Implied rules of debate

[Kriminal99]

Actually some of my best friends are bikers, and although I could do some damage to them, its much more productive to sweet talk them.

 

Its the psychotic ones that are a bit of a challenge though, but even then, it is good to show no fear.

 

So I take it that you find it hard to deal with people who respond to your aggression with aggression? And when you're losing the debate, you feel justified in resorting to physical violence?

Actually, that was hardly passive! Not comfortable when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?

 

Its certainly fascinating that you seem to be so wrapped up in this notion that everyone is just as hostile and aggressive as you are, and thus endlessly try to justify bashing people in the face as your standard method of interaction.

 

Do you really wonder why people react so negatively to you?

 

A vitreous plane upon which to display a fleeting show for man's disillusion given, :)

Buffy

 

"resorting to violence when losing a debate". First I would have to be losing a debate for that to make any sense. In any case, how ironic that you thought to attempt that in a thread called "Implied rules of debate". If an opponent breaks the implied rules of debate in order to win at any cost, they are the one who has compromised the integrity of the debate and reduced it to an aggressive struggle. When you can't win by reason and start using specious arguments and sniveling sarcastic comments this is what you are doing.

 

I don't have any trouble dealing with it at all. Suppose I am attempting to get the attention of a lady, and another guy lies to her to make her think less of me. I confront him about it, and he says "All is fair in love and war".

 

My response to this is not to be bothered in any way, but to say "Ok." and I knock him out. He just agreed to it! The law simply complicates the argument, it doesn't invalidate it.

 

What you don't realize is that what you are actually arguing against is not a justification for violence, but a realization of a system that prevents violence. It is a balance of forces that realizes peace, similar to that of for example the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction that prevented Nuclear War.

 

In reality the only people who react negatively to me are people who react negatively to everybody. When someone tries to use passive aggressive tactics like specious argument or sarcasm to try and win a debate at any cost they upset the realization of the system that prevents violence. Thus they should be dealt with in a violent manner.

 

The nature of the non aggression pact

 

Sarcastic comments would hardly be effective in a fight to the death. Understanding why such behavior is considered so weak and pathetic requires understanding the nature of the laws aka the non aggression pact.

 

The laws are not made to favor one kind of aggression over another. The only reason the law doesn't allow a person to just knock the crap out of someone else when they lie or make sarcastic comments is because it would be too hard for the court to sort out who was lying and who was telling the truth. The law has attempted to hold on to means to prevent passive aggressive behavior as well all along. For example, allowing duels or other combat by agreement. If you tried to lie to someone's boss to get them fired, they could just challenge you to a duel. If you didn't have the conviction to fight it was assumed it was because you were lying.

 

Of course there are issues with that so it has been phased out. In my state if you antagonize someone before a fight commences, you can not plead self defense. This tactic does a little, but does not prevent excessive lying.

 

The law is the equivalent to that agreement between the two nations to stop using force. As a citizen of a country where such laws are in place, you take the position of one of the two leaders negotiating the peace. When you use sarcastic comments and other passive aggressive behavior, you are defeating the purpose of the law that you agreed to and thus making an effort to invalidate the peace talks and return things to chaos.

 

There it is a reason why short people, women, younger brothers, the physically inept etc are known for using sarcasm. They do not understand confrontation and expect some police officer to run to their defense if anything gets physical as if their behavior is worth protecting. People capable of physical confrontation make an informed choice of non-aggression over aggression of any kind.

 

In person though the law often proves a bit too non physical to allow people to feel safe acting in such a pathetic sniveling manner. Sure if someone actually bashes your face in, AND they get caught AND the state allows you to claim that you did not participate by acting in such a manner, the other person goes to jail. But how many times do you want your face bashed in? My guess is 0.

