Debate About Debating!

[ioioouiouiouio]

Theopneustos

And we have logos, which is evidence and reasoning or both.

yes, and that is what I believe to be the heart and soul of debate. The other one (pathos) is a rather foolish thing. Heck, it's got it's own logical fallacy named after it.

Quote:

I would wonder, if you did debate that you were God, on how you would demonstrate your reasoning and evidence.

So would I, incidentally.  

[Sinner]

Gilwen

Okay, let me rephrase. At this conjecture, the question has not been (and at least on Gaia probably will not be) finally answered by us.

See, this is where you're still wrong. The question has been answered.

From a logical standpoint, the existance of an object is determined by whether or not it appears to exist. If it does not appear to exist, then it can be assumed that it does not. Since God's existance is taken on faith and not evidence, it can be assumed that God does not exist.

The issue is that simple, from a debate standpoint.

Gilwen

Not when it became structured and the participants began formulating rebuttals, etc. So I believed what was under discussion was the common use of the word "debate" as it's used in FireFall, not the common use of the word elsewhere, of which I am well aware.

Since this discussion was inspired by an argument about debate in general and not your "Firefall-debate-thing", I fail to see where you drew that assumption.

On a side note, this is a debate. Right here. Right now. It's structured, albeit informally so. We are making points and counterpoints, and rebutting the points of the other. It's about as informal as a debate can get, but it still counts.  

[Gilwen]

Sinner

See, this is where you're still wrong. The question has been answered.

From a logical standpoint, the existance of an object is determined by whether or not it appears to exist. If it does not appear to exist, then it can be assumed that it does not. Since God's existance is taken on faith and not evidence, it can be assumed that God does not exist.

The issue is that simple, from a debate standpoint.

Since by "appears" I take it you are referring to perception, I suggest that a debate based on perception alone is no debate at all. Causality and observation prove hypotheses, not perception. If what something "appears" carried all the weight of logical arguments, we would not believe in anything which we cannot see or experience directly (which you may or may not, I don't know).

Why do scientists believe in electrons? Not because they appear to exists, but because scientists draw on what they believe to be effects of electrons on the world. There is no reason to refute the argument for a cause logically, unless there is evidence against the argument.

Now, if all people were blind and could not see the color of the sky during the day, it would not be conclusive that the sky does not appear blue (pretend I'm adding a complete explanation of why the sky appears blue. It's not just a matter of perception.) to someone with sight, simply because it doesn't appear that way to the observers. You may say it would still be illogical to believe the sky appeared blue, if one could never see for himself. But that ruins your whole argument. You're not saying that debate is for the ultimate purpose of determining what is logical, but what is right. What the facts support. Who wins. In which case the lone person who says "Hey, I think the sky appears blue" is right, even though he has no direct proof of the fact. If debate is for the mere purpose of logic, with no greater purpose or room for other possibilities, it's pointless, because it makes no attempt to tell us about what actually is.

Quote:

Since this discussion was inspired by an argument about debate in general and not your "Firefall-debate-thing", I fail to see where you drew that assumption.

On a side note, this is a debate. Right here. Right now. It's structured, albeit informally so. We are making points and counterpoints, and rebutting the points of the other. It's about as informal as a debate can get, but it still counts.

The first post makes several references to the "FireFall-debate" question (the difference between discussion and debate, the quote by Gendou made during the FireFall "no debating" period regarding FireFall debates, etc), so I made the assumption easily.

If you believe this to be a debate, you can easily see the importance of rhetoric: If I swore at you, called you an idiot, and used ridiculous illustrations, it wouldn't matter how logical or factual I was being in between. I would still look like the idiot, next to your polite, straightforward presentation of the facts. Debates are usually public. This "debate" is public. There will always be the element of rhetoric (or you wouldn't be going through the trouble of trying to type out complete sentences) in public speech, even in an ultra-informal debate. This is because how other people respond to an argument is important. You may have all the evidence in the world that snorfblats fro Ottslork have waffiepemps, but if you can't present your argument in public, and by your presentation convince people that your interpretation of the facts is best, there's no way of knowing that you didn't make up snorfblats entirely.

