Has debate become futile?

[jGilder]

hey - jGilder -

I'm not agreeing, disagreeing, etc. I was just curious to see if I could find the earliest mention of the Downing Street memo, and here's what I found so far:
May 1 - Sunday Times UK
May 2 - New York Times
May 6 - Knight Ridder News
May 12 - Los Angelos Times
May 15 - Washington Post
May 20 - New York Times

I got this from USA Today, there were not links to the actual articles in the above papers or new services.

The Sunday Times' May 1 memo story, which broke just four days before Britain's national elections, caused a sensation in Europe. American media reacted more cautiously. The New York Times wrote about the memo May 2, but didn't mention until its 15th paragraph that the memo stated U.S. officials had "fixed" intelligence and facts.

Knight Ridder Newspapers distributed a story May 6 that said the memo "claims President Bush ... was determined to ensure that U.S. intelligence data supported his policy." The Los Angeles Times wrote about the memo May 12, The Washington Post followed on May 15 and The New York Times revisited the news on May 20.

None of the stories appeared on the newspapers' front pages. Several other major media outlets, including the evening news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC, had not said a word about the document before Tuesday. June 8th marks USA TODAY's first mention. - USA Today, Wednesday June 8, 2005

Source

So which one is OutOfBreath's local paper I wonder. I remember at the time I posted it, Susan said she hadn't heard or read anything about it. I think it's fair to say that I posted it in a timely manner and for C&Fers it was likely the first place they heard of it. That isn't why I do it, but it doesn't support OutOfBreath's implication that I'm posting old news that's not worth mentioning.

[ChrisA]

OutOfBreath's point was that the articles posted were by "whack-os" and weren't worth the pixels they're printed with basically. He thinks this demonstrates why on line debates are no good. Sure, it's coherent, but his point isn't. If articles and information from the Internet and newspapers aren't admissible in discussions -- sure -- why have discussions? But in the world of the coherent -- they are admissible.

This argument is really a strawman, with an ad logicam for good measure.

The fact that OutOfBreath used an ad hominem attack (whacko) does not invalidate anything else that he said. Furthermore, you have exaggerated part of his argument and left out other parts.

The argument as I read it, simplified and stripped of ad hominem asides, was that certain politically polarized sites take a few facts and add a large amount of opinion and speculation, while leaving out other relevant facts. Meanwhile, he finds that all the relevant facts, not only selected facts, are printed in his preferred mainstream sources.

There is certainly room to debate such a position. However, you have restated his position to be that the articles here are rubbish (which is arguably part of his position), that he thinks this proves online debates worthless (whereas I only see him claiming that polarized online news sources are less credible than mainstream sources), and finally, that articles from newspapers and websites, in their unqualified whole, are not admissible in discussions (which he certainly did not say.)

This restated postion you dismiss with, "In the world of the coherent, they are admissible." Aside from being a weak argument and possibly a backhanded ad hominem, it's not countering the position the OutOfBreath actually stated, but the one that you represented him as having.

You haven't demonstrated that my arguments are "deceptive." I agree that there are problems with the online debates in this forum, that's what we're addressing in this thread, but my presentations are not "deceptive," and it doesn't demonstrate that these discussions aren't worth having.

I believe I already noted that 'not worth having' is a matter of pure opinion, and not something that can be demonstrated.

To be strictly accurate, what I have demonstrated is that you are using logical fallacies in the course of your debate. I consider the regular use of logical fallacy in debate to be a form of deception.

The problems arise when information that is outside of the conservative politically filtered "official truth" are presented and get attacked and insulted without substantiation. When the person presenting the material attempts to defend what they’ve posted and additional assaults are launched in return, it gets nasty, and people come out of the woodwork denouncing the entire discussion. These people are generally those who aren't comfortable with the obvious conclusions resulting from the information provided both in the initial post and in the defense of the attacks. Instead of examining the facts and gaining anything from it -- they condemn the whole lot and start criticizing the messenger.

