>$50 Hume (maybe the highest IQ person on the list)>$25 Wittgenstein (autist extraordinaire)>$20 Nietzsche (best writer on the list; will bamboozle the debate viewers with his prose)>$5 Marx (most persuasive person on the list; has directly radicalized millions)
>>25468982i don’t want any of these foo’s. i guess i’d take 5 nietzsches. i would’ve considered one wittgenstein but the extra $5 makes it awkward. 25 for russel is a ripoff.
>>25468982>recognizing philosohpers by their pictureanyway I'll take witty and use the 75 bucks to buy some bier und wurst for us both
>>25468982>50 AristotleI'd want the guy who invented logic on my side >25 WittgensteinSelf-explanatory, I think>20 SpinozaWhy read the remix (Nietzsche) when you can read the original?>5 Foucault A fucking bargain, belongs in the 25 tier
>>25468982>$50 Hume (maybe the highest IQ person on the list)>morbidly obese fuck
>>25468982Hume, Russell, Wittgenstein.
Two Kants
Uh, you know Hume was an atheist right?...
>>25468982Triple Hegel is all I need to form the Megazord of absolute Spirit.You can keep the change.
>>25468982>$25Bertrand Russel, Hegel>$20Mill>$5Rawls
>>25468988>shameless philosophy dilettante likes wittgensteincolor me surprised
>>25469026Being obese in the 18st century is not the same as being obese in the 21th century
Aquinas should be in the $25 range.
>>25468982If you don't pick Socrates you are losing. The guy was so annoying they did whole democratics election in his hometown on if he should kill himself and 'YES' won.In fact you should pick him and then as many people you hate out of that list as possible, so they suffer.
>>25469065Socrates is not on the list, that's Plato and Aristotle
>>25468982Marx himself is worth $100. However, it isn't apparent now. It will be in half a century.
>>25469073wasn’t it apparent half a century ago? robert conquest wrote a limerick:There was a great Marxist named LeninWho did two or three million men in.That’s a lot to have done inBut where he did one inThat grand Marxist Stalin did ten in.
>>25469050You're a midwit, but you're an ascended midwit. I like you.
Hume and Kant. Boom, I win.
I suspect that Kant would be a poor debater in person.
>>25469073Use value or exchange value?
>>25469132According to him, being a master debater is immoral
>>25469153He was a master bater
1 Kierkegaard, I'll be keeping the extra $80
>>25468987>25 for russel is a ripofffacts. if anything I need to be given money to have him on my team
Hume, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche
>>25468982>Russell worth 25 and Marx worth 5Please be serious
>>25469199Problem commiekek?
>>25468982kant russell leibniz marx /thread
as if the “I ignore women” anon is still posting. what’s funny is I don’t think I’ve ever seen him get a single (You)
>>25468982Who's the guy next to Descartes?
>>25468982PlatoHegelNietzscheMarxLets run it down mid
>run it down midholy shit old meme
>>25469321Objectively correct. Except maybe swapping the Malaka with Kant.
>>25469332My thought process was more that Plato, going by his writing, seems way more fit for debates than anyone else in the 50 tier is.
>>25468982Aristotle-Wittgenstein-Kierkegaard-Foucault There!
>>25469064No, no he shouldn't
>>25469332Plato has the added benefit of being able to just beat up everyone else on this list. Thus always winning the debate.
>>25468982Paid in hash and orange juice.
>>25469132Hume is the debater, Kant is the paralegal equivalent taking notes. Like a ghost speechwriter for a powerful president. Learn proper strats, scrub.
>>25469020Best answer in this thread
>>25468982give me schopenhauer and jung and a mcdonalds fillet o fish
I'll take Zapffe and a bottle of sleeping pills.I hope your debate is fun.
Plato ,Russel,Descartes
>>25468982I get 10 foucalts, spend the rest on Viagra, then point them at the other and let them off the leash.
>>25468982Why is Ayn rand there?
>>25468982Aristotle and Kant
>>25468982$50 Plato$50 Kant
>>25468982>$25 Hegel (charismatic, an expert at obfuscation, is basically a wizard)>$50 Russell (can kill you with facts and logic alone)>$70 Leibniz (universal genius, automatically won at life)>$75 Marx (makes a lot of good points which are hard to ignore or argue against)>$80 Rand (refer to Marx)the remaining $20 will go towards snacks and refreshments.
