’t have high enough rank
for offices.
This discourages participatory democracy.
>L: (Almost every. Some votes may be wasted if they are given to > candidates who are not willing to reassign them. But in this case, > there is someone responsible for the waste, and a voter can hold that > person accountable for the fact that the voter ended up with no > representative.)
-M: With SD2-S, because of its unlimited proxy depth, the open trust network is entirely interconnected, which means that a random voter will have a +99% chance of atleast indirectly having a proxy as an office holder. (the only way a voter would not is if he voted into a closed cluster, which is very unlikely(because it would only take a single vote out of the cluster for this cluster to ‘leak’, and thus become open instead of closed.))
>L: […]The system which the candidates use to distribute the votes they receive is not a part of the method of Asset Voting. They could use delegable proxy, as one example.[…]They could use some system, perhaps, as SD2-S, though it seems to me that SD2-S has some constraints that they might not like.
-M: They may not ‘like’ it, but can the argue against it? As long as I have the winning points, I am happy.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
At 04:13 PM 11/8/2006, Mark wrote:
>Lomax wrote: > >Mark wrote: > > > >L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each member > > > having one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pure > > > DP, but Asset could be a step along the way. > > > >-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter. > > >L: I’m not sure that Mark understood the proposal. It creates a standard > > peer assembly, with each member of the assembly having one vote. That > > one vote actually represents Q votes, where Q was the election quota. > >-M: Sure, initial voting power of one vote. >I mean the limit of having only one proxy.
FAAV does not have that limit. One may have more than one proxy, but in this case, the vote is divided. that is the “Fractional” in Fractional Approval.
It is not clear that most voters would gain any advantage by effectively naming a virtual committee instead of an individual to carry forward their vote. But they may do so.
It should be understood that I favor delegable proxy. FAAV resembles delegable proxy. Unstated in the FAAV method is how the candidates redistribute the assets. Delegable Proxy is one possibility, in which case what we have is a special-purpose usage of DP to elect a peer assembly. There is no fixed limit to the depth.
FAAV leaves the candidates free to distribute — or even to not distribute — the votes.
It can be implemented with existing voting equipment. However, the fractional calculations could be a problem in some jurisdictions. In that case, it could be AV with single vote. As I noted, I don’t see much advantage, and some disadvantage, in encouraging voters to name more than one.
> >L: […]The system which the candidates use to distribute the > votes they receive is not a part of the method of Asset Voting. > They could use delegable proxy, as one example.[…]They could use > some system, perhaps, as SD2-S, though it seems to me that SD2-S > has some constraints that they might not like. > >-M: They may not ‘like’ it, but can the argue against it? >As long as I have the winning points, I am happy.
In your dreams.
They do not need to argue against it. They will choose what they prefer. If SD2-S is set up and available, I’m fairly sure they would look at it. Unless Mark has been the marketing department.
Mark is happy if he is “right,” even if it has no practical effect. I’d personally rather be wrong than to be useless.
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Lomax wrote: >Mark wrote: > >Lomax wrote: > > >Mark wrote: > > > > >L: The assembly is a traditional peer assembly, with each member > > > > having one assembly vote representing Q actual votes. I prefer pure > > > > DP, but Asset could be a step along the way. > > > > > >-M: One vote is an arbitrary constraint placed on the voter. > > > > >L: I’m not sure that Mark understood the proposal. It creates a standard > > > peer assembly, with each member of the assembly having one vote. That > > > one vote actually represents Q votes, where Q was the election quota. > > > >-M: Sure, initial voting power of one vote. > >I mean the limit of having only one proxy.
>L: FAAV does not have that limit.
-M: I know. I was talking about what seems to be your prefered version of DP.
>L: One may have more than one proxy, but in this case, the vote is divided. that is the “Fractional” in Fractional Approval. It is not clear that most voters would gain any advantage by effectively naming a virtual committee instead of an individual to carry forward their vote. But they may do so.
-M:
- To keep power from being too concentrated.
- To give recognition to underdogs, no-names, and rising stars.
- To create an identifyable, mappable and quantifyable activist community.
- To give more challengers to the highest ranked.