This is a thesis that has been presented repeatedly, but I don't find it credible. It presupposes the motivations of everyone criticizing 'non-conservative' posts, and claims broadly, that all or most of the arguments against the 'non-conservative' posts by conservatives are unsubstantiated, ad hominem, or both. This thesis does not address the possibility that people might genuinely disagree with the posted information, that they might agree with the posted facts but disagree with the conclusions that you consider obvious, and so on.

These thesis also entirely ignores the converse case of a conservative post receiving criciticism from a non-conservative party.

If we're ever going to get anywhere with these discussions it will have to start at the point of the errant attack on the initial posting. If that were possible we wouldn't have to have discussions about discussions.

It seems to me that the only thing that needs to be done to deal with an unsubstantiated ad hominem argument is to point out that it -is- an unsubstantiated ad hominem argument. In the case of 'rolly eyes', I think the lack of substantial argument is self-evident and does not even need to be addressed.

[ChrisA]

While proof that he had read the article at the time and proof that the article was printed at the time are both substantion of his assertion, proof that the article was printed at the time is not proof that he had read the article at the time.

(Proof that he had read the article at the time, however, would prove that the article was printed at the time, since it would otherwise have been impossible to read it.)

Come on, Chris, look what the man said:

This is a 'tu quoque' ('you too') fallacy, and a Red Herring as well.

That OutOfBreath made a generalization without substantion has no bearing on whether the proof you demanded of him was impossible. Whether or not another party has used a false or weak argument doesn't make your argument any stronger or more valid.

Aside from that, argument around OutOfBreath's generalizations is a Red Herring, because it has no bearing on whether or not "Can you prove that you read the story about the Downing Street Memo in your local paper before I posted it here?" is an impossible demand.

(It has a relationship, of course, in that it prompted the demand. It does not, however, have a logical relationship to the point being challenged, which is one of the demand for proof being impossible.)

All that needs to be done to resolve this point, really, is for you to admit that the demand was impossible as phrased. I believe it's clear from your earlier argument on this point that you would be willing to substitute, "Can your prove that the story was published in your local paper before I posted it here?".

It is difficult, however, to apply this correction to your earlier position if you're not willing to admit that there was even an error in your earlier position.

[jGilder]

The fact that OutOfBreath used an ad hominem attack (whacko) does not invalidate anything else that he said. Furthermore, you have exaggerated part of his argument and left out other parts.

The argument as I read it, simplified and stripped of ad hominem asides, was that certain politically polarized sites take a few facts and add a large amount of opinion and speculation, while leaving out other relevant facts. Meanwhile, he finds that all the relevant facts, not only selected facts, are printed in his preferred mainstream sources.

I love the way you defend OutOfBreath's vicious bile with your erudite jargon. You sound like a defense attorney at Mike Tyson's ear-biting trial. The truth is that OutOfBreath's post was an attack -- plain and simple. He was giving his errant reasoning for dismissing me and my sources. He has a history of attacking me in this forum for what I present, and this was no exception.

To be strictly accurate, what I have demonstrated is that you are using logical fallacies in the course of your debate. I consider the regular use of logical fallacy in debate to be a form of deception.

Well I think we are in disagreement about what you consider a "logical fallacy" to be. I think your case is weak and your defense of OutOfBreath's attack to be uh... mesmerizing perhaps... but without any real substantiation.

The problems arise when information that is outside of the conservative politically filtered "official truth" are presented and get attacked and insulted without substantiation. When the person presenting the material attempts to defend what they’ve posted and additional assaults are launched in return, it gets nasty, and people come out of the woodwork denouncing the entire discussion. These people are generally those who aren't comfortable with the obvious conclusions resulting from the information provided both in the initial post and in the defense of the attacks. Instead of examining the facts and gaining anything from it -- they condemn the whole lot and start criticizing the messenger.