>>25468982Aristotle and Achinas.
>>25468982I'll only choose philosophers I've actually read, so that'll narrow my options down by a lot.>$50 Aristotle>$50 PlatoDambn.
>>25470866You gotta read some more stuff, my nigga
Bertrand Russell should be in a $1 tier below everyone else.
>>25469020>the guy who invented logic
>>25468982Marx-Spinoza-Hegel-Aristotle seem like kind of a no-brainer desu. Each of them probably the most developed and complete philosophers of their respective eras.
>>25470878Why, though?
>>25470899To learn more about philosophy and further develop your outlook on the world, if you want to
>>25469309Augustine of Hippo
>>25468982SocratesHegel/RusselSpinoza/KirkehgardFocalut
>>25471163Indecisive faggot. Pick one team, none of this / bullshit
>>25468982All of bottom shelf. That's the brain trust. Descartes to tell us that we are and Socrates to whine about how were doing it wrong.
>>25469020Aristotle didn't invent logicWittgenstein didn't actively participate in much debating so he has little practiceSpinoza is okayFoucault belongs in a dumpster
>>25471269I actually disagree with most of this
I’d keep the $100, then proceed to take my pants off and take a shit on stage.
>>25468982Plato for writing the really gay symposiumDescartes to give her the DNietzsche for getting syphilis from prostitutesFoucault for the petition (you know which one)
>>25471357I'm sure you do, Michel.
>>25471398>Foucault for the petition (you know which one)i kek'd
I only need James Fodor.
>>25468982Plato, Hegel, Spinoza, and Foucault, but Foucault is only there to anally rape our opponents, he’s not permitted to speak.
>>25468982I'll take Diogenes for $0
all the 5 dollar ones only to see them brutally destroyed
I would spend $10 on Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, and then give the remaining $90 to Karl Marx and try to convince him to share it with Ayn Rand because he believes in socialism, and try to convince Ayn Rand to accept Marx’s handout because it’s in her rational self-interest. Then I would ask them to co-author a book about how that made them feel. I would sell the book for millions.
>>25469064Then I would take 4 of him.
>>25468982Socrates, Hegel, Kierkegaard, I pocket the rest.
>>25472951>Hegel, Kierkegaard,These two cancel each other out.
>>25471528
>>25468982Debating is show and not reasoning. Without out-of-box thinking like this anon >>25471528 who made the best choice I would take>Marx>Satrefor debating and>Wittgenstein for only $5>Foucaultfor physical altercationsSatre was said to be cocky as fuck and he shitted on academia and only went for a bachelors degree. So there is a lot of balls. Marx rhetoric can also be very polemic. Wittgenstein hit his pupils with a stick and fought in a world war and Foucault in his student years was feared by his fellow peers because he did not give a single fuck. Perhaps I would take Aquinas as well but I don't know too much about himself. Philosophers in the middle ages were known for their verbal disputes, so, perhaps he would be good choice. If I could switch him I would take Peter Abelard instead which fared very well in verbal disputes which costed him his balls
>aristotle>hegel>all the bums at the bottom to purposely anger everybody else and themselves turning it into some rabbi podcast of schizophrenia and yellingI win
>>25468982>Hume>Descartes>Nietzsche>Marx
>>254689825 marx clones5 rand clones1 hegel
>>2546898220 Foucaults but I instruct them to use blunt force.
>>25468982I feel like someone exclusively made this thing only to passive aggressively put hegel below kant tier.
>>25468982>$50 Humeobviously>$25 HegelPhenomology seems too cool to pass up. Nobody else in the row is good anyways>$20 NietzscheEntertainment factor>$5Genuinely unsure. I could live without anybody in this row.
>>25468982Assuming this is a stage debate it's pretty obvious the only choices are thinkers who either wrote about rhetoric (so Aristotle is the obvious first choice), or did actual public debates across their careers (Foucault, Mill and Russel did this, so that completes my team).I think the anons in this thread seem to think debate skills are the same as IQ when they aren't and your ability to publicly debate has more to do with your communication skills and general social intelligence
>>25468982I spend a 100 bucks on Plato and Aquinas who can out-think and out-fight any other thinker except maybe Confucius who has a significant height and strength advantage
>>25473862You want someone who can carry the ammo for the squad machine gun.
