Debates & Debating
Immortalist
http://debate.uvm.edu/watchdebate.html
http://debate.uvm.edu/watchdiscussion.html
http://library.trinity.wa.edu.au/subjects/english/drama/debate.htm
http://www.schoolsdebate.com/
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/
http://www.debates.org/pages/history.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/history/
http://thesmash.bravepages.com/
http://www.debating.net/flynn/anthems.HTM
DEBATING IS LIKE SEX BECAUSE.........
* If you last longer than five minutes, you're doing it wrong.
* About three-fifths of it is unprotected.
* You get marked on the quality of your extension.
* It works best if there are at least seven other people involved.
* With some honourable exceptions, children tend not to be very good at it.
* Ditto animals.
* The best place to do it is a debating chamber.
* You tend not to be as good at it if you're drunk.
* People who do it a lot with lots of different people tend to get quite good
at it, but nobody has any respect for them.
* Success depends to a great extent on your position on the table.
* People spend much longer talking about it than actually doing it.
* Most people are reluctant to admit that they aren't any good at it.
* If you do it too much, your degree suffers.
* Having more points than your partner can cope with is likely to be
counter-productive.
* Although you'll initially feel nervous about doing it for an audience, in
time you'll realise you perform all the better with one.
* The more you perform with the same partner, the more polished your
performance will become.
* Although the use of props can make a mediocre position easier to work with,
it is frowned upon by the purists.
* Your own opinion of your performance is generally higher than that of the
judges, other participants, and your partner.
* Always blame your partner for a poor performance.
* The Dutch do it differently
* Over-preparation can lead to a stilted performance
* As a senior practitioner of the art, your most important duty is to
instruct Freshers in its finer points.
* While a poor performance can undermine you self-esteem, a good performance
will be an ego-boost for years afterwards
* The introduction of a squirrel is generally considered to be a faux pas
* The Scottish do it a lot when young, and rarely when older
* The Americans teach it in schools, and you can take a degree in it
* The Australians televise it
* The Far East have made an industry out of it
* Watching other people do it, whilst sometimes an education, is usually
mundane
* Most people do it the same way for years
* Men come miles before women
* Dressing up then wining and dining is seen as a sure fire way of getting
some
--------------------------------------
If we don't want to live in a dictatorship, we must be vigilant to preserve our
freedoms. If we wish to preserve our freedoms, we must be informed on the
issues. Being informed on the issues requires that we become acquainted with
alternative points of view. The history of the development of civilization can
be seen as the history of debates on issues. In democratic societies, there must
be public debating. Newspapers have served this purpose and still do to some
extent in this country. However, we seem to have lost awareness of the
importance of debating since the days of Thomas Paine. The sixty-second sound
bite has created the illusion that the important issues are all brief and
cut-and-dried. The importance of debating issues is fading from the public
consciousness. One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase awareness of
the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art. With
all this in mind, the following suggestions are offered.
Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by different
readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we can
use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that we will
be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who substantially
disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on such
words.
Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority opinion is
not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is not
based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most biologists
believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible says..." is
not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have been.
Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to produce
more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate words have
no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem. Personal
attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy. Also, slurs
directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually
nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem itself.
There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political, or
religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably have
some effect on his own life style. It is unlikely that in an argument over the
existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and it
would be easier to keep attention centered on the problem itself than if the
argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or
conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. A suggested solution
is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to the
opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such an
undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe, likely
to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."
"The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time."
--- Richard Nixon
A (Short) List of emotionally charged words and phrases:
* Liberal!
* Tax and spend!
* Fascist!
* Politically correct!
* (The opponent) is spouting! his (whatever)!
* All pejorative names for races, sexual preference, ethnic groups, or
religions
* Baby killer!
* Socialist!
* Hippy!
* Druggy!
* Saying that your opponent "trots out" his argument
Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the popular
fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some event A
happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the cause of
event B. (I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would get
out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a song
would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to dissipate!)
Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People who own
Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't. This does not
mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher
incomes.
Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent without
coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions to
some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some excellent
examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately,
frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on popular
prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be difficult or
impossible to defend against rational attack.
Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is a
newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been "slanted"
to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are
concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often international
publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown newspaper.
Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular publishing
company or whether it was published by some special interest group like the John
Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted to
present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not truth but
rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.
Could there be a bias here?
Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a friend
and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may discover
some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in the
debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right one, and
everybody has his reasons for thinking so.
Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example of
this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" This
imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One frequently
sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay
activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were true. It
isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is egregiously
unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is probably
always wise to treat your opponent with respect, even if he doesn't deserve it.
If he doesn't deserve respect, this will probably soon become obvious enough.
