How to Argue

[queeg]

I would suggest that everyone without a law degree who wants to learn how to argue and defeat anyone coming to a battle of wits, to go to this web site and learn a cogent and methodical way of obliterating your opponent and their unarmed weapon.

Fallacy Tutorial

[Lindacooks]

1. Thank you!!

I have several books on logic and logical reasoning, but every bit helps. It's amazing, when you learn about logic, how easy it is to destroy the Repuke's 'arguments' on every topic.

[datasuspect]

6. except when they don't listen to reason

no matter how logically sound your argument is, it's really hard to win with their emotion-based ideas that are grounded in fundamentally flawed assumptions and presuppositions.

[Lindacooks]

9. Oh yes, I know that.

I just like being able to say 'that's an ad hominem attack!' to confuse them...

}(

Plus, it's just for my knowledge and information.

[ultraist]

17. Ad hominem attacks seem to be a favorite of those...

who cannot logically support their argument.

It seems it never fails, whenever someone is called to the table to provide some facts to back up their assertions and fails to do so, they resort to personal attacks. Must be a DU favorite.
lol!

[queeg]

13. then you pull a gun and point out

that your reality based liberal gun is bigger than their revalationist based belief gun.

[Toots]

26. Now that is a wing-nut answer if I ever heard one.

Yes pulling out a gun and threatening someone is a liberal tenet. :crazy:

[Nostradammit]

33. Wow, queeg

I am stunned by your ability to relay cogent thoughts.

Carry on, soldier.

:eyes:

[imenja]

21. few people admit they are mistaken on anything

certainly that's the case on DU. If you make a strong argument that shows that they clearly are mistaken, they simply don't respond. Or if they do, they resort to sarcasm or insult rather than addressing the points raised. There are a small number of people who say: oh, I hadn't thought of it that way, or thank you for the information, or simply I was mistaken. I think it's important for people to realize that we can't know everything and we aren't always right. I acknowledge when I don't know something or I'm shown to be mistaken. I feel confident that I know enough about some things that I don't need to pretend to know everything. So part of what is at work here is not simply an inability to reason, but a problem of ego.

[northamericancitizen]

27. Risquing to be flamed... its a male thing. imho nt

[imenja]

30. not exclusively

but I agree women seem far more likely to admit and even appreciate information that increases their knowledge on a certain issue.

[0007]

23. Isn't that the truth........yeah but, what about this? yeah but, yeah but!

good bye.

[TexasSissy]

2. Oh, yeah? Well, your mama wears army boots! Take that! nt

[catzies]

4. Tsk tsk, that's a classic ad hominem.

:P

[Clark2008]

11. Lots of cool mama's wear Army boots, now.

I don't consider that much of an attack, ad hominem or otherwise, these days.

:hi:

[queeg]

12. actually I believe it to be a Ad Hominem Abusive type fallacy

Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive.

Description of Personal Attack

A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

Examples of Personal Attack

1. In a school debate, Bill claims that the President's economic plan is unrealistic. His opponent, a professor, retorts by saying "the freshman has his facts wrong."
2. "This theory about a potential cure for cancer has been introduced by a doctor who is a known lesbian feminist. I don't see why we should extend an invitation for her to speak at the World Conference on Cancer."
3. "Bill says that we should give tax breaks to companies. But he is untrustworthy, so it must be wrong to do that."
4. "That claim cannot be true. Dave believes it, and we know how morally repulsive he is."
5. "Bill claims that Jane would be a good treasurer. However I find Bill's behavior offensive, so I'm not going to vote for Jill."
6. "Jane says that drug use is morally wrong, but she is just a goody-two shoes Christian, so we don't have to listen to her."
7. Bill: "I don't think it is a good idea to cut social programs."
Jill: "Why not?"
Bill: "Well, many people do not get a fair start in life and hence need some help. After all, some people have wealthy parents and have it fairly easy. Others are born into poverty and..."
Jill: "You just say that stuff because you have a soft heart and an equally soft head."

[TheModernTerrorist]

3. logic

was my favorite class in college :-)

[Kathy in Cambridge]

5. Me too!

I took Logic I and II. I also did very well in the analytical reasoning portion of the GRE.

[Swamp Rat]

14. Professor Rose,

Pardon the interruption... I just wanted to say that I am enjoying your class very much! :D ;)

[Redstone]

7. Thank you, thank you.

I had found this site before and lost it.

Redstone

[Cats Against Frist]

8. Knowing the logical fallacies is indispensable

Particularly for dealing with right-wing talking points. You can just about boil all right-wing propaganda down to: false dilemmas/binaries; style-over-substance; argumentum ad populum; post hoc, ergo proctor hoc and appeal to emotion.

[ultraist]

18. RW fundies LOVE false authority

"The Bible tells me so." Or, references to Rush or some other nimnod like a psuedo scientist.

