= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Brillyant comments on Open thread for January 1-7, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (142)
The word we'd need to better define is "beat".
Will WLC appear to win the debate? Likely. Will he appear to overwhelm his opponent? Likely. Will he succeed at framing the debate in a way that suits his position? Overwhelmingly likely.
The debate takes place in front of his home crowd (an Evangelical theological seminary). WLC will gallop his way to "victory" again, methinks.
If you predict that he'll win under every definition of "beat" that you suggest, why do you need your initial disclaimer that the definition matters?
Because he won't actually win anything, anymore than a rabbit actually disappears inside a top hat or a woman actually gets sawed in half and restored.
Debates are of limited value in this way: The correct argument can rather easily lose. WLC is a great example of why and how.
Other than status.