This is a thesis that has been presented repeatedly, but I don't find it credible. It presupposes the motivations of everyone criticizing 'non-conservative' posts, and claims broadly, that all or most of the arguments against the 'non-conservative' posts by conservatives are unsubstantiated, ad hominem, or both. This thesis does not address the possibility that people might genuinely disagree with the posted information, that they might agree with the posted facts but disagree with the conclusions that you consider obvious, and so on.

These thesis also entirely ignores the converse case of a conservative post receiving criciticism from a non-conservative party.

The difference is that the attacks are coming from right-wingers and conservatives for the most part, and challenges are coming from the rest. If you did an honest review you would discover that the response from right-wingers has been hostile while the response from the more progressive members have been much more civil. Since no one will be willing to do any realistic study based on all the past postings I’m sure the site's conservatives will no doubt disagree -- but this is what I've observed. The trouble has consistently started when the name-calling and insults commence from the right. I can’t speak for all the progressives, but it’s not my style to attack postings from conservatives in this fashion. When something is posted that I’m in disagreement with, I have always posted my positions, explained why I had them, and provided any evidence to support it. This is what I expect, but rarely receive in return.

[OutOfBreath]

I don’t think you’re being honest here.

Can you prove that you read the story about the Downing Street Memo in your local paper before I posted it here?

Unsupported assertion (argument then discusses jGilder's point, not OutOfBreath's point.)
Putting words into other people's mouths.
Ad hominem (= "you're a liar"), and an impossible demand.

My assertion IS supported by what OutOfBreath said.

(this chronologically preceded the quote above) about the time you "break" them I read about them in my local paper - the difference being that you usually cite some Internet wacko who is publishing one third of the story that was in my local paper.

He clearly claims that in his local paper he reads the stories I've presented, and in better detail, before I posted them here. This is an unsubstantiated claim, and I suspect he's being dishonest -- but my suspicion comes for good reason and I'm requesting his proof. This isn’t an “impossible demand” and it’s reasonable to request it on account of most newspapers having an online presence.

Let's see, you quote me, claim I said something that any reasonably bright ninth grader can clearly see I did not say, and offer that as evidence of my dishonesty?! :roll: You're either a typical troll or you really do have a serious reading comprehension problem (which would explain a lot)! Either way, I've wasted enough time on you (frankly you bore me, I guess I'm just not "conservative enough" to let you get under my skin like you managed with IRtrad4u ). You may recall that my point was that most folks in online "debates" are more interested in sharpening axes than honest discourse and you've certainly proved my point several times over in this thread!

(Emphasis and italics in above quotes are mine.)

[NicoMoreno]

Forget it.

[NicoMoreno]

Oh and to Dale's original question:

Yes. Emphatically yes.

I have yet to have a reasonable discussion about politics with anyone. (By reasonable, I mean not heated, violent, mean, illogical, etc) By this of course I mean in person, as (except for the Army thread, which I don't really view as political, as much as legal) I do not post political opinions in discussions.

The big problem I have with saying an American president is wrong, is thatI don't even live in America. So I don't.

[jGilder]

Let's see, you quote me, claim I said something that any reasonably bright ninth grader can clearly see I did not say, and offer that as evidence of my dishonesty?! :roll: You're either a typical troll or you really do have a serious reading comprehension problem (which would explain a lot)! Either way, I've wasted enough time on you (frankly you bore me, I guess I'm just not "conservative enough" to let you get under my skin like you managed with IRtrad4u ). You may recall that my point was that most folks in online "debates" are more interested in sharpening axes than honest discourse and you've certainly proved my point several times over in this thread!

OutOfBreath himself absolves me even better than I can. I rest my case.

[jGilder]

Forget it.

Too late...

Blatant lie. I've looked over your posts, and I'm convinced of it.

Hi nico, I was wondering where you were. There's a line starting for all those who love to attack me. OutOfBreath is just after calling me a troll. So you say I'm telling a "blatant lie" eh? Good one.

