Yaron Brook Debate

[9thdoctor]

This one got interesting. It was going pretty much by-the-numbers, Objectivist vs. Liberal (or Socialist), then at one hour fourteen minutes Brook goes off on a tangent about the US Civil War. One interesting point is the (dare I call it) respectful way that he refers to libertarians, and that many disagree with him on this point. Anyway, he claims the war was “legitimate” because of slavery, but he doesn’t get into the historical nuances.

[Philip Coates]

Thanks for posting the entire debate. I had only heard the last few minutes of it, which I enjoyed.

[9thdoctor]

This one wasn’t so good. Binswanger seems really nervous, and the other guy has done some research. He calls Harry out on his loyalty oath, zap to 1 hour 4 minutes in. He ties it in to some quotes he’s mined, all Binswanger can do is squirm and try to change the subject. BTW, the debate starts about 30 minutes in, the intro with jazz music is long as hell. Almost at the end, in response to a question about the draft, the opponent calls for compulsory national service. It’s pretty chilling, and Harry doesn’t score off him very well.

<iframe width="560" height="340" src="http://cdn.livestream.com/embed/aynrandcenter?layout=4&clip=pla_08db093d-8898-4c56-89cb-0d6fd386ad2e&autoplay=false" style="border:0;outline:0" frameborder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe><div style="font-size: 11px;padding-top:10px;text-align:center;width:560px">Watch <a href="http://www.livestream.com/?utm_source=lsplayer&utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=footerlinks" title="live streaming video">live streaming video</a> from <a href="http://www.livestream.com/aynrandcenter?utm_source=lsplayer&utm_medium=embed&utm_campaign=footerlinks" title="Watch aynrandcenter at livestream.com">aynrandcenter</a> at livestream.com</div>

[caroljane]

This one got interesting. It was going pretty much by-the-numbers, Objectivist vs. Liberal (or Socialist), then at one hour fourteen minutes Brook goes off on a tangent about the US Civil War. One interesting point is the (dare I call it) respectful way that he refers to libertarians, and that many disagree with him on this point. Anyway, he claims the war was “legitimate” because of slavery, but he doesn’t get into the historical nuances.

Apropos of nothing, if Yaron Brook is Israeli, why does he have a New York accent?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I just sat here and watched the whole debate between Harry Binswanger and the Demos guy Benjamin Barber.

Frankly I have the feeling I wasted my time.

There were some good points said by both sides and some awful ones (philosophically, I found Barber to be all over the place, though, so I found him weaker--and he kept baiting Binswanger when he thought he could get away with a quick slur). I really think the limited view of human nature within the traditional Randian position to be a hindrance in debates like this. The only good thing it does rhetorically is to get people like Barber bent out of shape.

I kept waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting for Binswanger to ask who would regulate the regulators--and if regulators should be trusted, but since they are people, what makes them more trustworthy than everybody else--and if Barber ultimately sees himself as a member of that elite ruling class. Barber provided him with only about 50 bazillion opportunities. But it never came.

I think Binswnager's weakest moment was his lame answer to the lady who asked him what "We The People" in the Constitution meant to him. He also insinuated that people who choose to think are immune to deceptive and manipulative advertising. Not good--not with all the science out there proving the contrary. (Liberals know this stuff cold since they like to use it a lot.) His strongest aspect was keeping his eye on the ball in terms of force.

Barber's weakest moments where when he kept losing his cool and goading Binswanger almost on a name-calling basis. I think his weakest argument was his defense of the social contract--especially justifying it only in terms of the weak and claiming we all have agreed to it (and his meaning was literally like voluntarily entering a contract). One astute questioner called him on the weak person thing and asked why the rights of the strong should not be protected, too. This forced him to back up a bit. When Binswanter told him he did not sign the Constitution, Barber just danced around the voluntary consent thing he has been preaching.

Another really lame argument by Barber was his constant insinuations that the selfishness in Objectivism means the strong taking stuff from others by force like in a jungle. It was silly. He did make a strong case for identifying humans as social animals from growing up that way instead of being monk-like individuals who one day decide to belong to society. (This is that human nature thing I believe hurts Randian arguments persuasion-wise, mainly because there is some truth in the social animal view of human nature. Most people simply know they grew up in a society called a family without choosing it and can't imagine why anyone would think the contrary.)

The most telling moment I found after sitting through an hour and a half (including the Q&A) was when the moderator asked if anyone had changed his or her mind on anything, even a detail, and there was nobody other than a confused foreign kid who only wanted to ask a question and essentially didn't answer.

It was a total flop persuasion-wise on both sides.

And boring.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I just sat here and watched the whole debate between Harry Binswanger and the Demos guy Benjamin Barber.

Frankly I have the feeling I wasted my time.

Sorry. I started with “This one wasn’t so good” but went on to discuss some of the scant highlights. The main point of interest was the critique of HB’s loyalty oath and the charges of intolerance.

