All's Relatively Fair In Love & Debate

[Turtle]

The assertion is laid elsewhere that the employment of particular tactics and phallacious arguments is unethical to the point of immorality. My premise here is that such a judegment is too broad and that any such judegment is only relative to specific cases.

To quote Pyrotex quoting Epictetus, "What concerns me is not the way things are, but rather the way people think things are." The purpose of debate we accept is to come to some agreement, whether by convincing one or other party of error, or both. What I mean to get at is that purposeful employment of logical fallacies in support of a premise that turns out to be true, is not in the final judement unethical or immoral as it contributed to that conclusion.

So, the art of deabate; love it or leave it. Discuss. B) :cup:

[Kriminal99]

Utilitarianism argues that the moral action is that which increases happiness the most for the most amount of people. Some believe that competent judges should be in charge of deciding what these actions are. However I propose that many people are not even competent judges of what makes themselves happy, much less people they don't even know. However they are still more competent judges than anyone else. Therefore I believe spreading resources as evenly as possible and allowing each person to use them as they see fit is the most moral action. Convieniently, the free market model both allows people to use their resources how they think will most benefit them and spreads resources evenly (as market failure approaches 0)

 

This model is not limited to economics however, but rather encompasses all human interaction.

 

However both for purposes of spreading resources and allowing people to make efficient decisions, free flow of information is needed. Deception prevents this and is therefore an immoral act.

 

It is wrong to decieve someone in a debate such that they reach the correct conclusion for reasons like that you impede their ability to make future correct conclusions, and you deny them the ability to review your reasoning which may be erroneous (everyone makes mistakes in reasoning at times, why should any one person be granted immunity from having others recognize their mistakes)

 

Additionally I believe that failing to guard against immoral acts tempts people to commit them. For example if I was a scientist and noone ever doubted what I said, I would be more likely to use this to decieve others into doing things that benefited myself. If I was a forum debater and noone could criticise my arguments because they were deceptive in nature, then I would be likely to use this to hide errors and reasoning and avoid admitting when I was wrong.

 

PS Sebby reminded me of this, some utilitarianists place reduction of suffering as the most signifigant type of increasing happiness and reason that it is easy to find competent judges to increase happiness in this manner. I disagree - for example a well we drilled in bangladesh to give more water ended up having arsenic in it so we did more harm than good. If you support someone through a weekly donation, you do not teach the person to better support themselves. He becomes dependent on you rather than on his will to survive. He cannot show others how to survive like he has because he has no hand in it, in fact others may see his support as arbitrary and take it from him causing him more harm than good. If you can no longer support him you might also have done more harm than good since he did not develop survival skills.

[Turtle]

It is wrong to decieve someone in a debate such that they reach the correct conclusion for reasons like that you impede their ability to make future correct conclusions, and you deny them the ability to review your reasoning which may be erroneous (everyone makes mistakes in reasoning at times, why should any one person be granted immunity from having others recognize their mistakes)

 

Taking the analogy that debate is a battle, and following precepts of doing battle and waging war as outlined by Sun Tzu in The Art of War, I challenge that what you describe is "wrong". Rather than launch into specifics, I'll leave it at that to allow time for response(s). B)

[hallenrm]

Very interesting B), following the link and a cursory glance reminded me of Chanakya an legendary Indian minister who is well known for his political philosophy. I, for one, won't be able to comment on relative virtues of the Socratic art of discourse, the Sun Zu tactics in a combat and the Chanakian political maneuvering, but here's my humble contribution to this discourse;

 

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/kautilya/canakya_niti_sastra.html

 

Let the real truth prevail B)

[Turtle]

Very interesting B), following the link and a cursory glance reminded me of Chanakya an legendary Indian minister who is well known for his political philosophy. I, for one, won't be able to comment on relative virtues of the Socratic art of discourse, the Sun Zu tactics in a combat and the Chanakian political maneuvering, but here's my humble contribution to this discourse;

 

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/kautilya/canakya_niti_sastra.html

 

Let the real truth prevail B)

I glanced at Chanakya and did not curse. Nice contribution; I have saved the link in a folder pending reading. Can you give an example of a comment you can't make on Chanakya justifying "wrong" means?

