Skip to main content

A Hypothetical Debate

Image result for gasoline pump


Suppose it was your assignment, dear reader, to set up a debate for some conference about "Crude Oil Consumption in the United States."

Your debate, as part of that conference, would have to involve two reputable figures, two distinct points of view on that subject, and one proposition, on which your speakers would take respectively a "pro" and a "con" position.

What kind of speakers might you look for, and what kind of proposition could best express the opposition you'd be trying to bring out?

There are lots of approaches one might take of course....four occur to me.

1. Resolved: that in five years, the consumption of crude oil, per capita, will be greater than at present.

2. ... that in five years, the consumption of crude oil, overall, will be greater than at present.

3. ...that in five years, much of what is now accomplished through burning crude oil, or other carbon fuels, will be accomplished by alternative means.

4. ... that in five years, the inflation adjusted prices of crude oil and of its chemical derivatives, (gasoline, fuel oil, etc.) will be lower than they are at present.

Any of these might work to set up a fascinating debate, looking at different aspects of the question.

Why focus on the five year time horizon? Because that is a convenient proxy for the difference between talk of an upcoming tipping-point and talking in very speculative terms of flying cars and jet packs in the world of Tomorrowland.

Since the point is to set up a hypothetical pro/con debate, I'm indifferent as to whether the valence of any question is reversed. For example, "greater" could be changed to "lesser" in each of the first two questions, to turn the "pro" side into the "con" side. For the third question "only a little" might be substituted for "much" to the same effect.  Doesn't matter. These seem likely to be fruitful axes of debate.

I'd be very happy to hear comments from my faithful readers, and perhaps other questions in resolution format.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Hume's Cutlery

David Hume is renowned for two pieces of cutlery, the guillotine and the fork.

Hume's guillotine is the sharp cut he makes between "is" statements and "ought" statements, to make the point that the former never ground the latter.

His "fork" is the division between what later came to be called "analytic" and "synthetic" statements, with the ominous observation that any books containing statements that cannot be assigned to one or the other prong should be burnt.

Actually, I should acknowledge that there is some dispute as to how well or poorly the dichotomy Hume outlines really maps onto the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Some writers maintain that Hume meant something quite different and has been hijacked. Personally, I've never seen the alleged difference however hard they've worked to point it out to me.

The guillotine makes for a more dramatic graphic than a mere fork, hence the bit of clip art above.

I'm curious whe…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…