I liked the ones that i was able to find... i was missing some parts of the debate, also id like to see the resolution in questino cause on the speaches i saw i saw absolutely no value clash... maybe cause the res probably didnt really call for one, that if the res was "Ayn Rand: an insignificant phylosopher or w/e"... ID like to see you guys debate
I believe you can't grasp why someone can be "dogmatically rational" because you believe that reality and rationality are the same "It's just rationality, you know, it's just reality" (4:16) Rationality is not reality or you'll be force to admit that there's a different reality for each type of logic. In my view, rationality is a capacity of our evolving brain, reality is not.
You can be "dogmatically rational" (1:45) if you believe that classic logic is more fondationnal then all the other valid and consistent way of deducing "truth".
Even though I agree with you Cropper, I cast my vote for affirmative. Please see my comments on the last official speech for an explanation. I competed in Parli for a while in college ... this is my first time judging :)
Very nice, Cropper. I especially thought the historical example of Aristarchus powerfully supported your argument. I'm guessing that the debate was your idea (a great one btw), and that you wisely chose a worthy opponent who is smart, witty, and experienced in debate.
Vote for negative. But would like to comment that the 5 minute "last word" in what was supposed to be the "voting video" was poor sportsmanship and bad for the format.
The book: The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand isn't all garbage.
Though there are philosophically-deficient contributors (e.g. Robert Hollinger), the editors of the book as well as AT LEAST the contributor, Prof. Tibor Machan, have championed Rand in the professional philosophical community. I have personally interacted with Prof. Machan and find him to be very wise and supportive of Objectivism
I vote for negative. Science is based on reality and reproducible results, not on consensus or dogma, that would make science no different than a religion.
ScientificDiscussion won this debate; but more for the fact that Mr. Cropper threw him the win by making the case that all philospher's arguments are faulty @ some point and say "just trust them", and then he does the same thing. He hurt himself by convincing me of this point, and in doing so handing SD the win IMHO.
PS - Slipping in an extra five minute rebuttal by Mr. Cropper on this video AFTER the contest was supposed to be finished does not strike me as at all fair; he should have been able to make his points in his agreed upon allotted time.
Cropperb did not provide sufficient evidence to show how Ayn Rand should be placed among other great philosophers and likewise Scientific did not manage to provide any evidence that she should not, but he did show that the overwhelming majority, if not all people currently do not consider her worthy to be placed next to other great philosophers.
I want to through a wrench in here. Ann Rand is UBER important within American thought, esp. within the context of my generation. She is very influential when it comes to young people here in states.
Thats not really a wrench. In fact what you are saying is that since Ayn Rand isnt significant in Western Philosophy its nessesary to focus in on the USA...
Well America IS the Rome of today, and her 'philosophy' is in many ways the embodiment of the essence laissez fiare that America has taken to its heart, the individual against the masses. I would agree that she is not a philosopher but I think she is MOST influential as a thinker because she has impacted the US, the superpower of the world.
It is clear that recognition isn't necessary for someone to be significant. I agree with Mr. Cropper's point that Ayn Rand's coherence and rationality make her philosophy important, unique -- significant.
Gregor Mendel's genetic research only became recognized after he died; it would have been significant even if nobody ever discovered it.
Even if 99% of philosophers said Ayn Rand was significant, that wouldn't prove her significance. Likewise, even if more than 99% of philosophers always dismiss Ayn Rand -- and this never changes -- that doesn't refute her philosophizing. The work must be judged on its own merits.
Abstain. I think that the absolute (truth) sense of "insignificant" trumps the relative (historical)sense, and for this reason Cropper is right to say that the rejection of academia proves nothing. But if we're playing in the absolute domain, then Cropper would have had to produce convincing arguments showing that AR was NOT insignificant in this sense. Which he didn't.
Vote for Negative on the resolution. In a sense I somewhat agree with Kaaru that meaning of "significance" was never agreed upon by the debaters but I feel Cropper presented the more compelling case for significance if meant to correspond to truth. Validity is not judged by numbers but by ideas corresponding to reality, i.e., truth.
Vote negative. Whether or not Rand has gained recognition among Western philosophers does not necessitate her insignificance. Cropper has explained this and has given convincing reasons why she is a significant philosopher.
