GENIUS FORUMS

I consider the ability to follow deductive logic from premises to conclusion, the ability to maintain consistent definitions, the ability to be produce terse arguments free of rhetor, and the avoidance of fallacies and contradictions to be essential to a successful argument. Am I missing anything? Are there any tactics which are even more important? Moreover, are there any common tactics which are questionable?

Looks solid to me.

.

DISCLAIMER: American-style english is not my first language :-)


Trevor,

I consider the ability to follow deductive logic from premises to conclusion, the ability to maintain consistent definitions, the ability to be produce terse arguments free of rhetor, and the avoidance of fallacies and contradictions to be essential to a successful argument. Am I missing anything? Are there any tactics which are even more important? Moreover, are there any common tactics which are questionable?


In the above...

the ability to be produce terse arguments free of rhetor,


What is this part of the sentence (suppose to mean)?

...the ability "to be" produce terse arguments...

Are you putting in (placing) a trick part of this - to see if any of us - are on top of our game?

I look at words in a mathematical slant, decipher what is being said, written if you will by numbers...

Was it your intent to put "be" in there?

Now, my WEB-TV has the capabilities to "italicize" words, etc., I (Tomas) just don't do it ... lazy, whatever, my way of doing raw, written-word English.

In junior high, high school & college debate - I was one of the best, but to sit down and write a coherent sentence (much less a paragraph or outline!), not my cup of tea :-(

Thanks a lot, Shakespeare (sir Francis Bacon) To be or not to be, that is the...

PS - Just another D- English high school student :-/



Tomas


.

"Am I missing anything?"

Nothing, except having something to say.

Tomas: So, I guess you'd add "nitpicking" to the list...? My guess is that the "be" appears because I deleted something that I decided wasn't important, but somehow didn't delete it completely. Its ghost is still there, clinging to a two-letter word that defies all logic.

Alex: I suppose so. Then again, tactics is more how you say what you are saying, not whether or not you have anything to say in the first place, isn't it?

The skills and conditioning to bob and weave, to throw flicking jabs, to cover up when necessary, to take a body punch, to score big and then not get complacent the next minute. Last but not least, the ability to intimidate. With that the debate can be half won before it has even begun.

Nobody mentioned name-calling.

Carl: Maybe all philosophers should be required to take up boxing? Just, you know, to polish their debate skills.

brokenhead: If you're too much of a twat to recognize ad hominem, I can't take anything you say seriously.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Carl: Maybe all philosophers should be required to take up boxing? Just, you know, to polish their debate skills.

brokenhead: If you're too much of a twat to recognize ad hominem, I can't take anything you say seriously.

Touché.

Trevor,

I consider the ability to follow deductive logic from premises to conclusion, the ability to maintain consistent definitions, the ability to be produce terse arguments free of rhetor, and the avoidance of fallacies and contradictions to be essential to a successful argument.

I agree with that, but even with all of that, if the opponent doesn't understand your argument (or isn't persuaded by it), then I wouldn't call it successful.

Am I missing anything? Are there any tactics which are even more important?

I'd say that carefully listening and trying to understand the other person's argument, as closely as possible, is key in tailoring a counter-argument. The point is to understand the other persons point-of-view and at the same time, make it easier for them to understand yours.

Moreover, are there any common tactics which are questionable?

Yeah --> ignoring, arrogance, introducing ideas which aren't directly connected to the issue at hand, etc.

Peter L wrote:

"I'd say that carefully listening and trying to understand the other person's argument, as closely as possible, is key in tailoring a counter-argument. The point is to understand the other persons point-of-view and at the same time, make it easier for them to understand yours."
________________________________________________

Trevor,

It is more interesting, as I see things, to shun the surface view and consider a more psychological perspective. Maybe it's like trading in a paperback Betrand Russel for a copy of The Brothers Karamazov (?) Your topic comes on the heels of specific conversations, dealing with specific issues, and unresolved disagreements, in fact disagreements which are common to this 'psychological space'.

The more psychological truth, which is a more Machiavellian truth, is that 'most people' want to win or appear to win and that the structure of the argument is not important to them. The structure of the argument, the tactic of debate, is just a strategy for personal victory. What I find interesting is that your presentation hopes for a rationally defined abstraction, an idealism if you will, about the best sort of 'argument' but yet disregards the way that things actually take shape, which is often according to 'straight power principals'.

There is a sort of tendency (I think on this forum), if you will, to deny and negate that these are problems and issues that might not be resolved rationally, but that hinge in personal, psychological territories. I don't conceal the fact that this is my view, and of course that my whole presence is colored and animated by this perspective or stance.