[Kriminal99]

Because wikipedia and other wikis allow any interested person to edit most articles, I would argue that it is a better indication of the consensus of many people than is an article written by a single person. In addition, despite this open policy, wikipedia is monitored and maintained, not only by privileged staff, but by all of its readers. Multiple independent analyses of wikipedia has found it only slightly lower in accuracy, though substantially lower in quality of prose and ease of reading (see the wikipedia article “Accuracy of Wikipedia” – or, better, the articles referenced by it). Nonetheless, readers should be aware of the vulnerabilities of wikis, and make extensive use of their history, authorship sourcing, and “talk” features to more fully understand the articles they read.That a non-obscure article challenged by only a few of its millions of visitors, all of whom are able, with minimal effort, to challenge it, is a less legitimate source of a consensus definition of its subject that “anyone else’s” definition is not, I believe, true, under any usual consensus definition of the term “legitimacy”.I agree. However, rather than speak hypothetically (“would”), we can easily consult a real, professionally edited dictionary for the list of different meaning Kriminal99 describes. The dictionary.com result for “debate” gives

-noun

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.

2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.

3. deliberation; consideration.

4. Archaic. strife; contention.

With the exception of the last, archaic definition, these definitions appear well-represented in the wikipedia article, and my post.

 

When considering word use, an etymological perspective is usually informative. Debate, from de = down, completely + batre = beat, hit, means, “a complete beat-down”.

 

Can you support this claim? :)

 

Although I have no history of common usage of the word, from its etymology, I suspect that it’s oldest use of the word “debate” was to describe physical fighting, distinct from the similar word combat (from com = with + batre = beat, hit) in that one of the combatants must “go down”. This supports my assertion that the defining characteristic of debate is having a winner, rather than Kriminal99’s assertions that

andAlthough only rarely formally sanctioned (eg: by a court or other authority) in modern western society, in keeping with the term’s etymological definition, physical combat in which a clear winner is decided is a form of debate. To this day, many people, in many states, sometimes legally, sometimes illegally, use physical combat of many kinds to settle differences in opinion, the critical characteristic of such fights being that, to be effective in settling the dispute, someone must win.

 

In light of this interpretation, the sentence “Alice and Bob debated one another” makes little sense, being analogous to “Alice and Bob laid a beat-down upon one another”. Rather, more sensible would be “Alice debated Bob” (Alice won) or “Alice was debated by Bob” (Alice lost).

 

Wiki-nazis and Wikipedia's failure of purpose

 

If Wikipedia was actually capable of representing the majority of the population's point of view, your argument would make sense. In reality though there are a much smaller number of WikiNazis who make a full time job of reverting articles that deviate from their personal beliefs. The actual realization of it is no more objective than any one person's belief because that is what always ends up being shown. However it is one person's belief as to what is an objective neutral explanation of the subject which is better than one person's belief on the subject directly.

 

The article cannot be challenged by visitors for many reasons. For one many don't bother because they believe heavily in bandwagon fallacy. Two, if anyone challenges it the article will simply be reverted and show no record of their challenge. If the talk page is used then the challenge is simply ignored by virtue of specious argument against it and the vast majority of users never even reading the challenge.

 

Implied disagreement with dictionary definition

 

The real definition of Debate as clearly indicated in most dictionaries is not at all indicated in your post by virtue of the fact that you made the post to try and disagree with an argument that was based on that very dictionary definition. "A discussion involving opposing viewpoints" and "A competition involving people both trying to get their point of view across" are so closely logically connected that I did not see a need to show how before proceeding. If you fail to see the connection, you could have just said so.

 

Perhaps you can now show how a "competition" doesn't have a winner to validate your claim that my statements somehow are not logically connected to a "debate" which has a winner. (Good luck with that)

 

Minimalist Definitions <> "etymological perspective"

 

I find it amusing you just voiced agreement with the third type of disagreement before asking for support for it. The support for the third type of definition is LOGICAL in nature rather than SCIENTIFIC. Meaning rather than basing it on potentially biased information from a third party, each person is to use their own first person experience and follow a suggested path of reason to the same conclusion.

