Sample Debate

Winning



This one isn't so much a debate. Not my problem.

CHARACTERS:
A) A human.
B) Friend of A.


Situation:
       In the 2004 Olympics Paul Hamm competed in gymnastics. At medal-awarding-time his score was calculated to be the highest and he was "awarded" a gold olympic medal. Later they realized that the judges had made a scoring error and that Yang Tae Young would have had the highest score if no errors had been made.
       Later the International Gymnastics Federation requested that Paul give the medal back as he said he would.

Debate:
B: What do you think about this Paul Hamm stuff?

A: What exactly is your question?

B: Do you think he should give his medal back?

A: What do you mean by should?

B: What would you do?

A: I would probably sell the medal on ebay.

B: Do you think it's fair?

A: What's "fair" is never relevant to choice, so I'm not going to answer that as you would take it the wrong way. Fair wouldn't be in any Reason-Lines unless some contract mentioned it. Awards are given out because whoever made the olympics thought it was fun. If they then decided giving olympic medals only to osprey was more fun then they would rationally do that.

B: Do you think he truly won?

A: The word "win" is vague enough that you can chose a definition where he won and one where he didn't. Again you would probably use this the wrong way. Really it doesn't matter unless there is some contract in place that necessitates the medal go to the "winner". In that case we would have to look at how the contract defined "win." [assuming there was some reason to obey the contract]

B: Do you think that he should be true to his word?

A: The only reason to be honest is as an extension of social-contract. The only reason he would keep to his word would be if not doing so would make him less credible and if he needed to be credible. This is assuming he is immune to what people think of him.

B: What do you think of him?

A: I don't really think of him more than a second a year on average. As for how I "value" him (or any other olympian), I don't. I see him as a person who happens to have a uncommon capacity to do something impractical. Probably the same way you would think of somebody who was the best in the world at juggling dead lamprey with their mouth.

B: Why?

A: Good question. I could choose to get all emotional and make myself feel some strong "connection" for fun. I guess I could try doing this from time to time as long as I never forget that it's all just a game. In this case since the FIG declared Yang Tae Young "the true winner of the All-Around competition," I suspect neutrality may be more pleasant than adopted outrage that association would entail. So it would probably make more sense to see myself as Yang because then "my guy" is the "true winner."