Syllogistic Debates - Objective Politics

Liberty Election Reform & Political Integrity
1

There’s a system by which we can make politics more objective, so that each voter isn’t simply deciding what “sounds best” to them personally, but can actually check their opinions and their party’s opinions against the evidence for each topic before voting. The main basis that creates the system is by conducting debate between candidates, and party platforms as a whole, by way of syllogistic form. For example, Republicans can propose the following syllogism:

  1. Abortion is killing the innocent.
  2. Killing the innocent is wrong.
  3. Therefore, abortion is wrong.

The DNC could argue with this syllogism publicly. Say they don’t believe fetuses are people, they could respond by trying to refute number 1 like this:

1.1. Abortion kills non-people.
1.2. Non-people cannot be innocent.
1.3. Therefore, abortion does not kill the innocent.

And then the RNC could reply like this

1.1.1. Those killed in abortion are young humans.
1.1.2. Personhood is not based on youth.
1.1.3. Therefore, abortion does not kill non-people.

There should exist lists of arguments and responses like this, so that anyone can read every reason a political party believes in X. Currently our two parties almost exclusively argue with each other indirectly or not at all. They rely on debate to happen amongst individuals on social media and television, which invites a host of issues like bias and manipulation. Furthermore, the individual voter is tasked with putting forth the effort to discover each side’s arguments, which most people don’t have time for. Presidential and vice-presidential debates are the most direct and popular, but there’s only a couple per 4 years, and the goal isn’t really to get to the bottom of the issues, but rather to look professional while throwing mud for two hours on TV.

An alternative option is to conduct in-depth debates over vast periods of time between the two parties publicly. Think of it like a big email chain between the smartest minds on each side of the aisle that we can all see, except instead of a chain it forms a chart. Syllogism-debates can create graphs of responses and counters, until one of the sides runs out of a response, and in that way, there can even be an objective winner with this method. Voters will then be able to see for themselves how many political topics are won by each side. If this were the official method of debate between the two sides, the side that’s wrong on the issues would likely hardly ever win again, because voters would have to ignore the very validity of debate in order to vote for them.

If this policy suggestion becomes popular, I can explain in much further detail and even provide examples, as it’s an idea I’ve been personally working on and fleshing out for a long time. I already conduct these types of debates regularly with my friends and family.

9 Likes
2

I agree. Rhetoric, instead of real structured debate, is enabling corruption.

3 Likes
5

Agreed, although maybe let’s stay away from the wedge issues, as they can never be settled & are just here to divide us

2 Likes
6

It was just a demonstration of how even the wedgiest issues can be discussed with this method.

2 Likes
7

For sure, but wedge issues being what they are, it’ll go nowhere :rofl:

I prefer the approach of:

“that’s a wedge issue that’s not going to be decided one way or the other & is just here to divide people down the middle, next question please” :rofl:

1 Like
8

I get where you’re coming from but that really is the purpose behind my policy - to actually go somewhere with every single issue. At some point, one side will be unable to respond to the other.

1 Like
9

I think the tricky part becomes subjective interpretations based on morals

That’s why they’re wedge issues, because people will be split on whether it’s “right” or “wrong”

Compare that to something that can be tested, like UBI or proportional RCV or single-issue bills

You can test whether it’s working & having the desired effect - in other words, you can test whether it helped people or didn’t

I think that’s where your syllogistic debates would work well, i.e. statements of “my policy will do this good thing for people”

10

You’re contrasting a topic with lots of shared premises to a topic with shared premises further up the chain. For example, both sides of the aisle want Americans to prosper long-term, so the UBI debate comes down to how effective each side’s plan would be at achieving that goal. You’re right, that’s a relatively shallow debate.
On the other hand, with a topic like abortion, the latest common shared premise would probably be something like how it’s wrong to be inconsistent. A very base-level belief where you won’t find hardly anyone to disagree. From that basis an argument for/against abortion can be built upon and won under my policy. It may take more steps, but I wouldn’t say that makes the conversation “go nowhere” in the end.

11

If you factor in religion, confirmation bias, and anchoring bias, unfortunately, it will go nowhere

That’s why they’re wedge issues - they generally have some tethering to beliefs/customs, left/right, whatever it might be, and so you get 50-50ish split

You can’t move the needle, because you can’t come to an agreement on the facts

People are frequently inconsistent - they may say that it’s wrong to do so, until they are inconsistent, and then they’ll happily excuse it away with how it’s not actually inconsistent :sweat_smile:

12

None of those are relevant to a syllogistic debate luckily. You have to refute your opponent’s point, which doesn’t really have anything to do with bias. If you have a particular example in mind, I can show what I mean.

13

Except that the opponent’s point, by definition, contains their bias (or, at a minimum, the bias of 50% of the people, thus a wedge issue)

In other words, it’s not refuting if it simply goes back-and-forth between bias & counter-bias

It’ll go on forever & change no one’s mind

Let’s continue your example debate to show my point:

1.1.1.1. A human cannot be defined as “a cluster of cells”, otherwise a chunk of scraped skin would be considered a human; the line between “cluster of cells” & “young human” is blurry
1.1.1.2. See 1.2.
1.1.1.3. See 1.3.

14

I don’t think points/claims can contain bias. They can either be true or false - it’s the writers who contain bias, but that doesn’t really matter when their claim can be evaluated on its own.

So 1.1.1. would need to either support or refute 1.1. (its parent) - seems like you’re trying to refute it, but 1.1. says “Abortion kills non-people.”, which didn’t mention a cluster of cells. You’re still getting acquainted, but if my policy were implemented, a reply like this would be widely recognized as invalid since it doesn’t connect with the parent.

15

Sorry forgot to add an extra “1” in the front there :sweat_smile: Updated

16

That would mean you’re now trying to either refute or support “Those killed in abortion are young humans.” So there’s still no mention of a cluster of cells. It would be an appropriate if 1.1.1. had read, “A fetus is just a cluster of cells.” Do you want to just start from there instead so that you can demonstrate the bias point?

17

There is a mention of a “young human”, which you are defining as “a cluster of cells” (you are defining a 3-day old embryo, about 16 cells, as a young human, correct?)

You do not define “young human” & as such 1.1.1.1 is a rebuttal of what you have defined as “a young human”

18

I never used the phrase “cluster of cells”…? If you can just give a hypothetical example of the bias you’re talking about that would maybe be easier.

19

Again, you used the term “young human” without having defined it - it’s a subjective term, and I wager we don’t agree on the definition

The term must be defined objectively - you are saying “a cluster of 16 human cells (an objective/measurable definition) is a young human (subjective)”

20

Your job then would be to either 1. request for me to support 1.1.1. and in doing so provide a definition for young human, or you can 2. assert what you think a young human is in your response to 1.1.1. and if I disagree with your assertion then I can respond accordingly. You shouldn’t presume what I meant by “young human” because that will create a disconnect.

21

Why not allow candidates to choose most of the debate questions instead of biased MSM “talking heads”?

Select moderator candidates chosen by political campaigns by alternate “strikes”, as done with arbitration panels.

22

I think that would be an improvement over how we do it currently, but the real problem is that the candidates don’t attempt to argue the issues. For example, if Trump knows that his position on early abortion is unpopular, and Harris throws dirt by pointing out how he supports it, his best interest is to pivot or shift focus away from the accusation. Strategically it would probably be better for him to turn on her and point out that she supports late abortion, which might be equally unpopular, thus putting them on even ground.

My point is that he will do anything besides actually present a logical argument for his unpopular beliefs, which is the opposite of finding the truth. Finding the truth is just not what either candidate is there to do, they’re there to win votes.