My take on debate

[Maxmars]

This forum is for serious discussion and I doubt that would happen if debating a couple of juvenile comment exchangers with so many unknown factors we couldn't consider properly. Although it would be nice to involve politics in debates on occasion, it would also be nice to keep major Politics elsewhere me thinks.
----------------

The idea of a debate here is attractive to me because I am not an academic who grew up with a standardised learning curve and often struggle with focusing on studying a subject beyond an initial encounter. I am a creative thinker who rarely sticks to a plan but sees one as a guideline for things as they unfold around me and always open to evolution.

That said, debating something would be a great way for me to keep coming back to a subject with a commitment to stay focused and see it through until the end while at the same time learning and expanding the old grey stuff. A good opportunity for research too.

Regarding the subject matter, I do like the concept of "Parents should be 'certified' prior to parenting". I have thought for many years that procreation as a human entitlement can be the root of so many negative things and for many people, not just the creators. It also affects the whole world over time in a way that is hard to measure in much but unconnected statistics after the fact. A philosophical approach would be useful to provoke the thoughts of others and extend the timescale for considerations.

I enjoyed the first debate here and it was cool coming back to read each response as it unfolded. Nothing too extreme but plenty of food for thought and very civilised.

Perhaps pencil me in for a debate at a later date so I can observe others and build up some confidance. My ADHD is my enemy but also my adversary.

Thanks Maxmars for sorting the thread so we can respond and discuss.

I look forward to the opportunity to provide you with a good debate experience.  I am not so focused on the seriousness of it, because I have found that it is often a matter of perspective and self-evaluation.  Even the lightest subject can take on the form of a heated and significant debate.  And I have seen some terribly momentous topics well-explored with humor and dignity-evading flair.  It's an like an alchemical mystery, as people often are.

I will be posting here a poll soon.  There will be a series of premises... a bit more robustly explained.... and anyone interested can vote on what they think might be the most desirable "next" debate.  I welcome discussion. 

I might have some debates in mind that will be "outside" that list... which is to say that the debate challenges are practically unlimited.

At some point, we'll probably delve into 'harder" and or 'darker' topics which won't lend themselves to a 'casual' approach.  But such topics that require diligent thoughtfulness... we want to avoid simple "he says" "she says" exposition... Fruitful debate is about thinking it through.

Here is an example that is pertinent since you stated "I do like the concept of "Parents should be 'certified' prior to parenting".  Such a debate opportunity requires presenting to allow for some constraint.

"Parents should be 'certified' prior to parenting"

In such a debate:

One side will pursue justifications and rationale behind the idea that the responsibility of nurturing a child should be reserved for those who have a solid understanding of what challenges they will face, and also what challenges they might face.  Knowledge of the tools at their disposal, the social ramifications of their conduct, and the well-being of their children should be formally introduced to the parent... and that their understanding of those things must be evaluated, or at least 'certified.'  That failure in this area of life have repercussions that present a risk to the innocent, and can have long-lasting and serious effects. 

The Opposite side will have to evoke the notion that parenting isn't a "skill" but an "art"; one at which humans have been relatively successful for literal ages.  That the social and cultural constructs which have naturally evolved over the course of human existence are not generally "quantifiable" nor likely to improve by imposing a purely social construct of "middlemen" regimentation, that it is "inorganic" to construct or overlay on a purely human and natural activity.  That humans cannot be 'regulated' into better parenting.  Perhaps they may be forced to 'protect' those who 'fail' in the eyes of others; and to highlight that cultural differences 'demand' respect.

Add to this challenge that anyone wishing to explore it in debate will not know which position they will be support...  but the exercise demands an honest attempt.

Of course, there is a world of people who are way smarter than me... and any debater might discover another way to argue this.  Hopefully, you get the gist of what I am describing.

I will consider you as a next candidate for the Fighter designation...

Do we have any other takers?