[Philip Coates]

> This one wasn’t so good. Binswanger seems really nervous, and the other guy has done some research. He calls Harry out on his loyalty oath, zap to 1 hour 4 minutes in. He ties it in to some quotes he’s mined, all Binswanger can do is squirm and try to change the subject. [ND, #3]

I haven't listened to the whole debate, but I listened to the part ND mentions and his summation of it is a bit oversimplified.

Here's what actually happens: Binswanger starts by correcting some misconceptions of Barber about what force means and about Rand as a Nietzschean. Then Barber switches to some out of context quotes from Harry's writing. H does defend them, but very briefly. When Barber switches to Harry's website loyalty oath, Barber doesn't explain what he is referring to -- so his attack is weak. And H. makes the point that this debate is supposed to be about freedom, not attacking each other. The moderator sides with him on that.

Contra ND, Binswanger is doing pretty well in the ten minutes of the debate I listened to. He pokes a lot of holes in what Barber is saying. He doesn't have time to explain all his past over-statements and couldn't really make the "over the top" parts plausible. Some of what Barber cites -is- unreasonable and psychologizing. But it's an old debaters trick to do a paper chase, "dig up dirt", and try to change a philosophical subject to only the worst things someone ever said across many years.

And Binswanger, in effect, nails him on that.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

For someone familiar with Rand's work, I agree that Binswanger poked "a lot of holes in what Barber is saying."

When I look at his performance from the eyes of the general public, he didn't do so good. I don't think the average schlub was so impressed with his brilliance. And the proof is that nobody stood up to say they changed their mind when the moderator asked.

I definitely think none of Barber's supporters got even a tiny inkling of doubt about their own views from listening to Binswanger. Ditto contrary-wise. And the people who showed up from normal radio promotion, not just to support one side or the other, weren't impressed enough with either of the two men to say anything when they had an explicit invitation to do so.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Contra ND, Binswanger is doing pretty well in the ten minutes of the debate I listened to. He pokes a lot of holes in what Barber is saying. He doesn't have time to explain all his past over-statements and couldn't really make the "over the top" parts plausible. Some of what Barber cites -is- unreasonable and psychologizing. But it's an old debaters trick to do a paper chase, "dig up dirt", and try to change a philosophical subject to only the worst things someone ever said across many years.

And Binswanger, in effect, nails him on that.

Old debater’s trick or not, Barber scored points that way. Binswanger didn’t defend the mined quotes, he tried to change the subject, and the moderator intervened. It made Binswanger look bad, thus tarnishing his arguments among newbies. You say he didn’t “have” the time, when in fact he didn’t “take” the time to answer for his past writings. Small wonder there.

Now OTOH, he can’t help but to “poke holes” in Barber’s rhetoric. To shift the metaphor, Binswanger holds the winning hand, however badly he plays it.

[Brant Gaede]

Binswanger's speaking voice is so poor I really couldn't listen to it. I did listen to most of Barber's first ten minutes. He made some interesting points, but really went off the tracks when he started talking about various forms of force and "legitimate" government force. I have the distinct feeling a transcript of this debate could be effectively skimmed over by people already well educated in these issues in about ten or 15 minutes and then tossed never to be looked at again. For those interested in debating, study this more closely for there's stuff to be learned here for that, especially preparation.

The moderator took up way too much time setting this thing up. He should have taken 1/3 the time he did.

--Brant

[Mike11]

The first debate was pretty even in terms of the quality of the debaters. They both showed an ability to use both abstract and historic arguments and both had a fair wit. It is significant that they retained eye contact through most of it. Brook in my mind is defending the incorrect view but he was convincing enough to make me reexamine my beliefs.

The second debate was a gruesome massacre that was painful to watch.

The moderator was out to lunch during most of it, allowing a random degeneration into petty interruptions and arguments every 2 minutes.

Even though I agreed with most of Berber's argument he came across as an arrogant douchebag. The nature of a debate forces you to respect your opponent, not treat him as a toy you can waste everyone's time screwing around with. Despite his better grasp on reality, and even Rand than Binswanger can boast I found him the more annoying person to listen to.

Binswanger came across as a spineless wimp. His damn near apologetic tone when called out for working in a cult, while shockingly honest, did nothing to help his case. He was visibly nervous, almost scared throughout the debate.

He also came across as an idiot. Remember, first they built roads, then they built hospitals then ZOMG AUSCHWITZ. Is he not aware of this minor place called "The rest of the bloody planet" and in this place called "The rest of the bloody planet" many countries have universal health care and a strange lack of death camps?

I could not take him seriously at all. I don't think he even understood the issue of an extreme inequality of means affecting the equality of opportunity, let alone effectively dealt with it. I have no idea what planet he lives on.

"Sure, you might be a single mom with cancer working two jobs to pay for rent and baby food but you were free to get a third job for medical insurance. Also, while your 8 year old is free to spend 8 hours in school to become Galt in a few decades he is also free to scrub my floors for 2 bucks an hour. Remember how close your are to eviction you stupid bitch", seems to be his attitude. When was the last time Binswanger met any of the poor people he plans on screwing over?

Edited April 29, 2011 by Joel Mac Donald