Debate is on Israel/Palestine, Destiny leans Israel and Norman leans Palestine. I will make a serious effort to judge it, including posting my reasons.
Related questions
🏅 Top traders
| # | Name | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ243 | |
| 2 | Ṁ53 | |
| 3 | Ṁ51 | |
| 4 | Ṁ22 | |
| 5 | Ṁ6 |
Well this just dropped, I think it's time for a re-resolution https://www.reddit.com/r/Destiny/comments/1bk9y6g/norm_finkelstein_hops_on_stream_and_destroys_mr/
rationale:
Finkelstein's quote mining was weak. Morris provided reasonable explanations for the passages Norman quotes that accord with his general theory.
There are many ways one can morally object to the founding of Israel, but I think Destiny/Morris reasonably argue that aggression / escalation came from arab states, and I'd imagine that there were many better outcomes if Israel's disposition remained the same but others had acted differently. You have to distinguish between moral objections and moral objections that justify war.
I didn't find the emphasis on how prominent ideas were in zionist thinking compelling - it didn't seem to be particularly central, and I found the actions cited by Destiny/Morris to be convincing.
I feel like the debate didn't go in depth on most important issues. I liked Destiny's debate prep: https://publish.obsidian.md/destiny/Debate+Prep/2024.02.28+-+Finkelstein+and+Rabbani/Debate+Outline
I am significantly less certain on the consequentialist morality of Israel's actions in Gaza, but I didn't find Norm's arguments convincing. I think there are good arguments he could've made that Destiny might've had trouble with, though, but he didn't.
If this market had gotten 500 traders, I'd think about it a lot more and do a deeper writeup. I wrote this pretty quickly. I think this is reasonable.
@dgga "provide facts" sounds like something from competitive debate or something (IDK, I've never seen it). In actual debates between experts ideally the facts are, if not agreed upon, at least well past the point of being "provided". That is, even if the person does not agree on the facts, he will have already seen the evidence. For the major points, anyway.
@jim a lot of the Fink/Rabbani side was monopolised by Norm either reading direct quotes on perspectives of events or slinging passive aggressive insults, cutting people off, and raising his voice. he lost his composure and steamrolled so much it would be hard to identify any particular volume of facts and well placed arguments imo, but I admit that kind of character and behaviour is really despicable for me in general.
@shankypanky i'm not sure if this market is about Finkelstein vs Destiny or Finkelstein's side vs Destiny's side. But I think it's super clear cut Finkelstein victory in the former case. E.g. Destiny's confusion about the Second Intifada
@jim but I don't take points off for personal attacks or bad attitude. I think good argument + personal attacks is always a "win" over bad argument without personal attacks.
@jim if you think the market is misresolved it's probably best to provide concrete examples or timestamps otherwise it's a bit 'going on vibes' or preference.
@shankypanky oops, my purpose here isn't to take a position on who won the debate.
My point is just that I bet on this market expecting that jackson would make a serious effort to judge it and post his reasons. (that's what it says in the description)
He hasn't posted his reasons.
@jacksonpolack might want to edit the title question btw (referring tho the [Today or Tomorrow] -part)