 

The type of definition I gave is the absolute best because it IS the concept rather than being a description of the concept. There is no trait that could be part of the concept that could be left out of the definition when you use the context a label refers to as the definition tied to that label.

 

That is WHY it is SOMETIMES informative to use an "etymological perspective"

 

If you meant to imply some connection between your "etymological perspective" and the third type of definition I referenced, any such connection breaks down when the context being referenced by the label changes. The label itself may imply a connection to the original context referenced, but if the label is used to reference a different context now then that new context comprises the third definition type.

 

I call this type of definition a minimalist definition.

[Buffy]

My response to this is not to be bothered in any way, but to say "Ok." and I knock him out.

At least you're consistent in your avoidance of passive aggressive behavior.

In reality the only people who react negatively to me are people who react negatively to everybody.

Are you.....sure?

 

This is what is meant by the psychological term "projection," which you can look up in sources other than Wikipedia, if you wish.

When someone tries to use passive aggressive tactics like specious argument or sarcasm to try and win a debate at any cost they upset the realization of the system that prevents violence. Thus they should be dealt with in a violent manner.

Really?

 

Specious arguments and sarcasm justify violence?

 

There is nothing worse than aggressive stupidity, :)

Buffy

[CraigD]

Due to length, I will respond to post #19 in several separate posts.

If Wikipedia was actually capable of representing the majority of the population's point of view, your argument would make sense. In reality though there are a much smaller number of WikiNazis who make a full time job of reverting articles that deviate from their personal beliefs.

While your statement may reflect your perception of your experience contributing to wikipedia, it does not reflect mine, nor the results of the several studies, surveys, and expert opinions cited in this wikipedia article. If you have references that support your view, you should provide them in this thread. Otherwise, you are not supporting your claims.

The actual realization of it is no more objective than any one person's belief because that is what always ends up being shown.

This claim, which is also unsupported, appears to contradict your previously stated opinion:

I don't really don't take much information from wikipedia seriously since anyone can edit it and the posted information there has no more legitimacy than anyone else's definition of debate.

First, you are stating that you believe wikipedia is not a good reference source because any person can edit it. Then, you claim that articles that deviate from the belief of a much smaller number of “WikiNazis” are edited to remove information with which they disagree.

However it is one person's belief as to what is an objective neutral explanation of the subject which is better than one person's belief on the subject directly.

Correct. Unlike media intended to present opinions, such as news editorials and web logs, Encyclopedias, professionally edited or wiki, printed or online, profess to maintain a neutral point-of-view to document the most relevant opinions on the subject. Although Encyclopedias may and should reference opinions supporting relevant opinions, even to the extent of declaring that one opinion is the dominant consensus, and may exclude opinions believed to be held by few people on the basis that they are insufficiently relevant, in the ideal, they do not proclaim on opinion the undisputed “truth”.

 

(see Wikipedia: Neutral point of view)

The article cannot be challenged by visitors for many reasons. For one many don't bother because they believe heavily in bandwagon fallacy.

The claim that many wikipedia readers don’t bother to contribute to articles, to challenge them on their talk pages or in some other fashion, which I agree is true, does not support the claim that articles cannot be challenged by visitors in general.

Two, if anyone challenges it the article will simply be reverted and show no record of their challenge.

This is technically incorrect. Reverting a wikipedia article to a previous version generates a new time and user stamped version. Previous version of the article remain visible to all readers via its history page.

If the talk page is used then the challenge is simply ignored by virtue of specious argument against it and the vast majority of users never even reading the challenge.

Many challenges made on wikipedia talk pages are ignored. However, any registered wikipedia user may request informal or formal mediation, and, as a last resort, formal arbitration, to resolve a dispute.