[Mich Otter]

10. Thank you for the post

[Swamp Rat]

15. Thank you

I hope freepers are reading this too. :)

[Robbien]

16. But the rabid right have debating rules of their own

Over time, you begin to realize that online debates have some deficiencies, the greatest of which is that they're a waste of productive time. Still, if you want to "win" an online debate, here's some observations from a veteran:

Learn how to ridicule the beliefs of others: When you debate online, you can be quite contemptible in your choice of verbiage. Don't just respond to your opponents, ridicule them. If you merely respond, they can just fire back a response, but the ridicule will strengthen your argument and there's not really a good way to respond to being ridiculed.

Repeat yourself: Keep going over the same ground over and over again. The most talented online debaters say the exact same thing repeatedly in a slightly different way. In doing so, they force their opponents to become equally repetitive, which can help you in winning the debate.

Quote whole articles of more than a thousand words in their entirety. While in an offline debate, you couldn't stand up and read fifty pages of material, nothing stops you from doing so online. Thus, if you're not very good at forming logical arguments, all you have to do is quote others' good arguments and thus you can bolster your weakness and outmatch your opponent.

Remember that if your opponent quits debating you, you win. What will pay off most in repetitiveness, a snotty attitude, and writing posts that are so long that your opponent cannot respond to them unless he quits his jobs and dedicates his entire life to addressing your rants. If he says he's leaving because you're rude or repetitive, you've really won because it shows how much you dominated the debate.

Of course, winning an online debate comes with great rewards, but they aren't what you'd think. You won't have wide recognition for winning. If you're debating on a forum, you'll find that after the first hundred or so posts, the average reader skims the rest. Thus, the great online debates end with both the winner and loser unknown, even on the forum where the debate happened.

You won't really influence the direction of what people think on a given issue. Obviously, the aforementioned problem with length comes into play, because if people don't actually read the debate, they're not going to be influenced by it. Also, the people who are willing to debate you on issues generally feel the strongest about them and are the least likely to change their mind. Online debates tends to entrench people in their opinions, not soften them.

Online debates don't prepare you for real life debates, either. Try my advice offline and any responsible moderator will cut you off. Strangely enough, being tiresome, rude, and annoying doesn't win debate in real life forums.

The prize is the satisfaction that you won the debate. You beat that guy. You showed him who was right!

[ultraist]

19. LMAO!

Might makes right.
Repeating something ad nausem makes it fact.
Being condescending or rude supports the argument.

We've all seen it.

[imenja]

22. how true

[northamericancitizen]

29. Before reading the answers to your post..

Here is my reaction:

I never thought that a cyber debate was any different than a "human" one. The laws are the same. The futility of trying to convince someone else about any matter is the same.

I also wanted to answer to the person who posted the OP.

You both left out a major determinant: the intention behind.
Behind a statement, behind the reasons to answer, behind the reasons to continue etc.

I never thought that the reason for getting involved in a debate was primarily a matter of winning or losing.

Its just a dance. Some get the rhythm and you play tango with them. Some don't have a natural rhythm and you ignore them. It is and will always be, like every other human interactions: a game.

We can decide to play or not and for how long.


lise

[imenja]

31. wonderfully said n/t

[EFerrari]

20. What a great link! Thanks! n/t

[lonestarnot]

24. Tanks for dis... n/t

;-)

[Jamastiene]

25. Let's learn how to and practice.

Now, THAT'S a forum to suggest. A Debate/Talking points forum. It could be used specifically for training or practice in the fine are of debating.

[ananda]

28. rightwing attacks are...

... totally irrational.

Here's an example. Take evolution and the recent find of the 70 million year old soft dinosaur fossil. When faced with incontrovertible evidence that the earth is waayy older than a few thousand years, a rightwing fundie simply attacked the purveyor of the information by saying:

<<Perhaps they were eggs, or maybe they were merely the average size dinosaurs (which is about the size of a large iguana). Do you know what size canine was the ancestor of the St. Bernard? I suspect that your honest answer should be no. You really don't know anything about genetics.

But, more importantly, you don't know anything about blood chemistry! There is ZERO way that even the most stable component of blood could survive even 100,000 years, let alone 70 million years!

Get a grip. Christ Jesus is no liar.>>

They like to use the term "Christ Jesus" as the be all and end all of any discussion, no matter what the gospels actually show that Jesus said, and that was virtually nothing about evolution or creation. However, for this "Christian," christjesus and the entire Bible are totally conflated.

It's so crazy.

Sue

[queeg]

32. or baffle them with bullshit

Quote nonexistent bible passages....

---Don't you understand your bible? Robert 12:47 says that "all men without wives must fornicate regularly". I am sure you can understand that and your stupid "waiting for marriage" crap is just planly against God's and Jesus's wishes.---


If they point out that there is no "book of Robert", ask what bible they have been reading and point out that theirs is out of date, and they need the newer edition.

Or just say that only "Amateur" Christians use the bible that they are using, and that they need to use an "expert or Professional" version of the bible.

Or point out that only unbelievers would question the verracity of a biblical passage (it says that in George 3:33-37)