I'll try to answer your next reply soon, but you're too fast for me! smile

~Gilwen  

[Sinner]

Gilwen

Why do scientists believe in electrons? Not because they appear to exists, but because scientists draw on what they believe to be effects of electrons on the world.

Double-you tee eff?

The effects of electrons are what cause them to appear to exist. C'mon, you know this stuff.

Gilwen

You may say it would still be illogical to believe the sky appeared blue, if one could never see for himself. But that ruins your whole argument. You're not saying that debate is for the ultimate purpose of determining what is logical, but what is right. What the facts support. Who wins. In which case the lone person who says "Hey, I think the sky appears blue" is right, even though he has no direct proof of the fact.

Which, although is irrititating, is unavoidable.

People can be right without being able to support their argument. Your example demonstrates this. But that doesn't change anything that I said.

Gilwen

If debate is for the mere purpose of logic, with no greater purpose or room for other possibilities, it's pointless, because it makes no attempt to tell us about what actually is.

What?

You're speaking nonsense. Logic is used to determine what is or isn't true.

If you're referring to absolutes, that's true. We cannot be absolutely sure what does or doesn't exist. But that's a good thing, not a bad one.

Gilwen

If you believe this to be a debate, you can easily see the importance of rhetoric: If I swore at you, called you an idiot, and used ridiculous illustrations, it wouldn't matter how logical or factual I was being in between. I would still look like the idiot, next to your polite, straightforward presentation of the facts.

See, this is your entire problem right here.

It doesn't actually matter how you "look". The content is what matters. If you swore at me and acted like an idiot, but still made a good argument, you still win, even if the audience isn't impressed.

The goal isn't to look good, it's to demonstrate that you're right.

Gilwen

Debates are usually public. This "debate" is public. There will always be the element of rhetoric (or you wouldn't be going through the trouble of trying to type out complete sentences) in public speech, even in an ultra-informal debate.

But this, as I pointed out above, is confusing the goal. Debate isn't for the looking smart.

Gilwen

there's no way of knowing that you didn't make up snorfblats entirely.

What do you mean? If you presented the evidence and explained why you're right, then you've done all you need to do to demonstrate that snorfblats from Ottslork have waffiepemps.  

[Theopneustos]

Sinner

But you see, that's the problem right there. With that line, you're equating the success of a debate with the persuasion of others. By saying that debate should not be used to convince others of falsehoods, you're saying that debate is for the purpose of convincing others to follow the truth, not to determine what the truth actually is.

I shall quote Gorgias:

"A marvel, indeed, Socrates, if you only knew how rhetoric comprehends and holds under her sway all the inferior arts. Let me offer you a striking example of this. On several occasions I have been with my brother Herodicus or some other physician to see one of his patients, who would not allow the physician to give him medicine, or apply a knife or hot iron to him; and I have persuaded him to do for me what he would not do for the physician just by the use of rhetoric. And I say that if a rhetorician and a physician were to go to any city, and had there to argue in the Ecclesia or any other assembly as to which of them should be elected state-physician, the physician would have no chance; but he who could speak would be chosen if he wished; and in a contest with a man of any other profession the rhetorician more than any one would have the power of getting himself chosen, for he can speak more persuasively to the multitude than any of them, and on any subject.

"Such is the nature and power of the art of rhetoric. And yet, Socrates, rhetoric should be used like any other competitive art, not against everybody-the rhetorician ought not to abuse his strength any more than a pugilist or pancratiast or other master of fence; because he has powers which are more than a match either for friend or enemy, he ought not therefore to strike, stab, or slay his friends.

