Has debate become futile?

[jbarter]

And everywhere the cry, "*He* started it!"

Oi you, that's sexist that is.

[herbivore12]

And everywhere the cry, "*He* started it!"

Oi you, that's sexist that is.

Caught!

Okay. "*They* started it!"

[missy]

no - HE started it was correct!!
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[ChrisA]

no - HE started it was correct!!
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Oi, look, now we see the reverse sexism inherent in the multicultarism!

[jGilder]

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?

I'm not running for any office, not looking for votes, etc., I'm just presenting material based on fact and the public record that gets left out of the mainstream media for the most part. If this bothers you, why do you read it, and why do you comment on it? I guess it must interest you after all then doesn't it, otherwise – why are you here? There are plenty of other threads that are better suited for your interests… aren’t there? Why waste your time here?

I didn’t invent the concept of commenting on political issues in this forum, when I joined it was already well underway. I'm just one of many contributors, so why to you single me out, are you uncomfortable with the material I present?

If you don't agree with what I present – why not join in and present your case and evidence etc.? But to just single me out and attack me personally won't accomplish anything. It doesn't contribute to the discussion, it's boring, and it's uncalled for. What do you hope to accomplish by this? Do you just want to insult me? Are you trying to reform me? Are you waging a campaign to have me removed? Does it make you feel good? What gives?

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.

I get a lot of support for my contributions to C&F, and a good deal comes from "across the pond" as well. It usually comes in the form of private email and PMs. The people that have a problem with my contributions are very public with their commentary. You can draw your own conclusions on what the difference indicates.

I'm not trying to start a Freedom March with C&F members... all I'm doing is contributing to the board and it's discussions. Just like what you're doing here -- contributing. Do you think it would be useful for me to critique you and your contributions?

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.

It must be great to be high above it all and have no opinions or concerns about the lies of world leaders and the deadly consequences. Enjoy your bliss, don't worry about such bothersome topics, and try to avoid the political threads since they're so beneath you.

[dwinterfield]

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.

Now we're in trouble because we all agree. I'm interested in discussing political and policy issues with people that may not agree with me.

Chris has it exactly right.

"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"

My point with my previous post is that, while I will debate or discuss or any number of other topics, when we find ourselves focusing on each others technique rather than the substance of our ideas, we have all lost a bit. While I commend Chris's effort to introduce some careful analysis of debate techniques and logic, it's a shame that he has to do so.

I have convictions on most of these topics, but am discouraged from posting because of the inflamatory, irrational tone of some of the threads.

[Wombat]

Certainly, my understanding of logical fallacies is that they are essentially shorthand for referring to something which can be shown to be erroneous reasoning.

Now that's just counterassertion.

Seriously, I might as well confess. I earn part of my living teaching this stuff and I'm deeply dissatisfied with textbook treatments of informal reasoning. To some extent, I'm still working out my views but I don't think you'll mind if I try them out on you.

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.

I think there are two kinds of bad move in argument. One is to supply weak support for your conclusion and theat is a straightforward failure of a deductive or inductive kind. The other is to make a move that subverts the legitmate soicial point of argumentation. So-called informal fallacies fall into the second category. As such they are failures of debating etiquette. Now my point was that debating etiquette is just like etiquette of other kinds—any attempt to codify it can be subverted by someone determined so to do. That's why yesterday's informal fallacies need to be reassessed today lest we let people get away with deliberate subversion by slipping through the loopholes we can't help but leave.

I take it that the first principle of informal logic is that anything which hinders the sincere pursuit of truth is to be condemned, whether or not it has previously been codified and that anything that helps us to subvert the subversion is legitimate, even if it has previously been condemned.

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.

This is one of the 'fallacies' that is hardest to undermine, that's for sure. Genuine misrepresentation is always wrong. But even here it is possible to think of circumstances in which it would not be wrong to misrepresent what a debater is explicitly saying. Suppose you are arguing with someone in front of an audience who are known to be bigoted in a certain respect. Suppose you appear to be losing the argument because your adversary is assuming that the audience will tacitly supply for themselves the unstated (and implausible) missing premises that alone would make his argument plausible, were they stated and true. It seems to me abundantly clear that you are entitled to attack the argument he is insinuating rather than the argument he is actually explicitly stating. Technically this is a straw man move. But, according to the first principle I suggested earlier it is legitimate.

