I listened again to debate and I found for myself 2 mistakes and I feel a bit bad as I didn't comment back (maybe I should just be more rested next time):- when talking about white racism even as I was agreeing that white racism was wrong, I should go deeper into the topic: even it would be no way to define Racism vs White Racism as being the same, it could be reworded (as it typically happens)- I also noticed that Joe added references to mal-intent a la Machiavelli or Pareto's Principle. Both of them were offtopic: A person can use strict definition to use it to mal intent or just to filibuster. Pareto principle again I should press the debate as again, having a imprecise definition which as we agreed would not change the points of the topic, it would make things unchanged. I.e. as we talk about global warming, having a discreet exact position on it, vs "Global warming is bad as cost in hurricanes, droughts, maybe desertification in Texas" would not change the way we may apply Pareto's principle.
Well I learned some things listening to this. That's always nice!You both make some pretty good arguments here. I agree that imprecision can be problematic. But I also agree that sometimes excessive precision is either impossible or impractical.As to arguments.... Pro is easier to understand. His language is more simple and he's not making as many references to ideas a bit outside the debate (say Machiavellian political theory). But Con has more lines of argument and they aren't really addressed directly by pro. The best clash is when you are talking about a specific topic, and highlighting how imprecision is costly or helpful. But both of you have good examples for that.I'm inclined to call it a draw and say, nice job gentlemen.
@sigfried thanks for listening and feedback!