>>25468982Aquinas Nietzsche Rand so I can fuck her
>>25468982twenty Foucault's. The opposition will be raped and gaped to death.
>>25474196>Rand so I can fuck herThat bitch is ugly, thoughbeit
>>25474260*ahem*Ayn Rand developed her philosophy specifically because she was so ugly that even in the shitstorm of the Russian Revolution neither her kike daddy nor the inbred alcoholic Bolsheviks were interested in raping her. She coped by convincing herself that this is due to socialism repressing the healthy and natural instincts (to rape Ayn Rand) in men, and men should act as selfish as possible (i.e. finally rape her). In her books, tall selfish men with big arms are constantly raping her self-insert character. She completely misunderstood men, as it always happens with women.A real man is a living antithesis to Objectivism. As a human male, I cannot act in my own personal interests since I naturally have none, so instead I rape women out of selfless kindness, as all men do.If Ayn Rand ever met me, I would rape the Objectivism out of her to absolutely no benefit of my own (there can be no personal gain or profit from raping Ayn Rand desu), and that would collapse her world-view on a metaphysical level. It would become indisputably self-evident to her that she kept writing books because despite all of her efforts she never got a good rape. She never got a good rape because the only men she interacted with were Objectivists who fell for her books - books written by a women dreaming of being raped, about a woman dreaming of being raped. The only men who can enjoy her books are women in male bodies, inherently incapable of raping her, and instead hoping that she would rape them, that she would incarnate as a the man she dreams of, the Messiah hiding under the skin of the Prophet. She would see why all of her relationships with men were such disasters, both of them eagerly waiting for the other to rape, waiting to no outcome. She would love me and my kind dick selflessly in return despite all her will, leaving her with absolutely nothing to ground her ideas anymore, finally feeling true freedom - freedom as an absence, as a flight with no land holding your feet, as hers would be dangling high above. The dreams of an Atlantean man of self-interests would evaporate from her head with the moisture of my cum drying in her scruffy hair. She would sing praises to Lenin whenever her mouth is not taken by selfless work on my cock and balls.
>>25468982Entire bottom row, overwhelm the opponent with retarded infighting on your own team. Remaining 75 is for me.
>>254689824 Wittgensteins
>>25468982I'll take adi shankara and vivekananda for 5 rupees and spend the rest at mcdonalds
>>25468982>Spending money on dead people
>>25469060Sorry fatty, this is cope. Being a lardass was always pathetic. Nobody ever liked obese people. You're just like those landwhale feminists projecting about how in the past the beauty standards would've considered them as Venus in the flesh. SPOILER: It's bullshit, they were always disgusting
Hume being higher then Descartes only makes sense if you have a atheist bias. But then Aquinas is in the top tier, so what gives? What did Hume contribute that pre-socratic greeks didnt say? Also Spinoza and Leibinez > Hume.
>>25475269John Locke mogs all those fags and yet he's missing. Shit chart
>>25468982I spend 0 on Diogenes and win. Gg.
>>25468982Rawls, Sartre, Foucault, what a bargain. The front line. Underhanded rhetoricians.Hegel, Witty will be the heavy hitters.Aristotle at 25$ is also too good to pass up.
>>254689821x Kant, 1x Leibniz, 6x Rawls.>>25473717underrated
>>25468982PlatoWittgenstein Nietzsche Foucault
>>25475360He does it for free.
>>25475836He also smells like a jannie, curious
>>25468982Plato and Aristotle.
>>25468982ill take ayn rand, the rest is condoms/liquor budget
$100 on Hegesias and he'll convince the other team to kill themselves
>>25468982KantWittgensteinKierkegaardSartreKierke's flair is much better than Nietzsche's.
>>25468982Leibniz - Polymath.Hume - Gentleman, Bon vivant, good enough for Kant, so good enough for me. J. S. Mill - Understands human condition, utilitarian, genius (and a bit of a pussy), but a genius nonetheless.
>>25468982>marx, leibnez, hegel, maybe focoult to keep them on tracki adding anyone else will either not add much or will result in the pot boiling
>>25473975>except maybe Confucius who has a significant height and strength advantagehuh, didn't know that
>>25468982Marx, JSM, Russell, Hume.
>>25469064Should be $5, or better yet, not even included. He advocated that people who disagreed with his theological proclamations should be executed by the state. A literal retard who admitted his ideas needed to be backed up by violence to be taken seriously.