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-.

Ending an argument by walking away is just rude. It's as bad as any verbal insult. The truth of the matter is that in the case I described, there's nothing you can do that doesn't conflict with written-in-stone conventions of debating etiquette. That was precisely my point. It has nothing to do with feeling better.

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.

I basically agree with this so long as you don't lose sight of the point of naming certain violations of debating etiquette. My point, and I stand by it, is that an informal logic text, in the hands of a determined dissembler, is a challenge and a secret weapon and not an insuperable obstacle. Of course, I'm not accusing you of attempting to dissemble. But the idea that there are moves that are intrinsically fallacious except when we are confronted with an exception tends to obscure the reasons why some uses are misleading and others aren't.

[jbarter]

I guess it must interest you after all then doesn't it, otherwise – why are you here?

Because occasionally these threads get hijacked (why isn't that 'liberated'?) and morph into something that does interest me.

Nothing personal guys, I like chats, I like discussions, I just don't like debates. The only thing I've really learnt from most of these posts is that (at the moment at least) American politics is extremely polarised.

[GaryKelly]

I'm not running for any office, not looking for votes, etc., I'm just presenting material based on fact and the public record that gets left out of the mainstream media for the most part.

Which part of the definition of 'Troll' are you having difficulty with?

If this bothers you, why do you read it, and why do you comment on it? I guess it must interest you after all then doesn't it, otherwise – why are you here? There are plenty of other threads that are better suited for your interests… aren’t there? Why waste your time here?

Which part of my opening sentence ("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.") are you having difficulty understanding?

I didn’t invent the concept of commenting on political issues in this forum, when I joined it was already well underway. I'm just one of many contributors, so why to you single me out, are you uncomfortable with the material I present?

I'm rapidly forming the conclusion that you really are word-blind when it comes to opinions you disagree with. I'll post my opening sentence again, perhaps you'll take the trouble to read it this time:

"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."

If you don't agree with what I present – why not join in and present your case and evidence etc.? But to just single me out and attack me personally won't accomplish anything. It doesn't contribute to the discussion, it's boring, and it's uncalled for. What do you hope to accomplish by this? Do you just want to insult me? Are you trying to reform me? Are you waging a campaign to have me removed? Does it make you feel good? What gives?

See above.

I get a lot of support for my contributions to C&F, and a good deal comes from "across the pond" as well. It usually comes in the form of private email and PMs. The people that have a problem with my contributions are very public with their commentary. You can draw your own conclusions on what the difference indicates.

I get thousands of PMs and private emails, from all over the world, all telling me what a jolly good egg I am and complaining about political trolls and the flame-wars they create. You can draw your own conclusions on what the difference indicates.

I'm not trying to start a Freedom March with C&F members... all I'm doing is contributing to the board and it's discussions. Just like what you're doing here -- contributing. Do you think it would be useful for me to critique you and your contributions?

Up to you. Personally I think it would be useful if you'd post your 'contributions' into the sticky political thread, where IRTradRU and yourself can flame each other all you like without your 'contributions' bouncing to the top of the list and in our faces ad nauseam.

It must be great to be high above it all and have no opinions or concerns about the lies of world leaders and the deadly consequences. Enjoy your bliss, don't worry about such bothersome topics, and try to avoid the political threads since they're so beneath you.

Again, which part of my opening remarks are you having such trouble understanding? Would you like me to repeat them here yet again?

You see, I do have opinions and concerns, but unlike you I don't waste my life trawling the internet looking for anti-Bush "material based on fact and the public record that gets left out of the mainstream media for the most part". I'm perfectly capable of using internet search engines, and I have all the subscriptions to newsfeeds I require, ta very much.

I am also keenly aware that there is absolutely nothing I can do to influence 'world leaders', whether they lie or not. I suppose I could vent my 'outrage' with trolling and flaming here, but I have far too much respect for my friends here on the board, let alone any newbies who might venture in. Besides, I received tens of thousands of PMs and private emails from them all begging me not to. Most of those myriad PMs and private emails are from across the pond, and for some strange reason they don't seem to give a toss about Tony Blair and his lies, or the MP for Swindon North. Strange, huh?

