Karl vs. George on Boxing

[major.tom]

Who do you think won the argument on the "nobility" of boxing?

I loved Karl's point on turning GG's romanticized rhetoric in favour of boxing into an army recruiting commercial simply by adding guns.

[faceless]

I thought the point made later by a caller/texter that Galloway was more focussing on the purity of amateur boxing was an important point.

[nekokate]

I'm afraid to say that Karl won.

Boxing is hitting each other in the face and trying to knock each other over or out.

I have no problem with people who can handle themselves physically, and I have no wish to see boxing banned (let people do what they want) but it can hardly be considered noble when the overriding element is direct, physical violence.

I also thought that Amir Kahn documentary was a travesty; where he took a group of knuckle-scraping youths with long histories of violent criminal activity and tried to "teach them discpline" by teaching them how to box. What a bunch of shit. The last thing you should teach violent, insolent, tosser youths is how to batter people better.

[faceless]

Here's the call with a bit of a preamble about UFC.

DOWNLOAD

[Ash]

While they were debating I was laughing my head off

I prefer my 5 times daily prayer and martial arts for self-discipline

[DavidGig]

George won on a TKO. First he forced Karl to oppose the sport in the USSR --

"So you knew better than the Party Central Committee? That'll come up at your trial."

[mickyv]

As a case study I find this little debate is quite interesting, and for what it’s worth, here my analysis; Firstly GG tried to deflect Karl’s main point that boxing is basically not noble because it’s about causing brain damage to your opponent, by saying that was not the purpose of boxing. This little side-step from practical reality tries to ignore the fact that ALL boxing matches involve numerous blows to the head. GG’s sanitised idealised “purpose” of artful tactical point scoring is made obsolete & is quite irrelevant in consideration of the inevitable & proven brain damage that boxers suffer in reality. First blow to Karl.

GG’s example of the one toff exception just proved & reinforced Karl other good point about boxers being from the poor working class, who effectively gamble their health for money.”People keep dealing with exceptions, but I’m dealing with generality”; Second round also to Karl.

Now GG tries to throw Karl off his main point by asking him a serious of questions;

1) Asking if he denies the existence of aggression exist in young men.

Of course Karl never suggested any such thing, and it’s a non question of course, as aggression in young men is an accepted premise. GG purpose with highlighting this is so that he can claim that boxing provides a controlled “safe” outlet for this aggression. Karl replies that this is the excuse that is often used to justified people joining the army. GG knows very well that that boxing is not a “safe” outlet, and that there are thousands of less dangerous ways for people to expel their aggression.
Third round to Karl.

2) Asking Karl if he is a Pacifist.

Of course again Karl never suggested he was, and when he states he’s not, GG straight away accuses him of acting like one ! GG reasoning here is to try to claim that boxing is good because it trains defensive skills. This is obviously a self-contraing truth as boxing is equally about attacking as well as defending. Karl ignores this self-contradicting non point, and repeats again what people fighting each other for money and for the entertainment of others can hardly be called “noble”.
4th Round to Karl.

3) Asking if Karl considered Muhammad Ali as “graceful” & “magnificent” etc.

Karl responds by making the point that these epitaphs are frequently given to anybody whose very good at what they do. He wasn’t able to expand on this as GG rapidly moved on, but what Karl is saying is quite true; think of the “graceful” or “noble” Matador, who really is a just a ritualised skilled murderer, & who takes a risk (just like a boxer) for the entertainment of others. I’m pretty sure that the chief executioner in Saudi Arabia, must be very skilled at beheading people as he does it every week. I sure that some will consider his manner "dignified" & his swordsmanship “graceful”, and there will be some who will claim that beheading properly is an Art !
Again another round to Karl in my book.


Karl then throws a lifeline to let GG of the hook, by going off on a tangent when he mentions that socialism is about co-operation rather than competition. Which although true in some overall theoretical sense, allows GG to pounce upon the fact of boxing being practised in socialist countries, and to therefore insinuate that Karl thinks he “knows better” than the leaders of these countries. Karl stands his ground & replies that he had always disagreed with boxing even when practised by the Soviets. GG then ends the debate by saying that this admission will be used at his Party Central Committee trial !
I award this round to GG as he made the most of a small slip up by Karl going off an a tangent.

So I make Karl the winner by 5 rounds against GG’s 1; which just goes to prove that even an experienced skilled mass debater (why does that sound rude ?!) like the great GG cannot defend the undefendable. A bit ironic really as it’s normally GG winning debates because he’s always attacking the undefendable. I suppose the crux of the matter is really determining just what is & isn’t “undefendable”, and for me this equates with rationality & logic. Trying to argue that two people trying to knock each other out for money & for the entertainment of other is somehow “noble”, is simply for me irrational, as I cannot see the “nobility” in this as I understand the term to be.

