Dream Debates

If you could get any two people from any point of history into a debate (assume no language barrier and assume they're both brought up to speed on the others' society) who would you pick and what would the subject be?

And just for fun, who would you choose to be a moderator?

I think I would personally very much enjoy a debate between Immanuel Kant and Jean-Paul Sartre on the subject of free will and its significance in morality and moral value.

William F Buckley Jr would be the moderator (for his voice).

Walt Disney and The Rock, debating the implications of the existence of other dimensions.

I mean, come on, we've analyzed the classics to death as a culture. They - Kant, Sartre, whoever else - wouldn't say anything we wouldn't expect. It would be a novelty spectacle but not really insightful.

Me, I'd just want something awesome.

{edit} Moderated by my dog. Every time he barks the speaker changes.

Originally posted by Digi
Walt Disney and The Rock, debating the implications of the existence of other dimensions.

I mean, come on, we've analyzed the classics to death as a culture. They - Kant, Sartre, whoever else - wouldn't say anything we wouldn't expect. It would be a novelty spectacle but not really insightful.

Me, I'd just want something awesome.

{edit} Moderated by my dog. Every time he barks the speaker changes.

I think a debate between St Augustine and Mark Twain would be great. Moderated by Oscar Wilde.

Actually, what I'd probably do is have, say, Thomas Aquinas vs. Richard Dawkins. The point being, it would be dreadfully obvious that Aquinas wasn't equipped to talk about the world around him, and that all statements of cosmological import should be taken with a large dose of reality unless they're checked with facts.

Problem is, if there were any type of audience, it would be seen as a vindictive attack on religion and stir more shit than it's worth. And, frankly, it would oppose their dogma from a reasoned perspective, but it wouldn't be vindictive. But an impersonal disagreement is taken as a personal affront in our modern climate, so it's not something I could do without enraging too many others. Any point made would be drown out by the backlash.

So Disney vs. the Rock. Because any attempt at making a matchup I'd actually care about would do more harm than good.

Originally posted by Digi
Actually, what I'd probably do is have, say, Thomas Aquinas vs. Richard Dawkins. The point being, it would be dreadfully obvious that Aquinas wasn't equipped to talk about the world around him, and that all statements of cosmological import should be taken with a large dose of reality unless they're checked with facts.

Problem is, if there were any type of audience, it would be seen as a vindictive attack on religion and stir more shit than it's worth. And, frankly, it would oppose their dogma from a reasoned perspective, but it wouldn't be vindictive. But an impersonal disagreement is taken as a personal affront in our modern climate, so it's not something I could do without enraging too many others. Any point made would be drown out by the backlash.

So Disney vs. the Rock. Because any attempt at making a matchup I'd actually care about would do more harm than good.

Also don't worry about audience. Think of this as just you (or possibly a few friends/family members) watching the debate.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol.

I think a debate between St Augustine and Mark Twain would be great. Moderated by Oscar Wilde.

I came here to post exactly that match up (-the Wilde part).

Originally posted by Omega Vision
As someone who's more or less an atheist, I've actually found Dawkins to be somewhat...dogmatic in his atheism.

Also don't worry about audience. Think of this as just you (or possibly a few friends/family members) watching the debate.

Dawkins never ceases to be the headline of the response post every time I mention him. It's amusing how polarizing he is. I actually see him as incredibly calm and rational, and I've read/seen a lot of his stuff. He's just the most persistent. And he did, quite literally, change the theist/atheist conversation with his work in evolutionary biology. He wasn't the first, of course, but he brought to light the implications in a way no one else had. Atheists are sometimes shy around him in debates because they don't want to invoke controversy before the discussion even starts. But the truth is, there's very little I can disagree with in the content of his works. And most attacks against him amount to slander campaigns and generalizations, not attacks on the arguments themselves. It's only the execution that drives people away, theists and atheists alike.