There are all sorts of subtle ways to express hostility toward your opponent and
it is almost always unwise to give in to them. That doesn't mean that you can't
vividly and saliently present your criticisms of your opponent's beliefs or
behavior. But beware of phraseology which simply makes him look ridiculous. An
example of this came up recently. I was criticizing Pat Robertson's apparent
belief that God punishes people who do not behave as he wants them to by sending
storms or natural disasters of various kinds or even terrorists. I do think this
is a childish and obviously invalid belief. Saying so is not a violation of any
of the principles enumerated here. But I found myself saying that Pat Robertson's
"Big Friend in the Sky" would do such and so. This is objectionable because it
ridicules. It isn't as straightforward as simply saying that in my opinion Pat
Robertson's belief is ridiculous. Another example is to say that nudists "prance
around" in the nude. Of course it's inaccurate, but it ridicules and denigrates
as well and shouldn't be allowed in a rational debate.
Regression to the mean: Another source of error which occurs very frequently is
the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a bit technical,
but it is very important, especially in any kind of social or psychological
research which depends upon statistical surveys or even experiments which involve
statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement of the principle (which
becomes more and more unintelligible as the statement becomes more and more
rigorous) an example will be used. Let's consider intelligence testing. Perhaps
we have a drug that is supposed to raise the IQ of mentally retarded kids. So we
give a thousand intelligence tests and select the 30 lowest scoring individuals.
We then give these low scoring kids our drug and test them again. We find that
there has been an increase in the average of their IQ scores. Is this evidence
that the drug increased the IQ? Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show that
smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids in our
sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ. Is this
evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ? Not necessarily! Any statistician knows
that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large sample
of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring individuals and make the
same measurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower average score
and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did the
first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and it is a perfectly
universal statistical principle. It has nothing to do with what is being
measured. It works with molecules and atoms just as it does with juvenile
delinquents and schizophrenics. What is going on here? The whole thing is based
on the fact that when we measure something there is always a bit of luck
involved. Sometimes this is called "chance". Statisticians call it "error". There
are two kinds of luck: good and bad. Let's say you take an IQ test and score 130.
That's pretty good, considering that the average IQ is 100. What part of your
score is luck? Well, there's no way of knowing this, but we know that some luck
was involved. Is it more likely that your true IQ is 129 but that you had enough
good luck to make it 130, or that your true IQ is 131 and that you had enough bad
luck to make it 130? Well, there are a lot more people whose true IQ is 129 than
there are people whose true IQ is 131, so there are more ways to get 130 because
of good luck than there are ways to make 130 because of bad luck. If you have
understood this, go to the head of the class! But even if you haven't understood
it completely, remember it. Failure to understand it has probably cost us
billions of dollars. Another important fact about regression to the mean is that
the less reliable the measurement is the more regression will occur.
There are undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will be
gratefully received. Larry has made the following suggestions:
* Apply the scientific method.
* Cite relevant personal experience.
* Be polite.
* Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.)
* Treat people as individuals. (Not everyone who is pro-choice is also
anti-gun.)
* Cite sources for statistics and studies used.
* Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.
* Read the post you are responding to.
* Stay open to learning.
And DWA has reminded us that Carl Sagan had a "baloney detection kit." Here it
is:
* Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the facts
* Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable proponents of
all points of view.
* Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no
"authorities").
* Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea that
caught your fancy.
* Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's yours.
* Quantify, wherever possible.
* If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
* "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data equally
well choose the simpler.
* Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified (shown
to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can others
duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
Additional issues are :
* Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments where
the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control subjects.
* Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
* Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
* Argument from "authority".
* Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision maker
by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
* Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence).
* Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
* Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is
phrased).
* Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).
* Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from inadequate
sample sizes).
* Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower expressing
astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans have below
average intelligence!)
* Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case scenarios but
scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because they
are not "proved").
* Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
* Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused by" -
confusion of cause and effect.
* Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets an
immovable object?).
* Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of
possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
* Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue
fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
* Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted extrapolation of
the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
* Confusion of correlation and causation.
* Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it easier to
attack.
* Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
* Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as "police
action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important art of
politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names have
become odious to the public" .
It has been pointed out by various participants that following these
recommendations to the letter might make for dull reading. The idea is that a
little invective is a good thing because it adds spice. An interesting example of
this occurred in a nationally televised debate between Dan Quayle and Lloyd
Benson. Quayle had just remarked on some similarities between himself and Jack
Kennedy. Benson said, "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine.
But I can tell you one thing, Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!" This was of
course an argumentum ad hominem of the first water. But I would like to point out
that a political debate and a scientific debate are two quite different things.
But to concede the point somewhat I have a suggestion. Perhaps we could agree to
divide our debating messages into two parts. In the first part it would be
illegal to mention the opponent at all. The word "you" would be forbidden. Then
the second part would allow judicious use of personal remarks. Writing a debate
without using "you" is a very interesting exercise. I urge everyone to give it a
try!