[nekokate]

That was a great post, Micky. It got me thinking about the technique of debate.

What say we start a thread about how to debate, etc.? Like techniques of building argument and counter-arguement in order to win or appear to have won an argument/discussion. That would be quite interesting, because there is obviously an art to debate, since people like Christopher Hitchens, through his skill, can trounce lesser orators who are actually morally correct...

[mickyv]

And that’s a great idea for a thread Kate !

I am interested in the art of debating, because a proper serious debate is always very informing & educational. But most debates are not worthy of the term because of cheap tricks often employed to deflect or avoid substantive points. I think it would be very useful to learn how to identify these cheap tricks, as well as learning proper debating techniques.

Going back to GG, I’ve noticed that he sometimes employs a two prong attack in making a point; first he makes the case from moral & ethical considerations, and then he reinforces that with making the same point again but from a practical self-interest case. I think this is a very good debating tactic.

Have you noticed any other GG debating tactics ?

[faceless]

It was a good post indeed, micky. Nice one.

[mickyv]

Ok I’ve consider this again but from a tactical debating point of view this time, as my first was from a substantive points prospective.

Notice that GG deliberately avoids addressing the point that boxing inevitably involves numerous head blows, and so also avoids tacking the fact that repeated head blows cause brain damaged. So avoidance of the counter substantive points straight way that you know are true is a effective if dishonest debating tactic.

Then GG scores a classic own debating goal by citing an exception that proves the validity his opponent’s premise. Bad tactical mistake.

Next, GG was very deliberate how he chose to bring up the points he wanted such as channelling youthful aggression & defensive skills. He did not simply state them, but chose to introduce them by asking direct questions to Karl. The questions were not difficult, as they were not meant to so, but rather quite easy & obvious. The desired tactical effect was to appear to put Karl on the defensive (just through having to answer questions), but also devious in that GG tried to equate the obvious “right” (only) answers with his view points, and to disassociate the correct answers from Karl’s points. Clever & sneaky ! Also notice that GG does not attempt to answer Karl’s rebuttals to his question topics points. So avoidance tactic again.

Having the skill to make opportunist points from your opponents slip-ups is a great & effective skill that GG demonstrates almost instinctively when Karl wanders off topic to talk about competition & socialism. So being able to pounce on such opportunities is a great tactic, but can only come from experience I imagine.

Finally notice how GG decides to end the debate while his has the upper hand, so denying Karl the opportunities of any come back.

[Mandy]

This extract supports George on the point that Boxing isn't about one class watching another class box :

http://business.guardian.co.uk/onamerica/story/0,,2174217,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=24

"Rich alpha males beat each other senseless

Like Hummers converging on a motorway junction, city bankers seem to rev up at any prospect of bloodshed.

A boxing contest for Wall Street's finest specimens is charging as much as $8,000 per table for black-tie tickets in aid of charity.

Contestants from the likes of Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers will have the chance to put aside sub-prime worries by beating the daylights out of each other.

During a weigh-in at a swanky upper east side apartment this week, boxing writer Bert Randolph Sugar presided over events while grasping a huge cigar. He spared no effort grasping for puns: "They may be bullish, they may be bearish - but they sure won't be sheepish!"

A combination of banking and fighting is becoming familiar - in London, so-called "white-collar boxing" is so popular that a club dedicated to the City folk with padded gloves reportedly opened recently under the arches at Liverpool Street station. It takes a certain alpha male personality, after all, to spend the day shorting and longing stocks.

Sponsored by property firm Extell and Trader Monthly magazine, the New York event is at the end of October. Some seem a little apprehensive. Goldman Sachs vice-president Shane "second coming" Kinahan, told me he'd never put on boxing gloves before this event arose: "Don't ask me what my first coming was supposed to be."

[nekokate]

[faceless]

I hope there's some video of the fights released - I'd pay to watch rich bastards batter each other as they aren't human, meaning it's not morally wrong to watch them. The only problem is that they don't have to fight to make it, so where's the passion? Fuck em.

(5 points to the first person to spot the sarcasm!)

[mickyv]

O Mandy, Mandy, Mandy !

I admire your loyalty to GG, but he is on a loser with his bizarre view that boxing can be somehow considered “noble”, is just plain ludicrous. I’ve tried getting into his mindset, and even tried invoking the notion of the Noble Savage, but all to no avail; Two men trying to knock each other out for money is the very opposite of anything noble.

I heard GG having the grace to admit that most people think that Karl won that debate, but he still thinks that he floored him with those remarks about boxing being popular in Cuba & the former USSR ! A totally irrelevant point in trying to support his view that boxing is “noble”; I still waiting to hear exactly why or in what sense boxing can ever be considered noble.