His writing is somewhat ham-fisted when it comes to religion, I'll grant that. But he's at his best when discussing biology and letting the descriptions and facts speak for themselves. Some of it, in fact, borders on poesy when he really gets going, in some of his short essays on the subject.

Anyway, on topic, if the audience is just me and my friends, forget Dawkins/Aquinas. That is stripped of import if it's not within a larger context. I'm switching my vote to Daniel Tosh v. Sarah Palin in this scenario. Historical figures don't quite interest me as much as they once did. I think there's some heavy nostalgia glasses on, and the fact is that a lot of average Joe's of today's world are smarter than the mythic figures of history. Not everyone, of course, but your above average college grads and such.

Originally posted by Digi
Problem is, if there were any type of audience, it would be seen as a vindictive attack on religion and stir more shit than it's worth. And, frankly, it would oppose their dogma from a reasoned perspective, but it wouldn't be vindictive.

It wouldn't be very fair, either. Dawkins has the benefit of eight hundred years worth of refutations of Aquinas to fall back on if he cares to.

Namely, Aquinas extremely hypocritical opinions on an all loving god while loving the shit out of his heretical executions. 🙁 (That's the one that is the worst, in hindsight, about his positions...for me, at least.)

- Ken Wilber and Stephen Gould debating ultimate reality.
- Stan Lee and Jerry Siegel debating Silver Surfer vs Superman.
- Mae West and Lady Gaga debating what's sexy.

The Prophet vs Jesus.

Theme: How does God sounds.

Moderator: Moises.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It wouldn't be very fair, either. Dawkins has the benefit of eight hundred years worth of refutations of Aquinas to fall back on if he cares to.

That's true of any debate involving historical figures. Whoever came later has the distinct advantage. I'd be more than willing, this being hypothetical, to allow Aquinas exposure to modern works to be prepared, and time to digest it. I don't think it would be any less of a stomp. But the whole point would be to show how he doesn't understand reality as well as many grade schoolers, so I'd be happy either way.

Bakunin vs Hobbes on the nature and function of central state power

Originally posted by Mindship
- Mae West and Lady Gaga debating what's sexy.

this would actually be really interesting

Originally posted by inimalist
this would actually be really interesting

And Gaga is perhaps the most visually striking performer to pop up in decades (in addition to her immense musical talent). If she doesn't direct some epic fantasy film decades from now, I will be very disappointed.

Originally posted by Bentley
The Prophet vs Jesus.

Theme: How does God sounds.

Moderator: Moises.

Originally posted by Mindship
Mae West was so ahead of her time. She was attitude w/o anger, a sexuality that oozed through you instead of hitting you in the eyes. Sultry voice contest? She'd probably beat every starlet today who thinks she's all that.

And Gaga is perhaps the most visually striking performer to pop up in decades (in addition to her immense musical talent). If she doesn't direct some epic fantasy film decades from now, I will be very disappointed.

Might not the Prophet object to the moderator being of the same faith as his opponent? 😎

You could argue most of the jewish histories happened after Moses, so judaism kind of changed. Also he probably didn't write the Deutoronomy either, so the priests of his time were probably much less orthodox -or at least had different practices- in what would become the religion Jesus interacted with.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Mohammed would respect Moses as well as Jesus, both are considered previous prophets in Islam, with Mohammed being the one who "perfected" what they attempted to convey.

Originally posted by Bentley
You could argue most of the jewish histories happened after Moses, so judaism kind of changed. Also he probably didn't write the Deutoronomy either, so the priests of his time were probably much less orthodox -or at least had different practices- in what would become the religion Jesus interacted with.

I like to think that the underlying Reality would have no problem recognizing Itself despite the different guises; and in this thread, any such "debate" would be merely a game It plays.

But I just couldn't resist. pokey

Lucifer and Jesus debating on the concept of morality.

BTW, guys check this out.
This channel forever changed my perspectives on historical figures lol.

YouTube video

Uh-oh, dropping an ERB bomb on KMC.

My favorite is Mr. Rogers vs. Mr. T. Nice Peter is the friggin' man.