Just for one example, which is eerily relevant, is that of having the responsibility of managing a child-care center. Children do not respond to 'reason', they only respond to the 'power principal'. If you have it and you weild it, you achieve obedience and order, and if you don't everything falls apart rapidly. Kids know if you have it or if you don't, and they test it to make sure it is solid. I assert that no matter if you are dealing with high-functioning, reasoning adults or self-centered egomaniac children, the better that one understands the core 'Machiavellian' truth, the better equipped one is to deal with 'the way things are'. You can certainly pretend to treat with 'rational adults' or pretend to reason with 'rational adults' when in fact you are actually manipulating giant children! I assert that anyone who actually deals with human beings, in any context, knows these truths and acts accordingly.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Are there any tactics which are even more important? Moreover, are there any common tactics which are questionable?

What's the ultimate goal of the debate(r)? To win? To uncover truth?

Peter,

I agree with that, but even with all of that, if the opponent doesn't understand your argument (or isn't persuaded by it), then I wouldn't call it successful.

Following from this, don't argue with morons and die-hard fundamentalists. You can't be successful.

I'd say that carefully listening and trying to understand the other person's argument, as closely as possible, is key in tailoring a counter-argument.

Ok, sure. "To defeat the enemy, we must know the enemy. Take for instance your basic Arachnid warrior. Minimal IQ, armored, completely lethal. You can blow a limb off... and it's still 86% combat effective. But here's a tip: Aim for the nerve stem and put it down for good." -Sun Tzu's The Art of War

Yeah --> ignoring, arrogance, introducing ideas which aren't directly connected to the issue at hand, etc.

Whoops.



AJ,

What I find interesting is that your presentation hopes for a rationally defined abstraction, an idealism if you will, about the best sort of 'argument' but yet disregards the way that things actually take shape, which is often according to 'straight power principals'.

If things take shape according to power principles, and disregard accuracy, is this not a problem that can be rectified?

There is a sort of tendency (I think on this forum), if you will, to deny and negate that these are problems and issues that might not be resolved rationally, but that hinge in personal, psychological territories.

Would a psychological issue require an irrational resolution?

I, for one, am grateful for every day that passes without a psychological assessment of the QRS philosophy of the feminine. Especially those with the depth of a "Behind the Music" documentary (Tom Petty is a famous musician because his dad never listened to him). Beyond ad hominem, there's a lot of pretention that comes with the territory of psychoanalyzing others.

I assert that no matter if you are dealing with high-functioning, reasoning adults or self-centered egomaniac children, the better that one understands the core 'Machiavellian' truth, the better equipped one is to deal with 'the way things are'. You can certainly pretend to treat with 'rational adults' or pretend to reason with 'rational adults' when in fact you are actually manipulating giant children! I assert that anyone who actually deals with human beings, in any context, knows these truths and acts accordingly.

I assert that anyone who tries to reduce all of human behaviour to a single principle is only fooling himself.



Jason,

What's the ultimate goal of the debate(r)? To win? To uncover truth/falsity?

The goals of a debate depend on the motivations of the participants.

Trevor wrote:

"I assert that anyone who tries to reduce all of human behaviour to a single principle is only fooling himself."

In a pugilist's debate, that is called a 'faked right jab, with a bob'. The function of this 'jab' is to derail any possible debate. This is one of the main moves I have noted to date on this forum, keep your eye open for it.

The issue is whether or not we frequently must take into account the immature, 'unconscious' child who cares not a whit about the discovery of 'truth', but wants to 'win'. A form of winning---not very manly or glorious---is to quickly nullify the 'conversation'.

"Would a psychological issue require an irrational resolution?"

First comes awareness, and awareness leads along what is unconscious. I wouldn't call all awareness 'rational' myself. The psychological seems to take into consideration different levels.

"I, for one, am grateful for every day that passes without a psychological assessment of the QRS philosophy of the feminine."

Well, oddly enough, I do think they are onto something by really putting intellectual pressure on women, and really asking some very difficult questions. That 'tenth hole' will consume the globe if men let it!

"Beyond ad hominem, there's a lot of pretention that comes with the territory of psychoanalyzing others."

Extremely true. But check this out: the Will to Psychologize (penetrate an interior you can't know and make assessments, judgments), in this forum just takes place without psychological jargon, and yet is really the same thing. I only ask you to examine the idea, nothing more.

One has to be aware of this bratty child and one has to be aware of that 'emotional girl' or they come back and haunt you, brother!

Some say that those who deny the 'female' get 'possessed' by the female. (That big baby Jung was of this opinion and he clobbered many people with it).