Vote for Negative. Although I personally agree with Scientific Discussion, but his argument was mainly based on the authority of the academic and the assumption that they are right. I haven't read about my own favorite philosopher Henri Bergson in any of the early introductory or history book of philosophy that I read. Brandon Cropper had a rather rational argument, and I am afraid I should vote for him.
davius 4321: that's unsurprising. It would be surprising to see Bergson figuring in an English language introduction to philosophy! Bergson IS a wonderful philosopher though, although there are some aspects I don't agree with (the idea that there is a soul, for example).
Vote for the affirmative. Both individuals have shown that the whole of academia has rejected Ayn Rand and her philosophy, which (I agree with SD) shows her insignificance. Mr. Cropper has failed to show her significance, and instead has simply shown that individuals have in the past become significant posthumously, while failing to show that she has actually become significant in Philosophy.
"Significant" and "Western philosophy" are both ambiguous and vague terms. The debaters interpreted them in ways favourable to their own positions. Unfortunately, this resulted in the debaters talking past one another. Hence, nothing was resolved. Next time agree on definitions and criteria before debating.
...I thought you both sucked...
austinmcconnell 3 years ago
I liked the ones that i was able to find... i was missing some parts of the debate, also id like to see the resolution in questino cause on the speaches i saw i saw absolutely no value clash... maybe cause the res probably didnt really call for one, that if the res was "Ayn Rand: an insignificant phylosopher or w/e"... ID like to see you guys debate
allpimp 4 years ago
Great idea by the way. I vote for SD.
Ignare 4 years ago
I believe you can't grasp why someone can be "dogmatically rational" because you believe that reality and rationality are the same "It's just rationality, you know, it's just reality" (4:16) Rationality is not reality or you'll be force to admit that there's a different reality for each type of logic. In my view, rationality is a capacity of our evolving brain, reality is not.
Ignare 4 years ago
You can be "dogmatically rational" (1:45) if you believe that classic logic is more fondationnal then all the other valid and consistent way of deducing "truth".
Ignare 4 years ago
You can pray to God for a knowledge in science...
thejobloshow 4 years ago
Even though I agree with you Cropper, I cast my vote for affirmative. Please see my comments on the last official speech for an explanation. I competed in Parli for a while in college ... this is my first time judging :)
galfgarion 4 years ago
Very nice, Cropper. I especially thought the historical example of Aristarchus powerfully supported your argument. I'm guessing that the debate was your idea (a great one btw), and that you wisely chose a worthy opponent who is smart, witty, and experienced in debate.
galfgarion 4 years ago
Vote for negative. But would like to comment that the 5 minute "last word" in what was supposed to be the "voting video" was poor sportsmanship and bad for the format.
e2ka 4 years ago
The book: The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand isn't all garbage.
Though there are philosophically-deficient contributors (e.g. Robert Hollinger), the editors of the book as well as AT LEAST the contributor, Prof. Tibor Machan, have championed Rand in the professional philosophical community. I have personally interacted with Prof. Machan and find him to be very wise and supportive of Objectivism
loneRambler 4 years ago
I was thinking of doing an in-depth review of some libertarian writings on Rand. Maybe I'll do that soon...
cropperb 4 years ago
negative! aw, late. Basically cropper has an objective standard. The positive was based on what others think, not reason... an subjective standard.
horvay 4 years ago
Cropper, no question
cwclemons2007 4 years ago
What about people uploading their vids on megashares or something and then you could put them on your youtube channel?
SuperFinGuy 4 years ago
I vote for negative. Science is based on reality and reproducible results, not on consensus or dogma, that would make science no different than a religion.
SuperFinGuy 4 years ago
ScientificDiscussion won this debate; but more for the fact that Mr. Cropper threw him the win by making the case that all philospher's arguments are faulty @ some point and say "just trust them", and then he does the same thing. He hurt himself by convincing me of this point, and in doing so handing SD the win IMHO.
HomeboundPilgrim 4 years ago
PS - Slipping in an extra five minute rebuttal by Mr. Cropper on this video AFTER the contest was supposed to be finished does not strike me as at all fair; he should have been able to make his points in his agreed upon allotted time.
HomeboundPilgrim 4 years ago
Cropperb did not provide sufficient evidence to show how Ayn Rand should be placed among other great philosophers and likewise Scientific did not manage to provide any evidence that she should not, but he did show that the overwhelming majority, if not all people currently do not consider her worthy to be placed next to other great philosophers.
wolfwolfwolf1979 4 years ago
I'm gonna vote NEG
BlueKenshin 4 years ago
I want to through a wrench in here. Ann Rand is UBER important within American thought, esp. within the context of my generation. She is very influential when it comes to young people here in states.
nyculla 4 years ago
Thats not really a wrench. In fact what you are saying is that since Ayn Rand isnt significant in Western Philosophy its nessesary to focus in on the USA...