(Incidentally, the fugue you have been listening to if you clicked on the icon at
the top of the page was chosen because a fugue can be thought of as a debate. In
this particular fugue there are three combatants represented by the three voices.
There are notable discords sprinkled thoughout the fugue, but all is harmony at
the end!)
Should you be interested in learning more about the classical art of Argument,
beyond what is contained here, following are links that will be of interest:
* The web site of Asst. Professor James Pryor, Harvard University :
Philosophical Terms and Methods.
* DWA brought to our attention this excellent resource: The Colorado
University List of Fallacious Arguments.
http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
The mindset of debate is one of the things that
may cause the deterioration of our society.
Immortalist
"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea19...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:jfS0d.293682$Oi.212325@fed1read04...
>
> The mindset of debate is one of the things that
> may cause the deterioration of our society.
>
Merely a contingency for there are cases when it leads to societal deterioration
and other cases where it doesn't. Lack of debate/discussion, in which a
difference of opinion is expressed: altercation, argument, bicker, clash,
contention, controversy, difficulty, disagreement, dispute, fight, polemic,
quarrel, run-in, spat, squabble, tiff, word (used in plural), wrangle, can
accelerate into a: hassle, rhubarb, or even physical tangle [CONFLICT]. Without
the presentation of an argument or arguments can lead to assumptions and "mind
reading."
"Cognitive Therapy is a collaborative process between therapist and patient that
ultimately teaches patients how to identify and manage their negative thoughts.
These habitual distortions in thinking -- or "automatic thoughts," as cognitive
therapists call them -- are of several common types, including mind reading
(assuming the thoughts of another, as in, "He thinks I'm stupid"), labeling ("I'm
a failure"), catastrophic thinking ("My career is over if I'm rejected") and
all-or-nothing thinking ("Nothing ever works out for me"). Such thoughts play
like a loop of bad background music as a depressed person makes his way through
life, clouding mood and influencing behavior."
A court of law wouldn't be able to determine inocence or guilt to protect rights.
-------------------------------------
Topic (Moot)
A debate is about a topic, usually called the moot. The moot is a claim that
something is true. For example:
That New Zealand needs a well-equipped airforce.
That the school system benefits all students who choose to work hard.
That space exploration is a waste of time.
That New Zealand's population is too small.
There are two teams with three speakers each. One team agrees with the moot (the
Affirmative) and the other team disagrees (the Negative).
Usually you are given the topic and told whether your team is affirmative or
negative. This means you may be debating a position you personally don't agree
with. This is the skill of debating, and it helps you understand that there are
two sides to most questions.
Affirmative and Negative
Each team divides up the job of researching the evidence and preparing the case.
Each team member writes speech notes. The first people to speak use their notes
more, while the later speakers will be answering what their opponents have said
(rebuttal).
----------------------------
The teams speak in this order:
----------------------------
- Define moot, introduction
1. Affirmative leader
2. Negative leader
----------------------------
- Further arguments, rebuttal
3. Affirmative second speaker
4. Negative second speaker
----------------------------
- Mostly rebuttal
5. Affirmative third speaker
6. Negative third speaker
----------------------------
- Summary (no new arguments)
7. Negative leader
8. Affirmative leader
----------------------------
Purpose
What is the point of the debate? Each team is trying to win by doing the best job
of arguing their case. This does not mean that one team must be right and the
other one wrong. There are two sides to any debate, and either side could win.
http://english.unitecnology.ac.nz/resources/units/debating/student_what.html
>
>
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
causes without the conviction of truth. It is the
rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their
clients in dishonest ways against the interest of
the harmed parties and against society and extends
into the board rooms with the rationalization that
boards of directors have to have the bottom line
of companies in the elevated position that does
not take into consideration society as a whole
or the harm done to individuals. "We have to take
care of the stockholders. It is up to the courts to
find us in error, if that is the case. Being fair is not
our job."
Saying that one can argue one side of an issue
while depending on the other side, a judge, or
anyone else to uphold the other side while knowing
that one is wrong, is what debate means and it
is a negative with a rationalization that does not
stand scrutiny.
Debate is the indoctrination of lawyers who will
eventually harm society and businessmen who will
become the leaders of the companies that are like
the ones who have recently stold the pensions and
life savings of millions of Americans.
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
'win at any cost' and consider it a sin to
admit that the other side has a point.
Acme Diagnostics
"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" wrote:
>The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
>causes without the conviction of truth.
No, debate is one of the most useful means of testing
your ideas, maybe *the* most useful.
>It is the
>rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their
>clients in dishonest ways against the interest of
>the harmed parties
True, usually. But that's lawyers, more appropriately
the "system" they find themselves trapped in. That's not
"debate" as used properly.
>and against society and extends
>into the board rooms with the rationalization that
>boards of directors have to have the bottom line
>of companies in the elevated position that does
>not take into consideration society as a whole
>or the harm done to individuals. "We have to take
>care of the stockholders. It is up to the courts to
>find us in error, if that is the case. Being fair is not
>our job."
