㊙️ STEEL-MAN FACTORY

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
intp
Anarchy
GNOSTIC
informationwar

Posts

Total: 54
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
a steel-man argument is the practice of presenting the strongest possible version of an opponent's argument

even stronger than they may have presented it themselves, to engage in a more robust and fair debate

present your best arguments

and i will build you a fully customized steel-man
#2
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
Many people use worst-point rebuttal to make the other person sound dumb.

Steelman requires that person actually understands the entire argument, not just the one claim most easily proven false.

Still, steelman is probably the best if person wants to become a good debater. 

Worst point rebuttal is too easy and often very dishonest, even on the level of adhom, since the literal goal of it is to make person seem stupid in the eyes of the audience.
Topic's author
#3
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Best.Korea

Still, steelman is probably the best if person wants to become a good debater. 

well stated
#4
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Build a steelman for biden.
#5
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
You have to present argument, not topic.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Best.Korea
Brutal is talented. I'm not worried.
#7
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,599
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Greyparrot
How is he going to steelman your argument when you didnt give an argument to begin with?

He has to make arguments for you there.
#8
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Brutal is talented. I'm not worried.
Topic's author
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Build a steelman for biden.
the best possible case for the average american to cast their vote for joe biden

is to look at his record of accomplishments

not promises, because we all know that candidate promises mean absolutely nothing

(1) "the american rescue plan" - injected money into the economy

(2) "infrastructure investment and jobs act" - injected money into the economy

(3) "uyghur forced labor prevention act" - prevents some goods produced with slave labor from entering the united states

(5) biden directed the labor department to require all businesses with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are either vaccinated or tested once a week

(6) biden halted funding for the border wall

(7) biden reversed the muslim travel ban

(IFF) you believe these are pro-toto good government policies (THEN) you should cast your vote for joe biden


#10
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
you forgot abortion and climate change
Topic's author
#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
you forgot abortion and climate change
no concrete action has been taken by joe biden on either one of those promises
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
damn...you are right
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Can you make a steel-man for the argument we should invade Russia with our entire military using nukes if necessary?
Topic's author
#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
present your best arguments
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I was hoping you could.
Topic's author
#16
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Can you make a steel-man for the argument we should invade Russia with our entire military using nukes if necessary?
ok

i'm going to have to talk this out

any serious invasion of russia proper is likely to trigger a nuclear response

any serious preparation to invade russia proper is likely to trigger a nuclear response

so the argument would seem to lie in justification for a first-strike nuclear attack on russia proper

which leads directly to a cost-benefit analysis of global thermonuclear war

not a lot of detectable upside


Russia, which inherited the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons, has the world's biggest store of nuclear warheads.
Putin controls about 5,580 nuclear warheads, according to the Federation of American Scientists, opens new tab (FAS).

Of those about 1,200 are retired but largely intact and around 4,380 are stockpiled for use by long-range strategic launchers and shorter-range tactical nuclear forces, according to the FAS.

Of the stockpiled warheads, 1,710 strategic warheads are deployed: about 870 on land-based ballistic missiles, about 640 on submarine-launched ballistic missiles, and possibly 200 at heavy bomber bases, FAS said.

Such numbers mean that Moscow could destroy the world many times over. [[LINK]]
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I wanted a steelman explaining WHY we had to do it, not how...

Saying "Putin or Russia is an existential threat" is making this argument. I would just like a logical person to steelman it.
Topic's author
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Saying "Putin or Russia is an existential threat" is making this argument. I would just like a logical person to steelman it.
the "existential threat" of russia (whatever that means) would have to be greater than the prospect of global thermonuclear war

and that seems impossible

all conceivable threats pale in comparison to global thermonuclear war
Topic's author
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Saying "Putin or Russia is an existential threat" is making this argument.
i'm not sure this counts as "an argument"

it looks more like sheer hyperbole

also known as

"bald assertion"
#20
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
so the steelman is impossible? And we can safely disregard every deep state actor that says Russia is an "existential threat" as they won't get the US government to immediately stop an existential threat...(which you would if it was actually true, even animals fight to the bitter end)
Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
so the steelman is impossible? And we can safely disregard every deep state actor that says Russia is an "existential threat" as they won't get the US government to immediately stop an existential threat...(which you would if it was actually true, even animals fight to the bitter end)