>>25474196We knew about your repressed sexuality just from those first two choices, anon.
>>25468982You could have 500 dollars to choose all of them and they would still have their asses blasted by the GOAT
Five Nietzsches. Next.
>>25468982I will take 5 Leibniz for the best of all possible debate teams.
How much for Protagoras? I want to win.
>>25480055about three fifty.
>>25468982Give me 5 Nietzsche
>>25468982Why no copenhaver?
>>25468982I'll take Plato, Nietzsche, and see if I can smuggle in La Rochefoucauld dressed up as Descartes, with Foucault as a backup.
>>25468982everyone on the bottom row except Ayn Rand, then four people in the $20 tier. I have eight philosophers. Their arguments are probably shit but I bet they can make more noise and obfuscate better than the two or three philosophers you picked. Remember. Debates aren't about being smarter, or being correct. It's about who can control the conversation and make the most noise.
>>25468982Give me 20 foucaults and a needle disposal bin out of a bus station bathroom
It's a debate team so you want the ones skilled in general analysis and dialectic, and you want to avoid the ones who are so hidebound by their own dogma or system that they will do nothing but try to translate the problem into the terms of the latter. I would go with: >Plato ($50)Skilled general dialectician, both content with aporiai, and trained to seek out aporiai and paradoxes. Devoted to his own system, if we go with scholarly consensus on him and not with some hyper-aporetic-zetetic exclusively "pedagogical" reading. Will understand that the terms of the debate don't allow for steering it toward his own preferred conclusions simply because they are his preference, BUT he may do so anyway, thinking that the dialectic leads that way of itself. Will have to be gently reminded that we're not in Athens. If he takes to this, he could be made the speaker during the debate. >Wittgenstein ($25)Like Plato, a skilled general dialectician, delights in paradoxes and aporiai. Downside: Lifetime spent not giving a shit if people misunderstood him; content to speak to the imagined one or two people in the audience he imagines can handle what he's saying. However, plenty of writing and lectures on record showing he can tackle *specific* problems too, without taking them as opportunities to rewrite the entire book on what logic and language even are (as he does in his major works). Risk: Irascible. If he doesn't believe in the debate, he will sabotage it. >Nietzsche ($20)Once again, a skilled general dialectician with a "deconstructive" mind. See his deconstruction of the presuppositions of the cogito in Gay Science §267, e.g. Can get a little fast and loose with this, because his primary interest is puncturing the thing he's attacking just enough that the reader loses faith in it and can be redirected toward Nietzsche's own ideas, but still, useful in the initial analysis phase. Downside/risk: Will either get along famously with the others or constantly cause problems and be worse than useless. >Marx OR Rawls ($5)Rawls mostly because he's an Anglo-analytic trained in the 20th century in general in philosophical dialectic, not for any particular achievement; he is both capable and temperamentally well-suited (e.g., he is unlikely to retardedly mistake the format for "how can I push my own system here?" and ruin everything), and he could help corral and orient the others listed above (who are all men from other eras, after all). But Marx is an interesting option too, for the same reason as the others above: able general dialectician and deconstructionist. But he's less appealing than Rawls simply because he is temperament is such that will have the strongest temptation to steer things back toward historical materialism, and he is utterly blind to anything that isn't materialistic a priori. Worse, Marx is NOT a team player; see records of him fist-pounding tables in fits of rage and ousting people he disagreed with at the First International.