B)

[hallenrm]

Sure, here are a cuple of them:

 

[quote name=Chanakya an Indian politician, strategist and writer, 350 BC-275 BC)

]"A person should not be too honest. Straight trees are cut first and honest people are screwed first."

 

"Even if a snake is not poisonous, it should pretend to be venomous."

 

"He who is engrossed in family life will never acquire knowledge; there can be no mercy in the eater of flesh; the greedy man will not be truthful; and purity will not be found in a woman a hunter."

 

"He who is overly attached to his family members experiences fear and sorrow, for the root of all grief is attachment. Thus one should discard attachment to be happy."

 

:beer: B) B) B) :doh: ;) B) :D

[Turtle]

Sure, here are a cuple of them:

 

Originally Posted by Chanakya an Indian politician, strategist and writer, 350 BC-275 BC)

 

"A person should not be too honest. Straight trees are cut first and honest people are screwed first."

 

"Even if a snake is not poisonous, it should pretend to be venomous."

 

A treasure trove! His word "too" implies my word "Relatively" in the title, his "honest" my "Fair", and his "pretend" I mean to get to. I also like the clever use of the snake and its real world behavior to make the point of natural behavior. B)

 

No thank you for not giving me the comments you can't make; I will not study them shallowly. B) B)

[Kriminal99]

Taking the analogy that debate is a battle, and following precepts of doing battle and waging war as outlined by Sun Tzu in The Art of War, I challenge that what you describe is "wrong". Rather than launch into specifics, I'll leave it at that to allow time for response(s). :confused:

 

But a debate isn't a battle, it is what takes place in stead of a battle. A hope that an understanding can be reached so that a battle doesn't have to occur.

 

A battle is dominated by the principal of "might makes right" and therefore any tactic (any form of might) is fair.

 

Suppose two nearby tribes are at war. They both take casualties and quality of life is poor for both sides, so they decide to have peace talks. They talk and try and come to an agreement regarding the differences they had to begin with. Using dishonest debate tactics in such a situations is foolish, since doing so will simply result in degradation of discussion and the continuation of the war. If you want to yell over me, ill just stab you and go back to killing each other. The point of discussion is to reach understanding not for one side to win at all costs.

 

Only hiding behind the police in a civilized society do people use dishonest debate tactics. Sun tsu's wisdom does not apply to debate.

[hallenrm]

The point of discussion is to reach understanding not for one side to win at all costs.

 

That's the case in which people follow ideal ethics, but people like gases are seldom ideal in reality! :confused:

[InfiniteNow]

But a debate isn't a battle, it is what takes place in stead of a battle. A hope that an understanding can be reached so that a battle doesn't have to occur... Sun tsu's wisdom does not apply to debate.

While okay as opinion, the above is wrong as fact.

 

A battle is self-defined. The resolution of battle is as well. Sun tzu's wisdom applies to what the reader decides, and hence is forever applicable.

 

IMO, that is... :confused:

[zee]

In history we see that people lied and stole for success e.g. Germans , Japanies are accused of this. But we the rest of the world think what they did was wrong. Alls not fair in war esp love.The means justify the ends and not the ends justify the means. I think that is how it always has been.People trust honest people. In love I want an honest person ,whom I can trust and count on for being fair.Who would want a person who is relatively fair.Relatively fair would waste time.

[Racoon]

A treasure trove! His word "too" implies my word "Relatively" in the title, his "honest" my "Fair", and his "pretend" I mean to get to. I also like the clever use of the snake and its real world behavior to make the point of natural behavior. :xx:

:friday:

 

the bluff is fair and also useful in love and debate. ;)

 

10. The serpent may, without being poisonous, raise high its hood, but the show of terror is enough to frighten people -- whether he be venomous or not.