"Suppose a man to have been trained in the palestra and to be a skilful boxer-he in the fulness of his strength goes and strikes his father or mother or one of his familiars or friends; but that is no reason why the trainers or fencing-masters should be held in detestation or banished from the city-surely not. For they taught their art for a good purpose, to be used against enemies and evil-doers, in self-defence not in aggression, and others have perverted their instructions, and turned to a bad use their own strength and skill. But not on this account are the teachers bad, neither is the art in fault, or bad in itself; I should rather say that those who make a bad use of the art are to blame. And the same argument holds good of rhetoric; for the rhetorician can speak against all men and upon any subject-in short, he can persuade the multitude better than any other man of anything which he pleases, but he should not therefore seek to defraud the physician or any other artist of his reputation merely because he has the power; he ought to use rhetoric fairly, as he would also use his athletic powers. And if after having become a rhetorician he makes a bad use of his strength and skill, his instructor surely ought not on that account to be held in detestation or banished.

"For he was intended by his teacher to make a good use of his instructions, but he abuses them. And therefore he is the person who ought to be held in detestation, banished, and put to death, and not his instructor."

And from Wikipedia:

"Today the term rhetoric can be used at times to refer only to the form of argumentation, often with the pejorative connotation that rhetoric is a means of obscuring the truth. Classical philosophers believed quite the contrary: the skilled use of rhetoric was essential to the discovery of truths, because it provided the means of ordering and clarifying arguments."

Cometh The Inquisitor

yes, and that is what I believe to be the heart and soul of debate. The other one (pathos) is a rather foolish thing. Heck, it's got it's own logical fallacy named after it.

I don't believe that pathos is a foolish one. Actually, Jesus Christ used rhetorics, namely the political (deliberate) form on the Sermon on the Mount. And I don't think I would say that a logical fallacy necessarily means that it's false, if that's where you're getting at.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Theopneustos

I don't believe that pathos is a foolish one. Actually, Jesus Christ used rhetorics, namely the political (deliberate) form on the Sermon on the Mount. And I don't think I would say that a logical fallacy necessarily means that it's false, if that's where you're getting at.

I don't really see any rhetoric (beyond at it's most basic form [word choice]) in the sermon.

Logical fallacies cannot be right. However, the position they argue for can be correct. (example 'Nazis are wrong because they agree with hitler' is an example of reductio ad hitlerum [as well as guilt by association, ad hominem, and genetic fallacy], but that does not change the fact that nazis are, most assuredly, wrong)  

[Sinner]

Theopneustos

I shall quote Gorgias:

That's nice. Rhetoric is fun. But you're dodging the point. It's not an issue of whether or not rhetoric is effective at convincing people, it's that debate isn't won by rhetoric.  

[Theopneustos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

I don't really see any rhetoric (beyond at it's most basic form [word choice]) in the sermon.

There are three types. And these three types focus on their divisions, time, and ends. In political, it is exhortation or dehortation, future, and expediency and inexpediency.

Cometh The Inquisitor

Logical fallacies cannot be right. However, the position they argue for can be correct. (example 'Nazis are wrong because they agree with hitler' is an example of reductio ad hitlerum [as well as guilt by association, ad hominem, and genetic fallacy], but that does not change the fact that nazis are, most assuredly, wrong)

I wonder if certain logical fallacies, over time, came about, because someone wasn't liking what the other person was saying, and so tried to prevent them from using such argument in the future. Now, so you're saying that logical fallacies are not correct, but the position that is being argued can be. May your present another example, because I still don't understand how something can be wrong and right at the same time?

Sinner

That's nice. Rhetoric is fun. But you're dodging the point. It's not an issue of whether or not rhetoric is effective at convincing people, it's that debate isn't won by rhetoric.

Hm, I'll think about this for a bit.  

[ioioouiouiouio]

Theopneustos

I wonder if certain logical fallacies, over time, came about, because someone wasn't liking what the other person was saying, and so tried to prevent them from using such argument in the future. Now, so you're saying that logical fallacies are not correct, but the position that is being argued can be. May your present another example, because I still don't understand how something can be wrong and right at the same time?