ok, your first proposal was for a full-scale military invasion of russia

this is impossible without triggering a full-scale nuclear war

your second proposal was trying to conjure an argument supporting the claim that putin and or russia is some "existential threat" (undefined)

it doesn't matter how big a threat putin and or russia might be

the greatest possible threat is global thermonuclear war


now if you want to propose perhaps we infiltrate russia and assassinate all their political leaders and sabotage their electrical grid

that certainly sounds like fun

but i'm not sure it would work to anyone's advantage

and still might trigger global thermonuclear war
#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,962
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you missed the point. If Russia was an actual existential threat to the USA (meaning Russia is about to end the USA)

Nukes would have already been launched. But the politicians lied about that, as usual. The actual greatest existential threat to the USA is what happened to Rome, internal rot.

And since it's clear they are lying about Russia, they are also lying about Ukraine as well. And obviously, no sane person can explain WHY we would have to pre-emptively attack Russia with our military.
Topic's author
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
And obviously, no sane person can explain WHY we would have to pre-emptively attack Russia with our military.
maybe trump or RFK can de-escalate

and maybe they'll get assassinated as soon as they try
Topic's author
#24
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
#25
MarkWebberFan2
MarkWebberFan2's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 100
1
2
4
MarkWebberFan2's avatar
MarkWebberFan2
1
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Please do a defense of Maqasid Sharia. Draw from your own perspectives instead of using the original "founders/apologetics" to defend such an idea.

"Islam aimed only at obtaining a hearing for its message, so that anyone who might want to accept it would be free to do as he wished, while anyone who wanted to reject it could be the master of his own destiny"

Sharia isn't just criminal law. It encompasses prostration, human freedom,  justice and charity for the perservation of Allah's main articles of faith for the believers. For muslim societies, an abrupt change in family lineages, traditions and modernization would mean a sign of abandonment of all things that Allah commands. Although Allah strictly sees the universe in a determinist view, muslims retain free will in Allah's world.

Why should everyone, even dhimmies and kafirs, abide by Allah's rule?

(Suggestion: You may use incompatibilist critique to expand Allah's conception of Qadar, or defend it with a rigorous account of compatibilism. Again, if you can, draw from your own perspectives, I've already read classical Maturidis and every other evil ulama filth out there.)

#26
MarkWebberFan2
MarkWebberFan2's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 100
1
2
4
MarkWebberFan2's avatar
MarkWebberFan2
1
2
4
-->
@Greyparrot
Brutal is talented. I'm not worried.
Yes.
#27
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,062
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Maybe we just leave it a few years until some of the older folk die off, and see if any of the newer ones  are slightly more sensible.

I'm guessing that they won't be.

But here's hoping.
Topic's author
#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MarkWebberFan2
ok,

let's say we can agree that the primary function of a legal code is to improve social unity and to maintain a peaceful and functional society where the maximum number of citizens have adequate food, clothing, and shelter

ok,

is sharia law superior in any way to the available alternatives ?

probably not

so,

since sharia law is not obviously superior based on its function
it would have to be argued that sharia law will make allah happy and or result in the maximum number of souls elevated to jannah

and,

before you can do this
you would have to make a convincing case that allah is a real thing and that making it happy is a worthwhile endeavor

which is pretty tough when the whole thing hinges on faith
Topic's author
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MarkWebberFan2
Why should everyone, even dhimmies and kafirs, abide by Allah's rule?
your strongest case seems to be "argumentum ad baculum"
#30
MarkWebberFan2
MarkWebberFan2's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 100
1
2
4
MarkWebberFan2's avatar
MarkWebberFan2
1
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
it would have to be argued that sharia law will make allah happy and or result in the maximum number of souls elevated to jannah
Which explains the monolith rulings of islam.

...seems to be "argumentum ad baculum"
The use of Kalam (bolded above) is explicitly forbidden in contemporary islam. Only the Ulama council are allowed access, and only for purpose of refutation. If you want a close example, search for a pirated copy of "The Incoherence of the Philosophers" by Ghazali the Mystic. Ghazali is revered in Ashari circles (that's at least half of the middle east, AND ALL of Asia).