Probably true of most large corps. But I'm glad they
work that way. I'm sad that the government is too
corrupt to level the playing field, which would be
relatively easy to do.
>Saying that one can argue one side of an issue
>while depending on the other side, a judge, or
>anyone else to uphold the other side while knowing
>that one is wrong, is what debate means and it
>is a negative with a rationalization that does not
>stand scrutiny.
You have "debate" confused with what happens in
courtrooms. It is true that the American judicial system
is defunct, i.e. a flip of the coin would provide more
justice, but that is not "debate."
>Debate is the indoctrination of lawyers who will
>eventually harm society and businessmen who will
>become the leaders of the companies that are like
>the ones who have recently stold the pensions and
>life savings of millions of Americans.
They are not indoctrinated that way. In fact, most out of
law school are starry-eyed and intend to change the
system. It takes about two years for them to fully realize
that that is impossible. By that time, they have families
to feed.
Larry
Severian
<LFinez...@partpostmark.net> wrote:
>
>"formerly known as 'cat arranger'" wrote:
>
>>The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
>>causes without the conviction of truth.
>
>No, debate is one of the most useful means of testing
>your ideas, maybe *the* most useful.
Let me fix that up for you:
Debate is one of the most useful means of testing *the acceptability
and persuasiveness* of your ideas^H^H^H^H^Harguments, maybe *the* most
useful.
<snip>
--
Sev
Immortalist
>
> The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
> causes without the conviction of truth.
Are you saying that the pursuit of 'debate' is ALL cases learing to argue causes
and in ALL cases without the conviction of truth?
> It is the
> rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their
> clients in dishonest ways against the interest of
> the harmed parties and against society and extends
> into the board rooms with the rationalization that
> boards of directors have to have the bottom line
> of companies in the elevated position that does
> not take into consideration society as a whole
> or the harm done to individuals.
Is it such a rationalization at ALL times or SOME times?
I'll wait for you to clear up these quanitfications before proceeding because
they are crucial to your argument.
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c7Kdnf6-2s7...@comcast.com...
:
: "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea19...@hotmail.com>
wrote in
: message news:0a31d.293876$Oi.37072@fed1read04...
: >
: > The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
: > causes without the conviction of truth.
:
: Are you saying that the pursuit of 'debate' is ALL cases learing to argue
causes
: and in ALL cases without the conviction of truth?
Asking people to argue things which they don't believe in
and then rewarding them on their proficiency instead of
the results of a search for truth is wrong.
Very few things are 'all' or 'none'. Good point.
: > It is the
: > rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their
: > clients in dishonest ways against the interest of
: > the harmed parties and against society and extends
: > into the board rooms with the rationalization that
: > boards of directors have to have the bottom line
: > of companies in the elevated position that does
: > not take into consideration society as a whole
: > or the harm done to individuals.
:
: Is it such a rationalization at ALL times or SOME times?
ditto ditto
: I'll wait for you to clear up these quanitfications before proceeding
because
: they are crucial to your argument.
I don't know if they are crucial. I'm not condemning debatea in toto,
or todo or to do... : -) I just see lawyers who have learned the loopholes
and become godless smartpants who live in a world that I wouldn't
want for anyone.
: > "We have to take
: >
: >
: >
:
:
Immortalist
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c7Kdnf6-2s7...@comcast.com...
> :
> : "formerly known as 'cat arranger'" <goodidea19...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in
> : message news:0a31d.293876$Oi.37072@fed1read04...
> : >
> : > The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
> : > causes without the conviction of truth.
> :
> : Are you saying that the pursuit of 'debate' is ALL cases learing to argue
> causes
> : and in ALL cases without the conviction of truth?
>
> Asking people to argue things which they don't believe in
> and then rewarding them on their proficiency instead of
> the results of a search for truth is wrong.
>
right to an attorney - a civil right guaranteed by the 6th amendment to the US
constitution
civil right, civil rights - right or rights belonging to a person by reason of
citizenship including especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges
guaranteed by the 13th and 14th amendments and subsequent acts of Congress
including the right to legal and social and economic equality
jurisprudence, law - the collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization
presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow
freedom while enforcing order"
> Very few things are 'all' or 'none'. Good point.
>
> : > It is the
> : > rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their
> : > clients in dishonest ways against the interest of
> : > the harmed parties and against society and extends
> : > into the board rooms with the rationalization that
> : > boards of directors have to have the bottom line
> : > of companies in the elevated position that does
> : > not take into consideration society as a whole
> : > or the harm done to individuals.
> :
> : Is it such a rationalization at ALL times or SOME times?
>
> ditto ditto
>
> : I'll wait for you to clear up these quanitfications before proceeding
> because
> : they are crucial to your argument.