[zee]

the bluff is fair and also useful in love and debate. :friday:

only if you are playing cards;)

But in love !oh!no! bluff is going to get you hurt, ouch! In debates it will get you imbarrased.Oh, come on you dont want to debate with ignorent people or think of your self as superior to the oponent. You 've got to give people that respect:)

[Kriminal99]

Regarding whether a debate is a battle, you guys seemed to miss the most important part of the post.

 

If you want to use dishonest debate tactics then you should battle for real. The purpose of discussing at all is to avoid fighting. If you want to make some analogy to a battlefield in order to use all manner of dishonest and nonproductive tactics I'll just pull out a gun and shoot you.

[Turtle]

Interesting replies. :D Rather than clog things with quotes, I'll try to touch on everyone's point.

Krim still maintains the debate - battle analogy is lame, and I like what InfiniteNow said to counter that, i.e. about having the reader decide how to apply Sun Tzu's system. First, battle is only mentioned in some sections of The Art of War, wheras others deal with spys, establishing geography, etcetera. Moreover, my intent is to classify the join between battle/debate as some manner of contest.

This brings us to the shooting comment, which is meant as an example counter to my premise.(A variation of a bluff, called the empty threat.) :eek_big: Well, a debate needn't be person-to-person, as indeed our debate here is not, so shooting isn't always an option. :eek2: Then too, since 'winning' a debate is as much about convincing the jury if not the opponent, shooting is rather impracticle.

Factually speaking, telling a loved one you're going to work when you really are going to buy them a gift or plan a surprise for them, is a lie. But, we might say it is just a white lie, which is to say lying is considred relative to the situation.

As to respect, well that is earned and has many connotations attached to it as well. One treats the snake carefully because it is dangerous and a person may say "Treat the snake with respect.", and simply mean take care around it, not "honor" it.

Have none of you ever participated in juried debates conducted as contests? Racoon makes the point that using a bluff is fair, and I further it by asking is it unfair, unjust, and immoral to head-fake an opponent in basketball? :hihi: Your ball.

 

Post Script:

Art of War

Chapter Five: Force

Sun-tzu said:

Generally, commanding of many is like commanding of a few.

It is a matter of dividing them into groups.

[Cedars]

As to respect, well that is earned and has many connotations attached to it as well. One treats the snake carefully because it is dangerous and a person may say "Treat the snake with respect.", and simply mean take care around it, not "honor" it.

 

Have none of you ever participated in juried debates conducted as contests? Racoon makes the point that using a bluff is fair, and I further it by asking is it unfair, unjust, and immoral to head-fake an opponent in basketball?

 

First, I have had one course in logic and that was a LONG time ago....

 

Know your audience. If you watch a debate between, say ID proponents and Evolution proponents, it is the ID proponents who come away seeminly more in touch with the beliefs of the audience (simply because of the majority belief in God). If your audience isnt aware of fallicious arguments, your presentation is not going to impress them if you dont have the ability to appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, etc, to win the mind. Both sides of this debate can use these fallacy's within the arguement (after all, how else can ID proponents argue their position). I would argue that the Evolution proponent does not have a choice but to use fallacy to win the day.

 

So yes to bluff to win the game is valid depending on who the opponent is.

[Kriminal99]

@ Turtle

 

Metaphors, metaphors, metaphors :eek_big:

 

I would definitely say a contest and a battle are two different things (save the rapping competitions referred to as battles)

 

Contest

 

Playing a video game or board game is a contest... You could just stab your opponent so he can no longer participate, but that is not the point of the contest. The point of these contests is actually for the participants to enjoy themselves. It is realized by the participants acting within a virtual world to see which can emerge victorious within that virtual world...