I agree with that, but even with all of that, if the opponent doesn't understand your argument (or isn't persuaded by it), then I wouldn't call it successful.

Following from this, don't argue with morons and die-hard fundamentalists. You can't be successful.

Trevor, you Confucian, you, paraphrasing his "“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it frustrates you and annoys the pig."

AJ,

In a pugilist's debate, that is called a 'faked right jab, with a bob'. The function of this 'jab' is to derail any possible debate. This is one of the main moves I have noted to date on this forum, keep your eye open for it.

Why isn't it enough merely to point out the flaw? When you saw the reductionism you were engaging in, I supposed you might realize of your own effort that this contradicts your other beliefs, those beliefs that seek to make issues more subtle and complex.

A form of winning---not very manly or glorious---is to quickly nullify the 'conversation'.

I think you will notice that it didn't: you reacted quickly and topically! And I said practically nothing -- didn't I?

(I guarantee you will find something wrong with the above two sentences, but you won't be able to put it into three Latin words.)

The psychological seems to take into consideration different levels.

By implication, does the philosophical only take into account a single level?

But check this out: the Will to Psychologize (penetrate an interior you can't know and make assessments, judgments), in this forum just takes place without psychological jargon, and yet is really the same thing.

I don't deny it. Psychology is such a recent off-shoot of philosophy that you only have to go back a century to find professional philosophers working on these issues. Anyone -- and I'm not excluding you -- who's done a decent amount of philosophic reading is going to have been exposed to quite a bit of early psycho-babble.




Carl,

Trevor, you Confucian, you, paraphrasing his "“Never try to teach a pig to sing; it frustrates you and annoys the pig."

Don't you dare touch my rites or my music! I'll be unruleable!

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:Psychology is such a recent off-shoot of philosophy

Some would say that psychology is the oldest of philosophies.

Alex Jacob wrote:Just for one example, which is eerily relevant, is that of having the responsibility of managing a child-care center. Children do not respond to 'reason', they only respond to the 'power principal'. If you have it and you weild it, you achieve obedience and order, and if you don't everything falls apart rapidly. Kids know if you have it or if you don't, and they test it to make sure it is solid. I assert that no matter if you are dealing with high-functioning, reasoning adults or self-centered egomaniac children, the better that one understands the core 'Machiavellian' truth, the better equipped one is to deal with 'the way things are'. You can certainly pretend to treat with 'rational adults' or pretend to reason with 'rational adults' when in fact you are actually manipulating giant children! I assert that anyone who actually deals with human beings, in any context, knows these truths and acts accordingly.

Agree with this, that at core from a certain perspective, political power of basic survival is king. Most people feel the effects of this, have pockets of power in certain contexts, but don't know what it is. The question is to what degree can there be life beyond these base practical necessities and functionings - or how much light can we let in that shows a more human realm?

Even with my most intellectually sophisticated friends, I'd guess only a few rays of muddy light enter here and there, and the will to win is still at the forefront. There's a squinted, sometimes widened eye, stalled and then quickened breath, an instinct to bludgeon when challenged, to run when found out? We really do learn all too quickly in a way. Learn, and then believe without a second thought. There is value beyond the power principles in a friend who has learned to unlearn. Haha! Do we have this inner friend?!

Trevor,

You are right, I could not identify the precise fallacy you employed as octapus ink to skedaddle out of the arena of debate, and to avoid engagement (argumentum ad pulpum? argumentum ad aberratio?) We would have to use some Sun Tzu term though, or of course a term from psychology. To vacate the field when the enemy was sure of a battle? To throw up a decoy?

'Circulus in demonstrando' seemed the closest, though, you satanist. I was (deliberately) using an 'argumentum ad populum' to which you seem to have reacted. ;-)

While it is relatively easy, as you say, with a bit of training, to spot fallacious elements in arguments, I think it could be nicely argued that to do so, in some circumstances---perhaps this circumstance?---is a tactic to avoid dealing with the assertion presented. One could employ every fallacious argument in the book attempting to prove a true thing, a thing that could be easily proved with a solid fallacy-free argument. A crafty mind, a lawyer's mind, is skillful in avoiding the thrust of a bad (or even a good) argument, but that is all eristic. The issue hinges on 'good faith'. I must admit that it indeed makes me sad, as it likely does all of us, when I see such a fine mind as yours stoop to such levels...;-)

"I don't deny it. Psychology is such a recent off-shoot of philosophy that you only have to go back a century to find professional philosophers working on these issues. Anyone -- and I'm not excluding you -- who's done a decent amount of philosophic reading is going to have been exposed to quite a bit of early psycho-babble."