(PS, that's precisely how you "disproved" an original post to you, from myself, so if it's not enough proof, well, then it wasn't for you either, and that follows that you have certainly not "always" provided evidence)

Oh, now I see why you edited out this comment -- you knew I would ask you to substantiate it with proof. Funny how I always ask for proof, isn't it? Well, as they say -- A few facts always spoil a good story.

[ChrisA]

I love the way you defend OutOfBreath's vicious bile with your erudite jingoism. You sound like a defense attorney at Mike Tyson's ear-biting trial. The truth is that OutOfBreath's post was an attack -- plain and simple. He was giving his errant reasoning for dismissing me and my sources. He has a history of attacking me in this forum for what I present, and this was no exception.

I'm pleased that you think me erudite. However, you mistake my intention entirely. I am not particularly interested in defending OutOfBreath's case, except to the extent that I'm pointing out that beneath -his- logical fallacies, there was actually the kernel of an argument, and even that defense is only in the interest in pointing out the fallacies in your arguments. My -entire- point here is that the level of debate here consists of far too much in the way of ad hominems, 'spin', and far too little in the way of any solid reasoning. Nor am solely criticizing you for these flaws, but you responded with arguments to my criticisms.

As far as determining any truth is concerned, you have applied a fine ad hominem to myself, asserted without substantiation that OutOfBreath's post was an errant reasoning, and applied another ad hominem to OutOfBreath.

To be clear here, an ad hominem is not strictly an insult, but an attack on the person rather than the argument. In this case, that OutOfBreath may have an antogonistic history, has no bearing on whether or not what he said was -true- or -not true-.

Technically, calling OutOfBreath's argument 'vicious bile' is more of a unsubstantiated statement in preducial language than an ad hominem.

As to whether or not OutOfBreath's post was an 'attack', I don't think that's in dispute. The question is, was it an attack on your -argument- or an attack on your -person-. I maintain that there were elements of both, that it was not -purely- ad hominem.

Well I think we are in disagreement about what you consider a "logical fallacy" to be. I think your case is weak and your defense of OutOfBreath's attack to be uh... mesmerizing perhaps... but without any real substantiation.

You may wish to review this site then:
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

Or find another, if you like, there are a number of sites with more or less explanation around the web.

Although an index of them does little good. A course in 'Logic' or in 'Critical Thinking' is probably the best way to first understand logic and logical fallacies.

You are, of course, welcome to point out the specific weaknesses in my arguments. However, I would prefer it if you could refrain from insulting me.

The difference is that the attacks are coming from right-wingers and conservatives for the most part, and challenges are coming from the rest.

I respectfully suggest that one is always inclined to feel offended at any criticism of one's ideas, and one often feels righteously correct when criticising another's ideas. We are, after all, inclined to believe our own ideas are right, and not to offer criticism unless we believe we see an error in another's idea.

I also refer you to 'prejudicial language' on the aforementioned site. I do not understand a difference between 'attacks' and 'challenges' in any denotative sense. Both are being used to mean an argument against a presented point. One has a connatation of violence and unfairness, and the other a connotation of righteous criticism. However, the real test is whether the individual arguments are empty ad hominems, or have some actual substance. (A post of only a laughy-face or rolling-eye face is clearly an empty argument, whether posted by yourself, or IRTradRU, or anyone else.)

[ChrisA]

Let's see, you quote me, claim I said something that any reasonably bright ninth grader can clearly see I did not say, and offer that as evidence of my dishonesty?!

Aside from the ad hominems and prejudicial language, there is an actual point of interest in here. Having gone back and looked, it is true that it was in seperate statements, in seperate posts, that OutOfBreath claimed - as seperate claims - that his local papers 'usually' covered the issues 'about the time' that jGilder posted them here. 'Before' was not claimed, nor was any specific subject claimed to be timely.

It was claimed that the Downing Street Menu was covered '17 ways from Sunday', but that claim was in a different post from the one about timeliness.

So, that particularly line of criticism is, in fact, a perfect strawman argument - an argument that OutOfBreath did not make was presented and then attacked.