>
> I don't know if they are crucial. I'm not condemning debatea in toto,
> or todo or to do... : -) I just see lawyers who have learned the loopholes
> and become godless smartpants who live in a world that I wouldn't
> want for anyone.
>
We are an unfinished product always evolving, in a word; pragmatism. As the
loopholes are fixed technology evolves further exposing more.
The idea is to have a representative who is up to par with the system, able to
exploit the system as well as it can exploit you. The seperation of powers or at
least their balancing.
Acme Diagnostics
Severian <seve...@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote:
>>
>>No, debate is one of the most useful means of testing
>>your ideas, maybe *the* most useful.
>
>and persuasiveness* of your ideas^H^H^H^H^Harguments, maybe *the* most
>useful.
Since debate, aka uncooperative dialog, is one of the most useful
means of discovering errors in your reasoning, it is one of the
most useful means of testing the validity of your ideas, perhaps
*the* most useful.
A more productive means of discovering errors is cooperative
dialog, aka analysis, and is always to be prefered. But since
most people won't engage in that way, especially on Usenet,
debate is more useful in practice.
By correcting your logic, your argument may or may not become
more persuasive. That depends on a list of other things including
your editing ability, how your audience is programmed, and who
in your audience matters.
Some other ways to find errors in reasoning:
http://google.com/groups?selm=4100b4e7$0$69348$45be...@newscene.com
Larry
Tim
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Z_OdnfWBA9z...@comcast.com...
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
news:_7adneH8qbV...@edaptivity.com...
> Who is Larry?
>
Probably one of the people that are on the bulleton board for the page
http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/index.html
Since Larry is not one of the authors of the four perspectives;
http://www.truthtree.com/emailus.shtml
Can you point to the difference it would make in the text?
Acme Diagnostics
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
>news:_7adneH8qbV...@edaptivity.com...
>
>> Who is Larry?
>
>Probably one of the people that are on the bulleton board for the page
>http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/index.html
This is a totally weird coincidence. My name is Larry, and I have
posted in this same thread, and I've even linked to my bullet
list of "ways to promote objectivity in reasoning" similar in
form to the below list apparently suggested by another "Larry."
Some of the below items are even vaguely similar to some items on
my list. I don't believe they are paraphrases of my items, but a
few could possibly be. On the off-chance that they *are*
paraphrases, I disavow them, but without prejudice to content.
My list is to promote objectivity (or "find errors") in reasoning
as a process of solitary analysis, with "arguing" as only one
useful tool for that purpose. That's not the same as debate
proper, though they are coincident in some respects.
Moreover, I've posted lots of dogma about logical argumentation
in sci.logic (and other Usenet groups), and thus similar to the
long dogma on "debate" posted by Immortalist in this thread
topic. I offer no opinion on his content.
I am not the same Larry as below, and I am not the author of that
list. My nic always begins with "Acme ", currently "Acme
Diagnostics," and my adopted Usenet last name is Fine (as in
Larry Fine of the Stooges).
I have nothing whatsoever to do with the above linked site
(truthtree.com) or any similar site. <twilight zone theme> But I
also had a good friend who was a Harvard PhdPhil, another
weird coincidence, who I referenced in the below book.
My list originally appeared in a copyrighted book I wrote a while
ago under contract to a subsidiary of a well-known American
publisher, but which subsidiary went bankrupt when it was in
galleys. However, the publisher sent lots of manuscript copies
out to parties unknown to me for peer review, i.e. the
information was distributed in the field. I'm updating that book
among 10 other things on Usenet including a related AI project,
and the expanded list has only been posted for reference in
sci.logic here:
http://google.com/groups?selm=4100b4e7$0$69348$45be...@newscene.com
Note that it is quite different from the below list.
My apologies to the other Larry, whose list appears below:
Larry
Tim
>
> "Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
> news:_7adneH8qbV...@edaptivity.com...
> > Who is Larry?
> >
>
> Probably one of the people that are on the bulleton board for the page
> http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/index.html
>
> Since Larry is not one of the authors of the four perspectives;
> http://www.truthtree.com/emailus.shtml
>
> Can you point to the difference it would make in the text?
If and only if you are a dirty cocksucker who takes it up the ass. So yes I
can point to the difference.
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
>
> "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Z-2dnfXf58f...@comcast.com...
> >
> > "Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
> > news:_7adneH8qbV...@edaptivity.com...
> > > Who is Larry?
> > >
> >
> > Probably one of the people that are on the bulleton board for the page
> > http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/index.html
> >
> > Since Larry is not one of the authors of the four perspectives;
> > http://www.truthtree.com/emailus.shtml
> >
> > Can you point to the difference it would make in the text?
>
> If and only if you are a dirty cocksucker who takes it up the ass. So yes I
> can point to the difference.
>
> > "Amanita, Love Ewe" <ladya...@aol.com> wrote
> > You are all a bunch of worthless motherfuckers!
