Sunday, March 31, 2013

Countdown to the Wenzel-Kinsella Debate: 1 Day

My debate with Stephan Kinsella over intellectual property is tomorrow. The debate will be posted here at EPJ and by Kinsella at his site, at 5:00 PM ET on April 1.

A few comments.

I see some are already beginning, before the debate has even begun, to charge me with using a straw man by introducing Jeff Tucker into the debate. My intention in bringing Tucker into the debate is to show that he doesn't even understand Kinsella's position. I will not be arguing: "Tucker is clueless therefore Kinsella is clueless."

I will be arguing: Tucker is so clueless, he doesn't even understand Kinsella.

I am doing this because Tucker has a lot of young followers, who need to understand that Tucker really doesn't have a clue as to what he is talking about. If you don't like that I will be smashing Tucker along with Kinsella, I recommend you not listen to the broadcast.

As for Kinsella, I will start hitting him hard within 5 to 10 minutes of the debate, but I won't launch my fiercest attack until much later in the debate.

I really can't wait for the debate to begin. It should be a lot of fun and expose many of the weaknesses in the arguments of the anti-IP crowd.

The dynamic duo Tucker and Kinsella. I can't wait to find out how Kinsella is going to deal with the obvious errors of Tucker. Will he throw Tucker under the bus or shade his own views?

14 comments:

  1. The debate is not live, correct?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Breakin out the garlic butter for this popcorn!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It not only tastes good, it wards off whatever vampires might show up.

      CW

      Delete
  3. "The dynamic duo Tucker and Kinsella. I can't wait to find out how Kinsella is going to deal with the obvious errors of Tucker. Will he throw Tucker under the bus or shade his own views?"

    This was supposed to be a debate over IP, but now Wenzel is admitting that one of his goals will be to try to goad Kinsella into renouncing a friend. !?

    Fine, you will not be using Tucker as a strawman, since you claim you will not state/infer/imply "Tucker is clueless, therefore Kinsella is clueless". However, if the pretense of the discussion is a debate on the validity of IP, Tucker is still clearly a red herring and thus, any honest moderator would disqualify you for utilizing such specious tactics.

    That is, of course, only if the purpose of the debate is the topic of IP's validity. However, if the actual heading of the debate is "Is Wenzel a spiteful, dishonest, petty little man? Wenzel arguing the affirmative.", then I agree your declared tactics will be quite effective.

    I had previously held out a sliver of hope that Wenzel actually uniquely possessed a coherent, valid pro-IP argument (since none that have been publicly available meet that criteria). Based on Wenzel's own comments and declared goals, that sliver has shrunk to "I could win the lottery" odds. Yeah it could happen....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Is Wenzel a spiteful, dishonest, petty little man?" The answer is a resounding yes. Emphasis on dishonest. I for one am happy that his readers are finally starting to figure this out. He literally thinks like a child.

      Delete
    2. I haven't heard one negative word from Wenzel about Kinsella or Tucker other than that their theory of IP is wrong. On the other hand, Kinsella in writing has called Wenzel a clown, a weasel and a worm. What kind of blinders are you wearing? Made by Molyneux?

      You may not travel in the same circles I do, so you may not know what Tucker calls Wenzel and Lew Rockwell behind their backs. I'll say one thing for Wenzel, he is no wimp like Tucker, who plays the saint and is a vicious bitch behind the scenes. Wenzel plays it straight as far as I can tell, he is tough on intellectual weakness, but he keeps the debate there, not like Kinsella and Tucker.

      Delete
    3. At a recent conference I attended, I overheard Tucker talking about Lew Rockwell. It was not pleasant to hear.

      Delete
    4. joekozlowski:

      If what you say is true, I'd suspect that Mr. Tucker ease up on some of those cocktails he's often seen imbibing.

      Funny how there are no stories of Rockwell saying anything about him, even though we know he has no scruples about eviscerating ideological opponents and naysayers. His comments vis a vis the Coch brothers and other enemies of Mises and Rothbard as well as the Randians and the Cato/Reason weirdos come to mind.

      Delete
  4. No one cares if Tucker doesn't understand Kinsella's position, and it shows just how petty and obsessive you are by wanting to even mention Tucker. It's really quite pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. If you want to smash Tucker, debate him. It is disrespectful to a serious thinker like Kinsella to stray from the debate topic by attempting to point out the errors of another person.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You've certainly built it up well, RW.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I haven't heard anything other than ad hominem. Wenzel, you've gotten this to the point of over-hype...

    ReplyDelete
  8. All I've heard so far is ad hominem. This is verging on over-hype, Wenzel..

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is this debate going to have a moderator?

    ReplyDelete