we should debate issues of the highest practicality continued

Ok, where were we... From your previous post from the closed debate seen here: http://www.debate.org... You:My opponent's arguments were, yet again, comprised mostly of rhetoric. After sifting through said rhetoric, his last speech boils down to two main points. 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. You: After sifting through said rhetoric, his last speech boils down to two main points. 1. General philosophy is important but is less important than practical philosophy 2. General philosophy is guided by practical philosophy Rebuttals General philosophy is important but is less important than practical philosophy This in itself can be said to be a statement of general philosophy. Again, my opponent's arguments are self-refuting because they call upon general philosophy to affirm that practical philosophy is of a greater importance, thus subjugating the latter to the former. 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. 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. 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. Con: I would also like to point out that what my opponent considers to be practical philosophical issues is very strange. Things that affect the day-to-day lives of people, such as whether or not it is ethical to eat meat or the health standards of the food industry, are labelled as impractical by him. Pro: 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. Con:Rebuttal #2 - General philosophy is guided by practical philosophy This claim is simply wrong. A person does not say, "I am vegan therefore I believe in animal rights." Rather, he or she says, "I believe in animal rights therefore I am vegan." Pro: 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. Con: Contention #3 - My opponent has failed to uphold his resolution My opponent has made multiple statements such as, "philosophy is 'fun and necessary as a foundation to build your own philosophy on'" and "Yes debate for the sake of debate is fine, but we need debate for the sake of change." Any and all of these statements refute his absolutist resolution. Pro: 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.