> > They are measuring for the navel now, won't jump
> > coconuts later. Don't sow a paper! She'd rather...
> "Tim" <a...@abc.abc [http://tinyurl.com/5ms5c]> wrote
> Would you like to meet me somewhere - I think
> I'd like to jerk off in your face and then have
> you beg for more - O'K. bitch?
You Tim said this in Message:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=otCdnd0YI_FLYavcRVn-tQ%40edaptivity.com
Tim
So what's your point dumb ass. Amanita - ladyamanita - a woman aka a female.
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
:
: "Immortalist" <Reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: news:Z-2dnfXf58f...@comcast.com...
: >
: > "Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
: > news:_7adneH8qbV...@edaptivity.com...
: > > Who is Larry?
: > >
: >
: > Probably one of the people that are on the bulleton board for the page
: > http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/index.html
: >
: > Since Larry is not one of the authors of the four perspectives;
: > http://www.truthtree.com/emailus.shtml
: >
: > Can you point to the difference it would make in the text?
:
: If and only if you are a dirty cocksucker who takes it up the ass. So yes
I
: can point to the difference.
That is an 'ad homo' attack. Usually ad homonym are more common.
Immortalist
I think he meant that "only if I admit to" the participating in the lifestyle,
which is demonized in filth.
This would make the response and enthymeme within a sorites.
The enthymeme is sometimes defined as a "truncated syllogism" since either the
major or minor premise found in that more formal method of reasoning is left
implied. The enthymeme typically occurs as a conclusion coupled with a reason.
When several enthymemes are linked together, this becomes sorites.
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/E/enthymeme.htm
http://www.google.com/search?q=enthymeme
>
Tim
Yeah they made a movie about it - An American Cocksucker on Google. Now be
honest - you put quotes around a phrase I didn't use. So you are now are a
dirty lying cocksucker. Tut tut smokeee.
addiss
writes
Tim, Tim, Tim!.. you are the perfect ad-hominem quote.
Read more books.
--
addiss
Tim
"addiss" <add...@engla.nd> wrote in message
news:M6KpsQEK...@xxxxx.xx...
I put it on pause when the opposition is worthy - but that does not apply in
the case of smokee. One can't debate or argue with a google search result. I
read plenty.
addiss
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
Before we consider the validity or the soundness of your assertion let us notice
that the pasted information about enthymemes contained the "quote marks."
http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/Figures/E/enthymeme.htm
Then we may go on to test your assertion that all dirty lying cocksuckers always
talk about you in particular and cannot talk about you in other ways. You logic
is rather holy or perforated and airiated.
>
Immortalist
"addiss" <add...@engla.nd> wrote in message news:M6KpsQEK...@xxxxx.xx...
Actually I think did at one time study logic. He either wishes he could do it
again or is to lazy, or maybe his ideology is holding him down and back. I can
tell by his explosions that he actually knows what to say or did at one time but
cant say it now. But as you say this could be easily remidied with a little
revieing and reading.
>
> --
> addiss
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
You still havn't eliminated the possibility that at this moment I am way way more
smarter than you and you just act like the answers fall from the sky. But you
could get over your jealousy by realizing your mistake; I really do know all this
shit dude, face it.
>
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
:
: "Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
I wish you were talking about me. How cool it would be to have an
intelligence
that drops answers from the sky...
Tim
I think by sky he means Google
Tim
Oh believe me I have. You don't know shit - that's why 99% of what you post
is a cut & paste of a google search.
Tim
Holy! I'm no theist.
Tim
"addiss" <add...@engla.nd> wrote in message
Any title and author suggestions?
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
You are just expressing an opinion about what you believe I know. You havn't made
a very persuasive case yet, but you have convinced some that the cut and paste
function is evil or something. I obviously am vastly more intelligent than you in
my opinion.
>
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
See, this displays you ignorance when it comes to debating. You just left open
the possibility that your asserion about lying and homosexual behavior was in
error. Mr. Logic you ain't my man.
>
Tim
Actually it just shows how you are incapapable of independent thought. How
do you know my last name is not Logic? No errors were made in any of my
assertions. Therefore ...
Tim
You make the case yourself through your inability to think and write for
yourself. I didn't say c&p was evil I did say that when that's all you ever
see from someone one begins to wonder if the paster knows how to write and
think. I think you don't.
I obviously am vastly more intelligent than you in
> my opinion.
Your opinion is groundless. On google you stand - googleing is not an
indicator of intelligence - neither is using a mouse.
> >
>
>
>
addiss
addiss
"Properly, we should read for power. Man reading should be man intensely
alive. The book should be a ball of light in one's hand."
ABC of Reading -Ezra Pound
--
addiss
Tim
"addiss" <add...@engla.nd> wrote in message
Nice try but that's a quotation. Apparently you should read more.