"Racism is wrong because thats what Hitler believed in."


now, the position is correct (racism is wrong), however, the fallacy itself ('because thats what hitler believed in', which is reductio ad hitlerum [Which is, according to Wikipedia "The "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy is a special case of the genetic fallacy, of the form "Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party, supported X, therefore X must be evil". This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazi"]) is wrong. Hitler also painted watercolors and was a vegetarian. Does this mean Gandhi (who was also a vegetarian) is as evil as Hitler? I doubt it.

hereis a good list of logical fallacies. I'd suggest that you look for one's that don't make sense.  

[Curium]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Theopneustos

I wonder if certain logical fallacies, over time, came about, because someone wasn't liking what the other person was saying, and so tried to prevent them from using such argument in the future. Now, so you're saying that logical fallacies are not correct, but the position that is being argued can be. May your present another example, because I still don't understand how something can be wrong and right at the same time?

"Racism is wrong because thats what Hitler believed in."


now, the position is correct (racism is wrong), however, the fallacy itself ('because thats what hitler believed in', which is reductio ad hitlerum [Which is, according to Wikipedia "The "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy is a special case of the genetic fallacy, of the form "Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party, supported X, therefore X must be evil". This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazi"]) is wrong. Hitler also painted watercolors and was a vegetarian. Does this mean Gandhi (who was also a vegetarian) is as evil as Hitler? I doubt it.

hereis a good list of logical fallacies. I'd suggest that you look for one's that don't make sense.

That is actually a very good point.  

[Theopneustos]

Cometh The Inquisitor

Theopneustos

I wonder if certain logical fallacies, over time, came about, because someone wasn't liking what the other person was saying, and so tried to prevent them from using such argument in the future. Now, so you're saying that logical fallacies are not correct, but the position that is being argued can be. May your present another example, because I still don't understand how something can be wrong and right at the same time?

"Racism is wrong because thats what Hitler believed in."


now, the position is correct (racism is wrong), however, the fallacy itself ('because thats what hitler believed in', which is reductio ad hitlerum [Which is, according to Wikipedia "The "reductio ad Hitlerum" fallacy is a special case of the genetic fallacy, of the form "Adolf Hitler, or the Nazi party, supported X, therefore X must be evil". This fallacy is often effective due to the near-instant condemnation of anything to do with Hitler or the Nazi"]) is wrong. Hitler also painted watercolors and was a vegetarian. Does this mean Gandhi (who was also a vegetarian) is as evil as Hitler? I doubt it.

hereis a good list of logical fallacies. I'd suggest that you look for one's that don't make sense.

That was actually a great example. I believe it would be best, however, to say that racism is wrong, and then give your basis for such belief. This would not be fallacious in any way.

Thanks for the link also. I've been at Wikipedia's logical fallacies. Quite extensive.  

[Theopneustos]

I must ask:

• What is a debate?
  
• How should a debate be presented?
  
• What tools can be used in a debate?

 

[Curium]

My thread died! crying crying crying

Theo, I think this site should mostly answer your questions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate

There are also links on this site which may answer any further inquiries you may have regarding your previous questions.  

[sunshinehearttrob]

Curium

So I guess my point is to see what everyone else thinks about the nature of debate. What takes a debate too far? What makes a debate..a debate? How can we tell if a discussion has in fact become a debate?

i think emotions make a debate go too far. emotions make everything go too far of course. a debate is just one side against another side. both with different opposing opinions. and both persuading different things to try to convince the other group to their side of thinking. discussion is just talking, debate is talking but more to a tense degree. with sides and persuadion involved. i love debating. it gets ideas and thoughts out into the open.  

[pnai_pride777]

well hmmm i believe a debate is a resonable converational arguement bades on facts and logic and some opinion.

obviously you dont want to get physical when debating otherwise it turns into a fight, even talking trash to each other thats no longer a debate.