Has debate become futile?

[Walden]

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.

Moi?

[Wombat]

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.

Moi?

Of course not.

But keep your guesses to yourself please.

[Walden]

But keep your guesses to yourself please.

Awww... but I had a real doozie of a next guess!

[Wombat]

But keep your guesses to yourself please.

Awww... but I had a real doozie of a next guess!

I bet you did.

[ChrisA]

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).

Certainly, my understanding of logical fallacies is that they are essentially shorthand for referring to something which can be shown to be erroneous reasoning. It is probably impossible to create a consistent, formal set of rules of logic that apply across all of natural language. And certainly there are exceptions to be made for some logical fallacies. However, the exceptions that are to be made are for when the rhetorical method is not illogical. Appeal to authority is not illogical if you are citing an authority -on the topic-, it's a fallacy only when you assign authority to someone because they are recogonized in an -unrelated- area.

Strawman arguments however, are always logical fallacies, no matter how common they may be. I always read closely any restatement of the other side's position, because it such a common rhetorical technique. No matter how common it becomes, it is still a deceptive practice that diminishes the value of the argument (though it usually increases the swaying power of the argument to those who don't read or listen closely, hence its popularity.)
Whether a restatement of a position is a -misstatement- of a position is something that is not always crystal clear, of course.

I disagree that ad hominem -abusive- (insulting) is the appropriate way to deal with any argument. It may make you -feel- better, but if the opponent's argument is really just repetition, then you can point out that it is just repetition (argument ad naseum), and if they keep at it, you can point out that they kept at it, and therefore you find no value in continuing the debate, and leave that as your closing point and -walk away-.
(Ad hominem abusive is, however, appropiate under certain circumstances other than debate, such as when a punter spills a pint of guiness into your lap or your instrument case. )

It is sometimes reasonable to use other kinds of ad hominem arguments, in cases where the person themselves is actually the topic of debate, such as in an election or a courtroom trial. When the person themselves -is- the topic of debate, then ad hominem is not a fallacy but on point. An -insult- however, still adds no real value (if, by value, we mean knowledge or understanding; it may add votes, of course, hence the popularity of the technique.)

In any case, I am using the terminology because it's reasonably well defined and, if not understood, can be looked up. I believe that the errors in logic that I'm attaching the terminology to are actual errors in logic. I think using the terminology is more useful than simply stating, 'That argument is bogus', even though both are equally true.

[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 [/b]articles and information from the Internet and newspapers aren't admissible in discussions[/b] -- sure -- why have discussions?

A strawman argument is one wherein you state a position that your opponent did not take, and discredit it. I am claiming that OutOBreath -did not say- that 'articles and information from the Internet and newspaper are not admissible in discussion', which appears to be (embedded in a question though it is) your summary of OutOfBreath's position.

Clearly the position that citing the news is not admissible in a discussion is untenable. However, that is not actually the position that OutOfBreath took.

[jbarter]

Semantic (oops, sorry, wrong thread.)

[missy]

bombastic
(jbarter made me do it!)

[dwinterfield]

Debate about politics and/or policy = good reading

Debate about debate = yawn

[GaryKelly]

Fair enough, but if people come here and don't want to think about politics; why do they read the political threads? And if they aren't interested -- why do they make comments about them? I think it's obvious that there are people who are interested because the threads get a lot of interest and response.

I don't read the political threads. And I comment on them because I get pissed off with constantly seeing the same old US Political sh*t bouncing to the top of the list of threads over and over again because a couple of polar opposites will insist on gobbing off at each other.

Is it supposed to be ironic that this thread has degenerated from its original (and blindingly obvious) purpose into yet another boring and utterly useless diatribe?

Y'know, Jgilder, there are 4888 registered members here at C&F. If every one of them agreed with you wholeheartedly, signed a petition, marched on the Whitehouse, or actually did anything *practical* about the issues which so outrage you (instead of simply bleating on about it here), what do you think would happen? Would it make a blind bit of difference to your President's policies? Would it actually achieve anything at all? Would it make you happy if every single one of us posted "I agree!" in response to every one of your rants?

But I don't think all 4888 members would care to join you in any form of protest. I certainly wouldn't. Frankly I can't imagine any of the "outraged from across the pond" actually doing anything about the issues you seem to feel so strongly about. Other than filling C&F's hard drive bleating on and on about it.

The "Political/Religious" thread sits up there, practically abandoned. It was created to stop these constant whining same-o same-o posts bouncing endlessly to the top of the pile. That was the place for intelligent debate, and from what I can gather, serious subjects were debated there with civility, courtesy, and the exercise of intellect. But only by those who cared to venture in. Guess it doesn't suit yours and others 'outrage' (or attention deficit) to be restricted to a room where only the interested might venture. No, go for maximum impact instead. Yawn.