>L: It should be understood that I favor delegable proxy. FAAV resembles delegable proxy. Unstated in the FAAV method is how the candidates redistribute the assets. Delegable Proxy is one possibility, in which case what we have is a special-purpose usage of DP to elect a peer assembly. There is no fixed limit to the depth. FAAV leaves the candidates free to distribute — or even to not distribute — the votes.
-M: OK.
>L: It can be implemented with existing voting equipment. However, the > fractional calculations could be a problem in some jurisdictions. In > that case, it could be AV with single vote. As I noted, I don’t see > much advantage, and some disadvantage, in encouraging voters to name > more than one.
-M: I’d like to see optical scan ballots and this data processed with SD2-S to render political and issue hierarchies for large organizations.
I see the national-political implimentation a long ways away.> > >L: […]The system which the candidates use to distribute the > > votes they receive is not a part of the method of Asset Voting. > > They could use delegable proxy, as one example.[…]They could use > > some system, perhaps, as SD2-S, though it seems to me that SD2-S > > has some constraints that they might not like.
> >-M: They may not ‘like’ it, but can the argue against it? > >As long as I have the winning points, I am happy.
>L: In your dreams. They do not need to argue against it. They will choose what they > prefer. If SD2-S is set up and available, I’m fairly sure they would > look at it. Unless Mark has been the marketing department.
-M: Fuck marketing. Those who can’t evaluate SD2-S objectively don’t deserve its benefits. Those who are objective will be served by it.
>L: Mark is happy if he is “right,” even if it has no practical effect. > I’d personally rather be wrong than to be useless.
-M: Wrong is useless. Infact it is backwards and degenerating. So start by being right, then hope that it has practical benefits. And if people can’t recognize and appreciate rightness, fuck’em – they don’t deserve its benefits.
To the sea the lemmings will go,
and hope they won’t drag you in with them.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
At 01:30 PM 11/9/2006, Mark wrote:
>I see the national-political implimentation a long ways away.
Unless we get FA/DP first. And what exactly is in the way of FA/DP?
The only obstacle is ignorance and inertia. FA/DP is not opposed to anyone, but it does, indeed, make it possible for those who are opposed to rapidly and efficiently identify each other and do what is needed, outside the FA.
If they have waited until there is substantial agreement within the FA, it will be practically impossible to oppose them. And they judge what “substantial agreement” means. Fake registrations, sock puppets, shills, will not confuse them. It is fairly easy to test actual support.
>-M: Wrong is useless. Infact it is backwards and degenerating.
No, being wrong is an opportunity to learn. Mark is demonstrating that he knows little about the path.
You learn a lot more by being wrong than by being right.
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Lomax wrote:
> Mark wrote: […] > >-M: Wrong is useless. Infact it is backwards and degenerating.
>L: No, being wrong is an opportunity to learn.
-M: Learning already should have occured from learning from other people’s mistakes.
And learning from mistakes in politics should not occur. In politics, one should only be right, or MANY will suffer.>L: Mark is demonstrating that he knows little about the path.
-M: Keep your path, and your desire to learn from mistakes, to yourself. ( I am not being rude. The subjective domain of spirituality should be clearly separated from the intersubjective domain of politics. The rules are different.)
>L: You learn a lot more by being wrong than by being right.
-M: If you want to learn, do it by yourself. Don’t force others to learn from YOUR mistakes.
I have learned enough from my mistakes as a child and young adult. Now, in the political arena, I only want to be right.shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Mark:"Now, in the political arena, I only want to be right. "
-Even if I doubt that you always can be right, did it ever occur as an oppurtunity to you that “right” might be wrong for some people, no matter how intelligent and well informed you as a decisionmaker are? And that several local decisions can be better than one big for the whole country for instance.
Or that a deliberated and engaged group of 10% can make the “right” decison over the 90% not interested?
That 50% +1 might be 10% of the whole population if not enough votes (in a DD-issue or for election of a rep.) In the DD case, this might not be so big deal since it is only one single question, not to election of a rep for years. In the RD case, it mean the way to hell, even if you have tried to minimize the risks in SD-2.
Basicly: there is no such thing as a “right” decision to all. Only more or less OK, decisions to individuals.
This is why DD is superior to RD, once the citizens have the tools needed.
