The three acts, essentially forming the entire plot of Shawâ€™s play, successfully exhibit the idea of the realist trumping the idealist.
Oh man! I can't believe someone's done this to me again. Why the hell did you accept the challenge if you think it can't be debated? And why did you start rebutting my opening argument if, again, you don't think it's debatable? If I didn't know the rules of convinceme and didn't value my membership...I'd rightly tell you off. You don't think some things are subjective? Do you think everything is "written in stone"? Lets debate about THAT, make the challenge man, I'll accept, but CHRIST, THAT ISN'T THIS DEBATE. It was clear in the title (and I was fine with waiting for a serious challenger) that there were but two positions to this debate. Since I selected Realism, you, by default, have selected Idealism - I suggest you format the remainder of your arguments to suit that purpose. If you'd read the play, you'd quickly realize that IT IS about realism and idealism, and for anyone who's read the play, that's pretty nearly indisputable. By the end of the play, it becomes obvious that one of them (realism or idealism) is the victor. (i.e. Bluntschli vs. Sergius). It can be tricky to determine which though, since it can be shown that Bluntschli was in fact the more idealistic of all the characters, while been attributed as the realist. I suppose I shouldn't even have told you this, but you didn't seem to know why there was an argument here (again, I wonder why you accepted the challenge), and I already know how to show that Bluntschli's being an idealist, doesn't change the fact that the play demonstrates realism trumping idealism.
To respond to some of your specifics:
1 - I am prepared to show that the play does successfully show realism trumping idealism, but only if you're going to take the debate seriously. I don't want to waste the arguments; I could recreate the debate in the future, in the hopes of having it accepted seriously.
2 - Since I am taking the position that Shaw was showing realism trump idealism in his play I do, in fact, propose that he intended to do so. It baffles me that you see this as preposterous; I think it a much stranger thing to imagine that he accomplished this by accident!
3 - I think I've shown you that this isn't a subjective debate, that there is in fact a correct position, and my source is the best that can be had - u Arms and the Man /u by George Bernard Shaw. You'll find it in the Evidence section.
1. First of all thank you; your respect is much appreciated, especially considering the gist of our previous communications. If you want to argue that it can't be shown - create the debate. But honestly, this one was pretty clear in the title, and I've shown you a way to argue for idealism in this play, you may be wise to use it or another, since in fact this is what this is about.
2. Again, thank you. It is a pleasure to debate against someone who can admit when they are mistaken, and I hold that ability in high regard.
3. Since you do now agree that Shaw must have intended what he accomplished, it should follow that the outcome must be objective - unless of course he was attempting to show that neither realism or idealism was the victor. And like I said, it can be shown that he was trying to accomplish this through the play itself.
I most certainly did include the play in my evidence section, and it was written by Shaw himself. The first piece of evidence entitled "Realism in Arms and the Man", is a collection of essays concerning him. The second link "The Play", is u Arms and the Man(/u) by George Bernard Shaw. It can be read in a couple of hours, and will show that the subject of realism vs. idealism was certainly no mistake on his part!
I'm extremely pleased and relieved that our manner of speaking to each other has become respectful. For those who don't know what I'm talking about, you can check out links to debates where we go at each other at the end of my post.
Though I love a heated argument, and a battle of wits, I was beginning to feel real resentment towards you. I'm much more pleased to do things this way, and actually have to admit that you seem like a very knowledgeable person. You defend your beliefs steadfastly, which is obviously like me, and something I admire. Yet, you were also able to concede where needed while still maintaining your general position - something even more admirable.
I must chuckle at your suggestion to reading the play, as I still of course maintain that one who had read it properly would have understood some 'assumptions' I made. I was never able to claim that you hadn't read it, and wouldn't have risked doing so, so it's great that you're being a good sport about it.
I'm more than willing to wait for you to read it, and if you agree with my position afterwards, we never have to continue it, and I urge potential voters and fellow debaters to regard this with respect.
I think the thing that makes me happiest is that from all the previous negativity came a very positive thing - I'm sure you'll love the play, and quite pleased to have encouraged its being read in such a way!
Children bringing cellphones to school?
Is wikipedia a reliable source?
Mine and thrashee's verbal assaults can be found in the comments sections of these debates.