[perrins57]

I'm confused Dale. If you think debate has become futile, why start a dabate about it?

[jbarter]

I'm confused Dale. If you think debate has become futile, why start a dabate about it?

Aha! The truth is out! Dale is the undisputed king of internet tinwhistle trolling. He set up this whole site just to annoy us.

[ChrisA]

Now that's just counterassertion.

Yep.

So-called informal fallacies fall into the second category. As such they are failures of debating etiquette.

This is one way of looking at it, but they are also failures in logic in the sense that they don't actually do anything to support the case being made. They are material which purports to support a case, but fails to do so - unless observers, the opponent, or both happen to overlook the error and are taken in by the deception. (Note, I don't necessarilly say these
are -deliberate- deceptions, though they may be. A strawman type error can be based on a
actual misunderstanding, it doesn't have to be a deliberate twisting of words.)

So, I would say they are not only failures in etiquette, but also failure to actually support the argument.

I take it that the first principle of informal logic is that anything which hinders the sincere pursuit of truth is to be condemned, whether or not it has previously been codified and that anything that helps us to subvert the subversion is legitimate, even if it has previously been condemned.

I would entirely concur with that.

This is one of the 'fallacies' that is hardest to undermine, that's for sure. Genuine misrepresentation is always wrong. But even here it is possible to think of circumstances in which it would not be wrong to misrepresent what a debater is explicitly saying.

In such a hypothetical case as you outlined, it seems to me that the opponent is then leaving
gaping holes in his argument that you can challenge. You could even point out the his argument makes no sense without more support and put the question to him of whether or not he's presuming the thesis that we think he's implying. I think such unstated hypotheses usually leave an argument vulnerable, and that straightforward argumentation will put the opponent in the position of admitting his prejudice, conceding his argument, or (more likely) commiting some kind of error or evasion (which can then be pointed out.)

The paticular hypothetical case aside, I will concede the point that we could construct a case where a strawman argument was the most reasonable counter. Perhaps a particular instance of this hypothetical case could even be in that position, I'm not certain of that.

Ending an argument by walking away is just rude. It's as bad as any verbal insult. The truth of the matter is that in the case I described, there's nothing you can do that doesn't conflict with written-in-stone conventions of debating etiquette. That was precisely my point. It has nothing to do with feeling better.

Well, in real human conversation, it is certainly extremely rude to walk away mid-conversation. (Though I've had people contend that it isn't... but that's another story.) In online exchanges, however, figuratively walking away from a futile argument is usually the right thing to do.

My point really is, throwing insults around generally accomplishes nothing other than heated feelings. It may be an -understandable- action in a frustrating situation, but it's never one that makes a legitimate intellectual point.

My point, and I stand by it, is that an informal logic text, in the hands of a determined dissembler, is a challenge and a secret weapon and not an insuperable obstacle.

I can agree to that. Human language is extremely fluid, and human beings can be very ingenious. It is, however, more difficult to be dissemble while avoiding the major errors.

But the idea that there are moves that are intrinsically fallacious except when we are confronted with an exception tends to obscure the reasons why some uses are misleading and others aren't.

Hmmm.

For myself, generally I first see a line of argument that stands out in my mind as wrong, and then I try to categorize it. If I don't categorize the error, then all I can say is, 'that's wrong'.
Which brings us around to my dissection of a few posts - I keep looking at these debates, and thinking 'these arguments are hostile, provocative, and generally not making much sense.'

However, just saying, "You're being hostile and provactive, and not making sense" is not very helpful. I think, categorizing the errors and whittling it down to just the actual points is very helpful. Granted, it should normally be done by oneself, for oneself, but I was trying to clarify -why- the style of debate here is so poor.

In fact, I think the primary value in informal logic is not for the opponents in the debate, it is for the person trying to understand the debate. Most debate really is not about convincing your opponent, but convincing your audience. When we're in the position of an audience member, we don't want to be convinced by the fastest talker, we want to learn the truth.

Categorizing types of errors helps us quickly identify suspect elements of speech. It's more difficult to be deceptive while avoiding the common errors, and of course, it's more difficult to detect deception in speech that avoids the common errors. Opponents in a debate should, ideally, debate in a honest and forthright manner that would naturally avoid all the common errors.