>
Tim
"addiss" <add...@engla.nd> wrote in message
You agree all you like hypocrite but let me remind you smart guy that your
cutesy "read more" statement is an ad hominem itself. But what would one
expect from a person who posts things like "A general matter of cakes" to a
philosophy news group. Now unless you have something of worth to say why
don't you fuck off.
addiss
"A general matter of cakes" is still open, if you need to reply.
--
addiss
addiss
Ezra Pound is the author of the "ABC of Reading". The "ABC of Reading"
is a book.
Read it, or don't read it.. the decision is yours.
--
addiss
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
While it appears you have commited one of the many fallacies of ambiguity, where
an ambiguous word, phrase, or sentence is one that has two or more distinct
meanings and the inferential relationship between the propositions included in a
single argument will be sure to hold only if we are careful to employ exactly the
same meaning in each of them but the fallacies of ambiguity all involve a
confusion of two or more different senses, for example specifically;
Accent
The fallacy of accent arises from an ambiguity produced by a shift of spoken or
written emphasis. Thus, for example:
* Jorge turned in his assignment on time today.
* Therefore, Jorge usually turns in his assignments late.
Here the premise may be true if read without inflection, but if it is read with
heavy stress on the last word seems to imply the truth of the conclusion.
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm ;
It is my opinion that you have instead committed the fallacy of equivication
which is committed when someone uses the same word in different meanings in an
argument, implying that the word means the same each time round.
For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
So a feather can not be dark.
The above argument commits this fallacy: The word light is used in the sense of
having little weight the first time, but of having a bright colour the second
time. Since the middle term in this syllogism is actually two different terms,
equivocation is actually a kind of the fallacy of four terms.
The fallacy of equivocation is often used with words that have a strong emotional
content and many meanings. These meanings often coincide within proper context,
but the fallacious arguer does a semantic shift, slowly changing the context as
he goes in such a way to achieve equivocation by equating distinct meanings of
the word.
Equivocation is closely linked with the fallacy of amphiboly, where amphiboly
relies on a syntantic shift.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
>
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
You have implied that something is ethically wrong with using the cut and paste
function of computers on the internet and you have claimed it many times. That
you have only seen cut and paste is not sufficient for establishing deductively
that that is all there is. For instance my typing this here now refutes your
claim. At most all you can say is that "some times he cuts and pastes but not all
times."
>
> I obviously am vastly more intelligent than you in
> > my opinion.
>
> Your opinion is groundless. On google you stand - googleing is not an
> indicator of intelligence - neither is using a mouse.
>
This contention does not follow since the propositions it is supposed to follow
from have been refuted. You tastes in style are not prescribable to all people.
Its as if you are trying to tell people which kind of music is worthwile or good,
which is a relativity. In this case you are also confusing distribution with the
collective aspects of class vs particular.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Immortalist
"Tim" <a...@abc.abc> wrote in message
Several kinds of all-purpose attack words can be used in many contexts. Some are
simply the derogatory names, slurs, and insults applied to other groups, ethnic,
national, or religious. All cultures have such pejorative terms for the various
sub-groups within, but the United States is uniquely rich in such a vocabulary
(niggers, wops, kikes, chinks, spics, japs, krauts, hunkies, dagos, dot heads,
towel heads, etc.) because of the complex immigrant experience with so many
groups so quickly thrown together.
Another large body of generic attack language relates to sexuality and bodily
functions; "dirty words" considered vulgar or taboo, forbidden in polite society,
are commonly used as all-purpose insults and invectives.
A third major category of generic name-calling relates to words which suggest
that the other is non-human (monster, brute, savage, beast, animal, dog, rat) or
less-than-fully human (stupid, ignorant, dumb, jerk).
If spoken with great vehemence, the most common word linked with all of these
generic insults is the all-purpose adjective, "dirty."
The intensity of such name-calling varies; war propaganda is usually the most
intense, but there are other "gut issues" such as political, racial and religious
conflicts which stir up intense emotions.
http://webserve.govst.edu/users/ghrank/Political/Cause%20Groups/namecalling.htm
>
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
[snip]
: Several kinds of all-purpose attack words can be used in many contexts.