What Latin term would you apply to the above, Trev? A school of Red Herrings? The last sentence was slightly masterful---I will try to use it sometime---since it appears to 'give' something (Even you, you lout, has likely read some philosophy) and there been exposed to 'psycho-babble'. If I agree to accept your gift, I have to accept the consequence you've attached to that gift. Oooooh, you are the devil I tell you!

However, Skipair catches what I am getting at, and I find this interesting after reading his dissertations on seducing women, where he reveals the real and true facts, and is not led astray by PC formulations. (That is my take anyway). You may call it a sweeping generalization and a reduction, and as a statement it is, of course, yet it seems to have some universal truth.

Of course, I am trying to show, to suggest, that some on this forum, though they don robes of sophistication and tart-up their lingo ('image management') do not seem to function fundamentally differently. (All that I do here could be described in one French word oft employed by Nietzsche which you'll never, ever guess, not in 2 million years).

Skipair wrote:

"The question is to what degree can there be life beyond these base practical necessities and functionings - or how much light can we let in that shows a more human realm?"

It is really a good question, one that I have asked myself often when, in pessimism, I look down on the teeming multitudes...of my own body...and well as that of the whole world. The hunger of the flesh, the needs of the body, I-me-mine.

The part that is really distressing is even in the most intimate relationships. What is the 'link', what is it (really) based on? Is it just convenience? Or is there some enduring link? Cicero wrote about friendship and so did Montaigne, and they seemed to have known 'real friendship', the sort you'd put your life on the line for.

I think this is ultimately the problem that Nietzsche confronts---like two waves crashing up against one another---and does not solve. The viewpoint of materialism and biology that confronts the 'higher idealisms'.

Is it possible to do one, true, pure, altruistic thing?

Alex,

If you're not going to shorten your posts, would you consider putting a "Summary:" at the end, or perhaps a paragraph "In conclusion,"? Entertaining as they are, they are becoming a novel, in aggregate, and I'm a working man.

AJ,

You are right, I could not identify the precise fallacy you employed as octapus ink to skedaddle out of the arena of debate, and to avoid engagement (argumentum ad pulpum? argumentum ad aberratio?)

Argumentum ad hoc. I thought you'd like having this term in your vocabulary, since it's the Latin phrase for "faked right jab, with a bob". If some idiot ever used it, I'd call out his fallacy, eventually.

I must admit that it indeed makes me sad, as it likely does all of us, when I see such a fine mind as yours stoop to such levels.

(Psst... this thread is secretly ironic.)

The last sentence was slightly masterful---I will try to use it sometime---since it appears to 'give' something (Even you, you lout, has likely read some philosophy) and there been exposed to 'psycho-babble'.

(That last parenthetical remark was for the audience, who really are the final arbitrators of how masterful my sentences are.)

You may call it a sweeping generalization and a reduction, and as a statement it is, of course, yet it seems to have some universal truth.

How much universal truth does it have?

(All that I do here could be described in one French word oft employed by Nietzsche which you'll never, ever guess, not in 2 million years)

Ressentiment? ;-)

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

Jason wrote: What's the ultimate goal of the debate(r)? To win? To uncover truth/falsity?

The goals of a debate depend on the motivations of the participants.

Obviously. I meant that with different goals there can be quite different tactics. Without knowing the goal your question is pretty open-ended. If the ultimate goal is simply to win a debate(or even appear to win) then the "terse arguments free of rhetor, and the avoidance of fallacies and contradictions" you suggested aren't necessarily going to be good tactics.

Jason,

If the ultimate goal is simply to win a debate(or even appear to win) then the "terse arguments free of rhetor, and the avoidance of fallacies and contradictions" you suggested aren't necessarily going to be good tactics.

If this is true, you have found my prejudice: I don't debate simply to win, or even to appear to win.

With your revelation, was my question ever open-ended?

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:

Jason wrote:If the ultimate goal is simply to win a debate(or even appear to win) then the "terse arguments free of rhetor, and the avoidance of fallacies and contradictions" you suggested aren't necessarily going to be good tactics.

If this is true, you have found my prejudice: I don't debate simply to win, or even to appear to win.With your revelation, was my question ever open-ended?

I haven't necessarily found your "prejudice", you may think that those tactics you listed are in fact good for winning and/or appearing to win. Perhaps it would be good if you just state outright what your ultimate(general?) goal in debate is(in terms of this thread and line of questioning, anyway.)

In my mind at least, the words "debate tactics" tend, among other things, to conjure images of deceitful manipulation and desire to win, as well as formal debate, not things that are immediately and obviously associated with a desire for truth. Although I can understand that you may not mean to imply such things with those words.