The competitive nature of people, and of debate, tends to mean that debate becomes more about 'winning' and less about 'truth', but if the participants know that the audience is informed, they'll want to avoid the common errors so as to -appear- more honest. It won't force them to be honest, but it makes it -more difficult- to be dishonest.
(Of course, I think many common errors sound flawed whether you have an informed background or not... it's just harder to explain -why- something is an error without an
informed background. So, participants in debate really should learn to avoid the common errors to sound better to even an uninformed but observant audience.)

If someone wants to make a legitimate argument in the form of a common error, I think it's not unreasonable to expect them to justify the argument. An appeal to authority can be justified when the authority is in the right field (if we even need to say that - citing an authority is generally accepted anyway), an appeal to popular support can be a legitimate, if weak, point in why something should or shouldn't be law in a democratic nation. But, an appeal to authority is not appropriate across fields, and an appeal to popular suppart is not legitimate on the truth of a fact, or a question of ethics.

I think legitimate usage in the -form- of a common error can be distinguished from an error in the form of a common error. I think challenges against an apparent common error should certainly be -answerable-, that is, the person challenged shouldn't necessarilly concede that they were wrong to make that point, but they must be able to clarify why it is -not- an error in their case.

[Jeff Stallard]

Without reading all 11 pages of responses (OY!), I offer this nugget that I read just the other day in John Maxwell's "Ethics 101":

"Understanding other people means extending yourself to them and meeting them on their level, putting the burden of making a connection on yourself, not them."

Assuming he's correct, what motivation is there to work at understanding people when you're wrapped in the anonymity of the Internet? In person, there are plenty of motivators, like shame, violence, peer pressure, etc. But here, not only is there no motivation to understand, but also no real reward.

Anonymous and consequence-free environements will very rarely generate meaningful debates.

[jsluder]

Assuming he's correct, what motivation is there to work at understanding people when you're wrapped in the anonymity of the Internet? In person, there are plenty of motivators, like shame, violence, peer pressure, etc. But here, not only is there no motivation to understand, but also no real reward.

But why is an external motivation or reward necessary? Why couldn't someone simply get a feeling of satisfaction from connecting with and understanding others?

[jGilder]

Which part of the definition of 'Troll' are you having difficulty with?

I having difficulty with name-calling. You have just called me a "troll," are you proud of this? Do you really think this is appropriate?

Which part of my opening sentence ("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.") are you having difficulty understanding?

I having difficulty understanding why you read political threads if you despise them so. Is someone there forcing you to click on these discussions?

Up to you. Personally I think it would be useful if you'd post your 'contributions' into the sticky political thread, where IRTradRU and yourself can flame each other all you like without your 'contributions' bouncing to the top of the list and in our faces ad nauseam.

So is this the problem then, you can't control yourself from clicking on and reading political threads -- so you need some help? If you have it in you to click onto political threads, read and then flame them, you would be capable of avoiding them all together. The solution to your problem is one click away.

You see, I do have opinions and concerns, but unlike you I don't waste my life trawling the internet looking for anti-Bush "material based on fact and the public record that gets left out of the mainstream media for the most part". I'm perfectly capable of using internet search engines, and I have all the subscriptions to newsfeeds I require, ta very much.

You make errant assumptions about my motives for seeking to learn everything I can about what's going on in the world today. I don't doubt that you believe you are informed on all matters that you care about, and if you decided to contribute to discussions about them, that would be welcome. But your logic seems convoluted, if you don't care to contribute – why not just avoid political threads? I still don't understand your rational; you're using insults and name-calling to criticize threads that you say are full of insults and name-calling. It’s as if you’re telling people they shouldn’t smoke with a lit cigarette hanging from your lip.

I am also keenly aware that there is absolutely nothing I can do to influence 'world leaders', whether they lie or not. I suppose I could vent my 'outrage' with trolling and flaming here, but I have far too much respect for my friends here on the board, let alone any newbies who might venture in.

Then why are you flaming and venting your outrage?

Besides, I received tens of thousands of PMs and private emails from them all begging me not to. Most of those myriad PMs and private emails are from across the pond, and for some strange reason they don't seem to give a toss about Tony Blair and his lies, or the MP for Swindon North. Strange, huh?

Many people choose to not care, but why does that mean no one else can?