Some are
: simply the derogatory names, slurs, and insults applied to other groups,
ethnic,
: national, or religious. All cultures have such pejorative terms for the
various
: sub-groups within, but the United States is uniquely rich in such a
vocabulary
: (niggers, wops, kikes, chinks, spics, japs, krauts, hunkies, dagos, dot
heads,
: towel heads, etc.) because of the complex immigrant experience with so
many
: groups so quickly thrown together.
when did you ever hear anyone use kraut? dagos? dot head must be pretty
new and not used much.. I guess it has to do with dot coms. How about cunt
or faggit or dick or 'racist' (it has been said by higher ups in the racial
game that
black people can't be racists because they don't have the power to hurt
white
people)... how about the word 'kid', when used as a pejorative, very
damaging
to a vulnerable population, what do people call the homeless before they
beat
them up or kill them? There's got to be a word, other than homeless, maybe
disabled veteran who was used as a pawn in the Viet Nam war... How about
Immortalist
Social psychologists have defined prejudice in a variety of ways. Technically,
there are positive and negative prejudices; I can be prejudiced against modern
artists or prejudiced in favor of modern artists. This means that, before I am
introduced to Sam Smear (who I've been told is a modern artist), I will be
inclined to like or dislike him—and I will be inclined to expect to see certain
characteristics in him. Thus, if I associate the concept modern artist with
effeminate behavior, I would be filled with shock and disbelief if Sam Smear were
to swagger through the door looking as though he could play middle linebacker for
the Green Bay Packers. If I associate the concept of modern arfistwith the
radical end of the political spectrum, I would be astonished if Sam Smear were
wearing a Newt Gingrich political button.
>
ShrikeBack
> when did you ever hear anyone use kraut? dagos? dot head must be pretty
> new and not used much.. I guess it has to do with dot coms. How about cunt
> or faggit or dick or 'racist' (it has been said by higher ups in the racial
> game that
> black people can't be racists because they don't have the power to hurt
> white
> people)... how about the word 'kid', when used as a pejorative, very
> damaging
> to a vulnerable population, what do people call the homeless before they
> beat
> them up or kill them? There's got to be a word, other than homeless, maybe
> disabled veteran who was used as a pawn in the Viet Nam war... How about
I'll be most times someone kills a homeless guy, the killer is
saying something along these lines: "What's the frequency, Kenneth?"
Tim
"addiss" <add...@engla.nd> wrote in message
I'm sure that at your level of intelligence a general matter of cakes will
always be an issue for you.
addiss
Miroslav Kaminski
> : > causes without the conviction of truth.
> :
> : Are you saying that the pursuit of 'debate' is ALL cases learing to argue
> causes
> : and in ALL cases without the conviction of truth?
>
> Asking people to argue things which they don't believe in
> and then rewarding them on their proficiency instead of
> the results of a search for truth is wrong.
They already have that happening. They're called political election
campaigns.
I believe that debates are a good thing. It involves multiple parties
approaching the same issues from different perspectives, and each of
those parties taking into account the arguments of others, in order to
strengthen or restructure their argument, if not to prove them wrong.
Debating is an excellent way to work out differences on issues between
people, especially big issues. I am long past being sick of the
majority of society - they are so stubborn and closed-minded that they
would never be able to comprehend the other side of an argument, let
alone think about how it appears to be right and/or wrong.
Just my opinion.
formerly known as 'cat arranger'
"Miroslav Kaminski" <anarch...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1650ff1a.04092...@posting.google.com...
: > : > The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
That seems to me to be the ideal, but the easy perversion of
the ideal is the problem. Debate has been changed into a
school and a paradigm for evil (evil in the sense of crafty self-
interest, not the appearance of Satan).
ZZBunker
> The pursuit of 'debate' is really learing to argue
> rationalization for lawyers arguing cases for their
> clients in dishonest ways against the interest of
> the harmed parties and against society and extends
> into the board rooms with the rationalization that
> boards of directors have to have the bottom line
> of companies in the elevated position that does
> not take into consideration society as a whole
> or the harm done to individuals. "We have to take
> care of the stockholders. It is up to the courts to
> find us in error, if that is the case. Being fair is not
> our job."
Debate no longer even exists. Debate is completely
restricted to the Weather Channel, and Film-At-11.
Lawyers haven't debated anything since the Scopes Monkey Trial.
They only hire specially-prepped UCLA clones-in-training
to debate for them at discount prices.
As long as they can carry a minimum of $10,000,000 in Group
Malpractice, Medical Coverage, and Life Insurance from
The Enron and Eddy Brokerage Firm located in
West New York, Lebanon.
And that they do the debating on a strictly non-interference
basis with ABC's Nightline Iraq Coverage and the Micheal Jackson trial.
>
> Saying that one can argue one side of an issue
> while depending on the other side, a judge, or
> anyone else to uphold the other side while knowing
> that one is wrong, is what debate means and it
> is a negative with a rationalization that does not
> stand scrutiny.
If you even know a judge, you are obviously
an inferior debater. Debater's are
only on a first-name basis with
The Joint Chiefs of Staff and Supreme Court nominees.
> Debate is the indoctrination of lawyers who will
> eventually harm society and businessmen who will
> become the leaders of the companies that are like
> the ones who have recently stold the pensions and
> life savings of millions of Americans.
IAmConcerned
> DEBATING IS LIKE SEX BECAUSE.........
>
> * If you last longer than five minutes, you're doing it wrong.
> ......
It took me more than five minutes to just reading your
article....undebately speaking....