 

(see “Wikipedia: Dispute resolution”)

[Kriminal99]

Due to length, I will respond to post #19 in several separate posts.While your statement may reflect your perception of your experience contributing to wikipedia, it does not reflect mine, nor the results of the several studies, surveys, and expert opinions cited in this wikipedia article. If you have references that support your view, you should provide them in this thread. Otherwise, you are not supporting your claims.This claim, which is also unsupported, appears to contradict your previously stated opinion:First, you are stating that you believe wikipedia is not a good reference source because any person can edit it. Then, you claim that articles that deviate from the belief of a much smaller number of “WikiNazis” are edited to remove information with which they disagree.Correct. Unlike media intended to present opinions, such as news editorials and web logs, Encyclopedias, professionally edited or wiki, printed or online, profess to maintain a neutral point-of-view to document the most relevant opinions on the subject. Although Encyclopedias may and should reference opinions supporting relevant opinions, even to the extent of declaring that one opinion is the dominant consensus, and may exclude opinions believed to be held by few people on the basis that they are insufficiently relevant, in the ideal, they do not proclaim on opinion the undisputed “truth”.

 

(see Wikipedia: Neutral point of view)The claim that many wikipedia readers don’t bother to contribute to articles, to challenge them on their talk pages or in some other fashion, which I agree is true, does not support the claim that articles cannot be challenged by visitors in general.This is technically incorrect. Reverting a wikipedia article to a previous version generates a new time and user stamped version. Previous version of the article remain visible to all readers via its history page. Many challenges made on wikipedia talk pages are ignored. However, any registered wikipedia user may request informal or formal mediation, and, as a last resort, formal arbitration, to resolve a dispute.

 

(see “Wikipedia: Dispute resolution”)

 

You started by saying that wikipedia represents everyone's views, then went on to point to an article about wikipedia's reliability.

 

I can tell you to start that the concept of studies regarding reliability is inherently illogical, since reliability is subjective in nature. All that is going to show is who agrees with it, not whether or not it is accurate which is what I first said.

 

If it actually did represent the populations views, then it would represent something better but it does not. In reality any disagreement with the common opinion is never noted or addressed and it just any argument that is not duplicated in some other encyclopedia is simply reverted. At that point it is trivial to say it is "reliable" referring to it's agreement with other similar sources of information.

 

By the way, I hope you realize that no amount of "sources" "data" "studies" etc can do anything by themselves (they then have to be interpreted), and that for people adept at reason you hardly need them except under certain circumstances. Sure it's great if you are too stupid to be able to think for yourself to be able to just look at whether someone else's point of view has been shown false by experimentation, but personally I would rather just have the skills to sort through the bs myself.

 

Many people do not even see how because they do not see the difference between a good argument and a bad argument and thus rely heavily on "studies". I am not one of those people.

 

The two opinion's you think are contradictory are actually related. No wonder you like studies so much. The "WikiNazi" need not be some authoritative source of information on the subject. At times it is just any random person or unrepresentative group of people with an agenda that revert the argument any time it deviates from their personal beliefs.

 

Overall this happens less often than not, but when looking up any given subject it is capable of occurring. Considering that practical copies of articles from other encyclopedias is what actually stands in the long run, one is better of just looking in an encyclopedia to avoid finding such a dissenting yet unrefined by criticism opinion.

 

When you take a more advanced approach to human behavior, the fact that no one does challenge Wikipedia articles because they are too subservient to

bandwagon fallacy, AND wikipedia encourages this by allowing small groups to revert their attempts with no obvious record (who looks at the time stamp page when looking something up?) does support the claim that people can't have their opinions represented in Wikipedia.

 

There is no difference between can't and won't when people hardly ever do and it is clear that the situation causes them not to.

 

There will one day be an online source of information that is what you claim Wikipedia strives to be. It will be a debate forum where any tactics that violate the "Implied rules of debate" will be stricken as well as unnecessarily longer versions of the same argument thus only valid arguments can advance the discussion.

 

Without such tactics each debate will quickly end as the incorrect side runs out of valid arguments and the end result will be a clear explanation of any topic no matter how difficult that also shows responses to any common counter arguments.