 

Playing a sport is another contest some points of which is the entertainment of the spectators, and/or the participants, and sports are designed with certain rules to make the strategies necessary more diverse. Here you cannot do certain things because they have no entertainment value, they are contrary to the point of the game. Each new tactic must be considered as to whether it benefits the point of the contest or not in order to determine if it should be allowed. Head fakes make the game more fun to watch, someone elbowing everyone in the eye is counter to the point of the game.

 

Battle

 

A battle has no rules. It is just people who want to be free from the influence of the other side and no other goals exist. Therefore there are no rules, just anyway possible to eliminate your opponent.

 

Debate

 

A debate on the other hand is something totally different then all of these. The purpose of a debate are things like so that all sides and spectators can reach a greater understanding of the world around them, and PREVENTING a battle between two sides.

 

All deceptive tactics hinder the approach towards this goal and should be considered "fouls". If you are going to abandon the point of the debate, then why debate at all? Shooting someone is just an example of the escalation of abandoning the point of the debate. Perhaps person A uses obtuse metaphors to hide being wrong and person B hacks Person A's computer and gives it a nasty virus. Did person B cheat? No person A did.

 

The shooting comment is not an empty threat, or a threat at all. The point is debate is either about reaching truth and undesrtanding, or its a battle. And there are no rules in battles. Only in a policed society does the issue of dishonest debate tactics even come up, for no conniving little weasel would dare use such tactics without the police to hide behind. Debate is supposed to be where you get to after you fight someone and realize how stupid it is so attempt to come to an understanding after. Noone in that situation is going to be stupid enough to sully the debate with deceptive tactics.

 

First, I have had one course in logic and that was a LONG time ago....

 

Know your audience. If you watch a debate between, say ID proponents and Evolution proponents, it is the ID proponents who come away seeminly more in touch with the beliefs of the audience (simply because of the majority belief in God). If your audience isnt aware of fallicious arguments, your presentation is not going to impress them if you dont have the ability to appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, etc, to win the mind. Both sides of this debate can use these fallacy's within the arguement (after all, how else can ID proponents argue their position). I would argue that the Evolution proponent does not have a choice but to use fallacy to win the day.

 

So yes to bluff to win the game is valid depending on who the opponent is.

 

Lose the battle, win the war

 

I disagree for several reasons. For one, it is not about winning the debate, but altering the way all people think everywhere no matter how long it takes. To do this requires a good understanding of the human mind.

 

If I expose their debate tactics as deceptive, but seemingly lose the debate, it is still possible I have planted a seed of doubt in their mind. A factor in this is my ability to, not use good grammar and vocabulary, but communicate with the audience in a way they understand why the opponent's arguments are fallacious. My opponent may make many statements that cause the audience to laugh and me to appear foolish, yet I will remain unaffected and continue to state why such arguments are invalid.

 

Their "victory" is not as signfigant as it seems. When the members of the audience are thinking before sleep that night (or whenever they get a chance) my words will stick in their head and they will carefully analyze what I have said. They will attempt to defeat it, in vain and eventually realize I am correct. The next time they see a loudmouth preacher use such tactics while I remain completely unaffected, they will begin to see me as a voice of reason and the preacher as a fool.

 

On the other hand, even if you are so adept at deceptive debate tactics that you are able to defeat the religous debater (keeping in mind that religion has survived on the use of such tactics and nothing else) consider this:

Spectators whose beliefs were already aligned to your opponent will not doubt their beliefs because of your victory. Rather they will look at it like "we lost this time, we will get them next time. Reverend Dollar wouldn't have lost that debate!

 

Though you have won that battle, the war will be never ending. Without appealing to reason, your position is no better than your opponents and the spectators know that! Without reason based debate tactics any idea can be effectively supported.

 

I will act in a rational manner in debate, I will write books that effectively convey understanding of rational behavior to the average person, and through such efforts society will eventually evolve to a point where everyone knows that everyone knows that the preacher is a fool.