If you're really so surprised and outraged by the fact that a senior politician lied (and oh golly gee whizz that's such a big surprise, isn't it?), then go and do something about it. By all means exercise your democratic rights in a practical fashion. At the moment, all you're succeeding in doing is exercising the patience of those who really don't give a toss about George W Bush or your opinions of him.

[Joseph E. Smith]

Fair enough, but if people come here and don't want to think about politics; why do they read the political threads? And if they aren't interested -- why do they make comments about them? I think it's obvious that there are people who are interested because the threads get a lot of interest and response.

I don't read the political threads. And I comment on them because I get pissed off with constantly seeing the same old US Political sh*t bouncing to the top of the list of threads over and over again because a couple of polar opposites will insist on gobbing off at each other.... At the moment, all you're succeeding in doing is exercising the patience of those who really don't give a toss about George W Bush or your opinions of him.

Hear, hear.

I wouldn't classify any of this chest thumping and brow beating as 'debate', more like... well... chest thumping and brow beating, with a pinch of ego tossed in for good (or bad...) measure. :roll:

[ChrisA]

Debate about politics and/or policy = good reading

Debate about debate = yawn

You're entitled to feel that way if you like. However, I do not find 'debate' that consists of insults, twisting an opponent's words, and repetition of a thesis without further support to be 'good reading'. It is interesting, I suppose, in the way that a fistfight behind the school is interesting, but it isn't enlightening in any way. I feel that this, unfortunately, describes many of the 'political debate' threads here.

If people are going to insist on filling the board with lengthy political debate, I'd far prefer it if they would use sound reasoning in their arguments and a courteous tone in their rhetoric. Unfortunately, I don't see this often at all. (Then again, I don't go into the 'politics & religion' thread.)

If people are not going to be rational in their debate, then it isn't really a debate. It's only - at best - an increasingly loud and discourteous statement of positions. Often it's just an exchange of insults.

[Jerry Freeman]

As a matter of fact ...

I'm finding Chris's comments about debating tactics much more interesting than the actual disputations he's referring to. As others have said, I would also find the arguments far more interesting and useful if they were presented with some intellectual discipline and courtesy.

As I've often said, JGilder, I agree with most of the positions you post, but I'm disappointed by the fact that you continue to shoot yourself in the foot with your posting style and alienate those you purport to be trying to convince. You've questioned why I would single you out. The answer is, I agree with you, so I'm especially pained by the damage you do to a position I support. You and IrTrad have been by far the main instigators of the kind of unproductive dispute that so many are finding offensive. I've also commented directly to IrTrad at times.

Best wishes,
Jerry

[Wombat]

Debate about politics and/or policy = good reading

Debate about debate = yawn

You're entitled to feel that way if you like. However, I do not find 'debate' that consists of insults, twisting an opponent's words, and repetition of a thesis without further support to be 'good reading'. It is interesting, I suppose, in the way that a fistfight behind the school is interesting, but it isn't enlightening in any way. I feel that this, unfortunately, describes many of the 'political debate' threads here.

If people are going to insist on filling the board with lengthy political debate, I'd far prefer it if they would use sound reasoning in their arguments and a courteous tone in their rhetoric. Unfortunately, I don't see this often at all. (Then again, I don't go into the 'politics & religion' thread.)

If people are not going to be rational in their debate, then it isn't really a debate. It's only - at best - an increasingly loud and discourteous statement of positions. Often it's just an exchange of insults.

I agree with this entirely. I'll come back to your earlier post as soon as I have time, thereby alienating dwinterfield even further.

An unwillingness to engage in reflective self analysis is hardly likely to lead to improvements in rationality. If the object of debate is truth, this is like an athlete who won't analyse his technique and failings. You wouldn't expect much from such an athlete and you wouldn't be disappointed.

[herbivore12]

More and more, I find myself wishing for our own Cromwell, who dismissed Parliament once thus:

"You have sat too long for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

I now almost never read the political threads, and purposely skip over *all* posts, political or not, by several members on both sides of the political spectrum because I know there's the likelihood of insult and simple loud repetition that's frankly both boring and annoying. It's a shame when those sorts of posts happen when members chase each other from thread to thread -- even ostensibly non-political ones --posturing at each other like schoolboys. And everywhere the cry, "*He* started it!"

I love it, though, when the debate is civil and informative. There are some members here whose posts I try purposely to track down, from whom one can frequently glean little jewels, or an honest laugh. Folks whose posts are truly generous and honest and clever, even when they're taking a strong stance in opposition to someone else's opinion, or simply taking the piss. I'm grateful for those folks, truly. Even when I disagree with them.

So. I don't think debate is futile. I do think shouting matches are.