Because whom concerned will take the decisions.
To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia, worthy a dictator only.—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
> Mark: "Now, in the political arena, I only want to be right. "
>mg: Even if I doubt that you always can be right, did it ever occur as an > oppurtunity to you that “right” might be wrong for some people, no > matter how intelligent and well informed you as a decisionmaker are?
-M: A decision has to be made. Even one that is right(serves the general welfare the best), may seem ‘wrong’ for some people. (And politicly, the only decisions I am responsable for is the production of quality leadership selection and project management systems.)
>mg: And that several local decisions can be better than one big for the whole country for instance.
-M: Yes, SD2-S can support decentralization.
>mg: Or that a deliberated and engaged group of 10% can make the “right” decison over the 90% not interested?
-M: Absolutely. SD2-S can work with small numbers.
>mg: […] In the RD case, it mean the way to hell, even if you have tried to > minimize the risks in SD-2.
-M: How? Leaders are selected with peer-selection with SD2-S. How is this not better than lemmings selecting administrators for a DD system?
>mg: Basicly: there is no such thing as a “right” decision to all.
-M: Your decision is that there can be no ‘right’ decision? Then can your decision be right? Another one? :-(
When are the contradictions going to stop?>mg: Only more or less OK, decisions to individuals.
-M: Bull-fuck’n-shit.
>mg: This is why DD is superior to RD, once the citizens have the tools needed. Because whom concerned will take the decisions.
-M: In democracy, it is the majority which is concerned. And this majority opinion is best measured by a deep-RD-algorithm, one that can render expert opinion. This is also republicanism.
>mg: To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia, worthy a dictator only.
-M: So YOU say, both elitely and utopisticly? You are now the dictator, who will speak for the majority on this issue?
More contradictions? :-(shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
…bla bla….>you are now the dictator…
-No, expressing an opinion can never be dicatorship. More false arguments from a bad debater! :-(
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
[…] >>mg: Basicly: there is no such thing as a “right” decision to all. >-M: Your decision is that there can be no ‘right’ decision? Then can your decision be right? Another one? :-(
When are the contradictions going to stop?-M: Karl, you dodged this. I just got you. How about conceding?
Just say"OK Mark, you fucked-me-up."
I won’t make fun of you.
I will call you a ‘sport’.>>mg: Only more or less OK, decisions to individuals. >-M: Bull-fuck’n-shit. >>mg: This is why DD is superior to RD, once the citizens have the tools needed. Because >whom concerned will take the decisions. >-M: In democracy, it is the majority which is concerned. >And this majority opinion is best measured by a deep-RD-algorithm, >one that can render expert opinion. This is also republicanism. >>mG: To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia, worthy a dictator only.
>-M: So YOU say, both elitely and utopisticly? You are now the dictator, who will speak >for the majority on this issue? More contradictions? :-(
>mG: …bla bla….>you are now the dictator…No, expressing an opinion can never be dicatorship.
-M: ‘…expressing an opinion…’ is fine, but you have this opinion’s context outside of a democratic context. You want your opinion to be decisive without calling a vote for it. You said "To make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia", instead of saying: “I think we should vote to determine if to make the “right” decision to all is an elitistic utopia." >mG: More false arguments from a bad debater! :-(
-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
At 01:36 PM 11/14/2006, Mark wrote: >-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.
In his opinion.
We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own debate skill. Debate is a communication art, and it is judged by its effect on an audience. Shall we vote?
—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
Lomax wrote: >Mark wrote: […] > >-M: No, I am a good debater, and I whupped you several times again.
>L: In his opinion.
-M: If not, then show where my points are wrong.
>L: We do not expect debaters to be necessarily a good judge of their own debate skill.
-M: I judge myself to be a good debater. Do you debate otherwise? If so, then do you debate for your own debating skills?
>L: Debate is a communication art,…
-M: Debate is about being right, and using the right rule structures.
>L:…and it is judged by its effect on an audience.
-M: No, its judged by the truth of the points.
>L: Shall we vote?
-M: Sure. I vote that my points are all true. I welcome ANYONE to vote that ANY of my points are untrue.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA—~—~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics?hl=en -~—————~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-