ScientificDiscussion 4 years ago
Well America IS the Rome of today, and her 'philosophy' is in many ways the embodiment of the essence laissez fiare that America has taken to its heart, the individual against the masses. I would agree that she is not a philosopher but I think she is MOST influential as a thinker because she has impacted the US, the superpower of the world.
nyculla 4 years ago
A Negative vote.
It is clear that recognition isn't necessary for someone to be significant. I agree with Mr. Cropper's point that Ayn Rand's coherence and rationality make her philosophy important, unique -- significant.
nofearnolimits 4 years ago
Voting Negative.
Gregor Mendel's genetic research only became recognized after he died; it would have been significant even if nobody ever discovered it.
Even if 99% of philosophers said Ayn Rand was significant, that wouldn't prove her significance. Likewise, even if more than 99% of philosophers always dismiss Ayn Rand -- and this never changes -- that doesn't refute her philosophizing. The work must be judged on its own merits.
legendre007 4 years ago
I count 2 abstentions and 1 vote for the AFF, with 6 votes for NEG.
I think we can conlude a couple of things:
1: Its hard to be on the FALSE side of a resolution
2: Its fun to be on the TRUE side of a resolution
3: Ayn Rand IS and forever will be significant in ALL of philosophy.
cropperb 4 years ago
I´ll of course use your argumentation and say that "The future will show that i´m right today!"
ScientificDiscussion 4 years ago
Of course, a long awaited and meritORious : Ego-theosis.
Here's to those who know why its a Capital 'I'
politEgoEgonomics 4 years ago
heAR ! heAR ( ! ARistotle, being the first Egoist: She Is the Ego-est ! )
Atlantist 4 years ago
Abstain. I think that the absolute (truth) sense of "insignificant" trumps the relative (historical)sense, and for this reason Cropper is right to say that the rejection of academia proves nothing. But if we're playing in the absolute domain, then Cropper would have had to produce convincing arguments showing that AR was NOT insignificant in this sense. Which he didn't.
parispeter2 4 years ago
Vote for Negative on the resolution. In a sense I somewhat agree with Kaaru that meaning of "significance" was never agreed upon by the debaters but I feel Cropper presented the more compelling case for significance if meant to correspond to truth. Validity is not judged by numbers but by ideas corresponding to reality, i.e., truth.
normativeRandroid 4 years ago
Vote negative. Why? Read what YSBIM wrote.
swanberger 4 years ago
Vote negative. Whether or not Rand has gained recognition among Western philosophers does not necessitate her insignificance. Cropper has explained this and has given convincing reasons why she is a significant philosopher.
YSBIM 4 years ago
Vote for Negative. Although I personally agree with Scientific Discussion, but his argument was mainly based on the authority of the academic and the assumption that they are right. I haven't read about my own favorite philosopher Henri Bergson in any of the early introductory or history book of philosophy that I read. Brandon Cropper had a rather rational argument, and I am afraid I should vote for him.
davius4321 4 years ago
davius 4321: that's unsurprising. It would be surprising to see Bergson figuring in an English language introduction to philosophy! Bergson IS a wonderful philosopher though, although there are some aspects I don't agree with (the idea that there is a soul, for example).
parispeter2 4 years ago
Vote for the affirmative. Both individuals have shown that the whole of academia has rejected Ayn Rand and her philosophy, which (I agree with SD) shows her insignificance. Mr. Cropper has failed to show her significance, and instead has simply shown that individuals have in the past become significant posthumously, while failing to show that she has actually become significant in Philosophy.
zorio 4 years ago
"Significant" and "Western philosophy" are both ambiguous and vague terms. The debaters interpreted them in ways favourable to their own positions. Unfortunately, this resulted in the debaters talking past one another. Hence, nothing was resolved. Next time agree on definitions and criteria before debating.
Kaaru 4 years ago
Agreed. According to Mr. Cropper, significant=rational. According to SD, significant=doted on by a bunch of academics.
RussellsParadox 4 years ago
Vote for the negative. Thanks to both SD and Mr. Cropper for the debate.
LoneWolf852 4 years ago
Agreed. Wonderful debate. I vote negative on the resolution.
tdekom 4 years ago