we should debate issues of the highest practicality continued

I shall restate my contentions from the previous debate (http://www.debate.org...) before rebutting my opponent's R2 speech.ContentionsContention #1 - A person's general philosophy impacts his or her "practical philosophy"As I have gotten older, I have begun to realize how my beliefs in different areas are all interconnected and how they impact the way I live my life. For example, my Christian pacifism does not end with my condemnation of war. It also influences how I interact with people in my community on a daily basis.While a debate between a subjective moralist and an objective moralist (or any other philosophical clash you may see on DDO) may seem impractical at first glance, what you are really witnessing is an exchange of ideas by two people whose beliefs affect the way they live their lives as individuals.Contention #2 - My opponent's argument is self-refutingAfter all, claiming that we should invest in our community and work to benefit the lives of other people is itself a philosophical statement. Not to mention that all of the issues he says we should be debating are decisions that people make based on their philosophy."how to live a healthy, happy, righteous life how to have a strong family and build a strong local community local politics -multimillion dollar school bonds that don't get more than a few hundred votes local businesses not providing healthy reasonably priced food lack of jobs due to wealth retention in the community"A person's answers to these questions are highly dependent upon their religion and worldview.Rebuttals"Me:Mostly of rhetoric? Isn't that mostly what a debate is? "the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, esp. the use of figures of speech and other compositional techniques." If anyone is focusing on form/rhetoric rather than substance, I would have to say it is Con, who is being verbose (trying to use fancy words like rhetoric and absolutist, but not effectively), highly formal (which I don't really see the point of " except for scoring points on this website, which I still don't see the point of) and not addressing many of my points, instead saying they boil down into things that they don't."One definition of rhetoric presented by Merriam-Webster is "language that is intended to influence people and that may not be honest or reasonable."[1] I stated that your arguments consist largely of rhetoric because you meandered about in your speeches, thereby making a few key points into a very long speech.I do not speak or write in this manner (using "fancy words" and "being formal") because I know it will help me win debates as you claim, but because I am accustomed to thinking in these terms and speaking in this style in real life."Me: My last post doesn't boil down to those two main points " maybe you should try reading instead of sifting. It didn't compare general philosophy so much with practical thinking " it says both are important, but that practical-mindedness and empowerment is lacking emphasis in our world/society/this website/debate in general. I understand that these aren't commonly heard arguments, so I appreciate the difficulty Con might have in forming his mind around the new thoughts, while saving enough mental energy to give thoughtful responses."Practical thinking and practical philosophy are essentially one and the same. At the very least, you cannot reach the stage of practical thinking without having a practical philosophy to guide your thoughts. As I stated in the first part of this debate, practical philosophy flows from general philosophy and the latter, therefore, is above the former in imortance. Pro has yet to respond to this argument."It seems Con has narrowed in on a false argument constructed of contrivances that I can't comprehend because he can't find any real problems with what I am saying. He certainly isn't addressing the many points I am making, as I am him " by going through each line of his response and responding back. Maybe somehow there is a way to show that I have somehow made the points Con refers to, but I think con is focusing in too much on what is perhaps a small lapse in wording somewhere, at the expense of the bigger picture. I ask Con to show me how he boiled what I said down to these 2 main points."Please tell me which points I failed to address and I will do my best to respond to them. As far as I can tell, I have responded adequately to your arguments. You certainly have not attempted (beyond employing bare assertions) to show that I have not.I boiled your rebuttal down to those two main points by condensing your rhetoric. If there was an additional point within your rebuttal that I missed, please present it. Simply claiming that it is there is not effective."When I said "rather than focusing on large, philosophical, global issues where people are likely to have little impact, people should focus on local issues like.."issues they have more control over- it doesn't mean that large global, national, state issues aren't important " it means that everyone has an opinion about Obama and spends hours talking about him in order to cast a vote that only matters a small amount -even in swing states. And how many of those people know anything about the local issues in their community - where they could go MEET the person they would vote for and actually talk face to face about the local issues that they are both facing together? That is the crux of my argument."Once again, we reach the point in your argument where it becomes self-refuting. You state that it is more important to have an understanding of local issues (i.e., practical philosophy) than an undertsanding of global or national issues (i.e., general philosophy). The problem with that statement is that it is itself one of general philosophy (or limited practicality), thereby refuting itself."where did I do this? Is a healthy life not listed as a practical matter " the first thing listed in my first post in fact. No " I would say it is important to think about what you put into your body a lot. Ethics are important, but probably less practical " so I would give more weight to the health aspect. That doesn't mean I am saying ethics aren't important " I am saying that people get carried away with impractical debates and conversations at the expense of practicality. Would Con rather people debate a timeless debate like should we eat meat or not or would you rather we debate how to help cows live better lives before they are killed for us? The latter debate can be turned into a useful product more easily, not only because of the tangible nature of the argument, but because it's not tainted with the fact that it has been widely debated for centuries with no solid answer. Even scientific studies on eating meat like The China Study are controversial " these topics require a large research project for someone to feel like they might be a little closer to the truth. Just because you choose one doesn't mean the other is unimportant or didn't have to be contemplated beforehand you could contemplate the other " it means it is likely to have more real world, useful results. Basically, you can debate about if eating cows is bad because it hurts them when you likely already have a very strong feeling either way that isn't likely to be greatly swayed, or you can debate how we can reduce the suffering -something that everyone can agree on. That doesn't mean the 2nd is more important -it means it is more practicality-guided, even though it rests on answering the first " it goes further."The point my opponent is responding to here was an aside about how what he considers to be impractical debates are actually very practical. It was a remark made out of curiosity, not an argument. This "rebuttal" is irrelevant."Here you go again, focusing in on a sentence at the expense of the big picture. It seems as if Con takes things out of context instead of trying to understand..well " that's exactly what I am fighting against. Because that's not practical " trying to win at the expense of the truth, at the expense of trying to understand what I am saying. It reminds me of high school debate club " saying things as fast as you can to win, which means no one can really watch debates anymore except people who are somehow interested in that style, which means debate is losing a lot of it's appeal, which is bad for everyone. Instead of having debates that valued reaching consensus or seeking the truth of the matter " they are a competition to be hacked in whatever way possible to win points."Here Pro indulges in personal attacks, accusing me of not being concerned about the truth. He also seems bitter against this website in general."my resolution is only absolutist because you pick and choose how to interpret it, I guess for the sake of having a debate because you couldn't find anything truly debatable? And what does absolutism have to do with anything? More verbosity? And you can't bother to show how they refute my resolution " is it that clear? Maybe you just don't want to bother because you are used to debating people who aren't trying to learn and grow from debate, it doesn't seem worth you time to explain yourself? I can relate to the feeling, but here I am " spending an hour on this response."Pro engages in further personal attacks in this paragraph. He also requests that I explain what absolutism has to do with this debate, and so I shall. Having created an absolutist stance in our first debate on this topic, Pro, you were required to uphold it. You failed to do this and so I pointed out that I had, therefore, won the debate.Round conclusionPro has not made any real arguments in this round. Instead, he has made personal attacks and bare assertions.Sources1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...