On the other hand, OutOfBreath's implication that this proves himself 'honest' would also be a fallacy. Whether or not jGilder uses a strawman argument has no bearing on the level of reporting that does, or does not exist, in the local papers where OutOfBreath lives.

Nor has the implication that jGilder is -dishonest- been actually proven by this; it's only been shown that he misstated OutOfBreath's position. This could have been an actual misunderstanding. (It sounded about right to me until I went back and checked, so, I have to believe it's plausible. Nobody -has- to believe me, of course, but that's my testimony)


--ChrisA

[ChrisA]

OutOfBreath himself absolves me even better than I can. I rest my case.

It is still a fallacy to believe that a weak or false argument by your opponent proves anything about your own case. I will concede that his words indicate an antagonistic demeanor, and corroborate that he does condemn online debate generally. (This is, by the by, an example of how one concedes a point. I haven't seen that done very much on this site. Possibly never in a political context. I believe in a flute context, when presented with sufficient documentation, people have conceded points.)

It still does not address the crown of your strawman where you assigned to OutOfBreath the unqualified, blanket claim that citations of newspapers and websites was invalid.

[NicoMoreno]

Forget it.

Too late...

No I edited it out because I realized it was not nice, or relevant and because I realized you'd only use it to confuse the real issue (ChrisA's intelligent posts) and obscure discussion.

Also, I edited it out almost as soon as I put it up (within 10 minutes) so you can take it down now, thanks.

Hmm, btw, I did offer proof (a "source", if you will). I just require you to go back and find it. Do your own homework.

[jGilder]

It still does not address the crown of your strawman where you assigned to OutOfBreath the unqualified, blanket claim that citations of newspapers and websites was invalid.

I really don't know much about scarecrows, but if you go 2 pages back and look at his post just following my Magical Mystery Tour one, you'll see he's referring to my metaphor with the bus and the information I post when he makes his case that none of it is credible. That's what I was basing my comments on, and I wasn't saying he was making any blanket claims about all media including his local paper. He was making a blanket claim about the articles I post. As for his insulting language -- that has been a hallmark in his posts to me ever since I first encountered him.

[Wombat]

To be strictly accurate, what I have demonstrated is that you are using logical fallacies in the course of your debate. I consider the regular use of logical fallacy in debate to be a form of deception.

.

Chris, I haven't tracked through the exchanges you have been having and most of your points looked reasonable when I skimmed them just now. But the informal fallacies you brandish repeatedly are not laws of any formalised system of logic, deductive (or inductive).

Although no standard current textbook on practical reasoning reflects this adequately, the stock chapters on informal fallacies are really misleading. Most of the rhetorical tricks identified have numerous exceptions. (When they don't, that is because the exceptions are excluded by definition as when fallacious appeals to authority are labelled 'appeal to unqualified authority,' thus directing attention away from the need to scrutinise the evidential mechanism that has been subverted in the fallacious appeals.)

The rhetorical tricks are better compared to tax law rather than natural law. By that I mean that any listing of rhetorical tricks needs to be updated regularly to close the loopholes being exploited by those who treat the last listing of informal fallacies as though they were natural laws. Informal fallacies can never be catalogued once and for all. Let me illustrate with an extreme example. There are occasions when even an ad hominem abusive is a reasonable move in a conversation, namely, when your opponent is countering what you say by going back to the very beginning again and again and simply repeating everything said before at great length but subtly rephrasing in the hope of provoking you into something that can be labelled a fallacy. (The filibuster is a variation on this tactic.) If that happens to me at a party and I lose patience—at some point it is rational to lose patience—an ad hominem abusive seems entirely appropriate. Why wouldn't it be? Detecting who is exploiting rhetorical tricks and who is the victim of them is an art not a science.

A couple of members of this board who shall remain nameless trade on refusing to acknowledge the point I have just made, even when it is spelt out to them carefully in PMs.