>>25480392Absolute no's: >AristotleCertainly as capable as Plato, even superior in dialectic, but will absolutely steer everything toward his own priors and try to turn the debate into a lecture on his own philosophy. Just read Metaphysics A: "The history of philosophy is a history of people failing to be as smart as me." >AquinasNearly the same as Aristotle, except with Platonico-Aristotelian Christianity instead of Aristotelianism. Will probably be too shellshocked by all the heathens to debate productively, and will try to turn the whole thing into a Summa contra gentiles exercise: "I'll pull those with eyes to see toward the faith; fuck everybody else." >AquinasSimilar to Aquinas, except more irascible and bull-headed, difficult to prevent from merely evangelizing. Also, read the Confessions: brilliant philosopher when the intuition strikes him (as in his speculations in the final books), but first and foremost a man seeking spiritual answers (and capable of being caught up on bad ones for quite a while if they satisfied him), not a born dialectician. I'd rather have someone like Origen. >DescartesMaybe the very young Descartes, but look at how he acts in his epistolary exchange with More: arrogant, "I can't possibly be wrong," "read my writings harder, you clearly didn't get it." Seems like a dickhead.>Hegel Helped inaugurate the hermeneutic approach to philosophy; but only so he could talk about all other philosophies being partial glimpses of what can only and finally be seen in toto through his system. >LeibnizWill read the subject of the debate, run off on his own for a few days, and come back at the last minute before the debate starts with a completely sui generis and ingeniously insane logically coherent but metaphysically baroque interpretation of it. >SpinozaIngenious LOGICIAN, but monomanic. Basically a worse Descartes. If you don't agree with him, you are simply retarded. Look harder until you see sub specie aeternitatis. >Rand No>SartreCould be a reasonably able dialectician but simply outclassed by others; outclassed by Rawls even as a "formidable mediocrity" because Rawls' native discourse is English logical proceduralism rather than Parisian bullshit artistry.>FoucaultSmart enough to be a good choice if he played by the rules, but he simply won't - see his debate with Chomsky. Would gladly lose the debate on purpose as long as it added to his legend and social capital as gnomic philosophy man #8742 in Paris.
>>25480393Possible swap-ins: >Kant While Kant is a man of his own system, he is also an extremely capable logician and skilled in general dialectic. He probably should not be the speaker during the debate, unless he's prepared a lecture; but allowing him to do the initial analysis and systematization of the problem up for debate would be fine. >Mill Similar to Rawls. Plenty smart enough for it. But slightly more hidebound in his conceptions and slightly likelier to steer things toward one of his pet interests. >RussellNarrowly outclassed by Rawls as a formidable mediocrity. Early analytical Russell, absolutely - late Russell, too "opinionated essayist," too likely to go off-roading. See famous BBC debate with Copleston; moments of playing the character "Bertrand Russell" (the Materialist, the Atheist, the Reasonable Man) rather than taking joy in the actual topic being discussed. Also: Just plain has his limitations (see his misunderstanding of the Tractatus).
>>25480395Forgot Hume. Hume is possible as a swap-in but I just feel he's a wildcard. He is able at "deconstruction" but liable to start playing backgammon at any time. A little too much of the 18th century essayiste in him, and a little too hidebound by Enlightenment priors. Whereas I believe Wittgenstein could and would defend a strange counterfactual against a status quo belief (see On Certainty) just to piss off the representatives of the status quo, I think it would be hard to cajole Hume to do so for a great many things. Still a great asset in any NORMAL debate team, but outclassed by others in this roster.Who I'd really want on my team: Wilfred Sellars and C.D. Broad.
>>25468982>aquinas, augustine, descartes, russel that high>leibniz, spinoza, nietzsche that lowhomosexual chart
>>25480393>Smart enough to be a good choice if he played by the rules, but he simply won'tHe broke Chomsky in two, in the first half forcing him to whimper like a bitch while he forced Chomsky to fuck his own anus in public.Who needs to play by the rules when you shoot your opponents into ditches to immanentise proletarian autogestation.
>>25468982I keep the 100$ and walk away.
First column honestly, maybe Rawls instead of Marx.
>>25468982$97.50 on Alfred North Whitehead$2.50 on Karl Popper
>>25468982Plato, Wittgenstein, Nietzsche, Foucault. Debate team is gay therefore my all homo team will be in their element.
Immanuel Kant was a real pissantWho was very rarely stableHeidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggarWho could think you under the tableDavid Hume could out-consumeWilhelm Freidrich HegelAnd Wittgenstein was a beery swineWho was just as schloshed as SchlegelThere's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya'Bout the raising of the wristSocrates, himself, was permanently pissedJohn Stuart Mill, of his own free willOn half a pint of shandy was particularly illPlato, they say, could stick it awayHalf a crate of whiskey every dayAristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottleHobbes was fond of his dramAnd Rene Descartes was a drunken fart"I drink, therefore I am"Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missedA lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
>no pre-socraticsInto the trash it goes.With that said...any team that doesn't include Wittgenstein, enjoy losing I guess.Best team:>Aristotle>Wittgenstein>Nietzsche>$5 left over because none of the postmodern scum in the bottom can improve on this
>>25484267wittgenstein was ambivalent on the utility of debating
