All's Relatively Fair In Love & Debate

[Syko]

I thought I would introduce another point of view on the question : the point of view of memes.

 

If you consider the ideas and arguments being used in the debate, you might then consider that they all have for "apparent" purpose to multiply themselves, spread and win the "battle". The people debating are just the vehicules of these ideas.

 

Then whether your arguments are valid or not, whether you lie or are honest doesn't matter. What is important is that the idea that wins the battle becomes the norm and imposes it's own truth and therefore strengthen its chance of survival.

 

At the same time, the victory of the idea might serve the purpose of the person spreading it.

[Turtle]

I thought I would introduce another point of view on the question : the point of view of memes.

 

...Then whether your arguments are valid or not, whether you lie or are honest doesn't matter. What is important is that the idea that wins the battle becomes the norm and imposes it's own truth and therefore strengthen its chance of survival.

 

At the same time, the victory of the idea might serve the purpose of the person spreading it.

 

Good points Syko. I had this somewhat in mind when I wrote the title, which is a rephrasing of the meme 'All's fair in love and war.'

 

@ Turtle

 

Metaphors, metaphors, metaphors

 

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

 

Definitions, definitions, definitions...

At least one dictionary disagrees with your disagreement:

battle

2. A struggle; a contest; as, the battle of life.

[1913 Webster]

:(

 

Know your audience.

 

I agree with your succinct admonition. :hihi:

 

The Art of War

Chapter Six: Weakness and Strength

Sun-tzu said:

 

Therefore, know the enemy's plans and calculate their strengths and weaknesses.

 

Provoke him, to know his patterns of movement.

 

Determine his position, to know the ground of death and of life.

 

Probe him, to know where he is strong and where he is weak.

 

The ultimate skill is to take up a position where you are formless.

 

If you are formless, the most penetrating spies will not be able to discern you, or the wisest counsels will not be able to do calculations against you.

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

[IDMclean]

The purpose of debate we accept is to come to some agreement

 

This is incorrect and presupposes something which may or may not be true for each person. The style of Rhetoric seeks to bring as many people to agreement as possible. Dialect does not explicit or implicitly seek this end. Dialect seeks to inform all present on the many possible angles of a proposition.

 

That is not all debate to meet agreement. That is a goal which is specific to the aims of the individual, and the group on whole.

[Kriminal99]

Definitions, definitions, definitions...

At least one dictionary disagrees with your disagreement:

battle

2. A struggle; a contest; as, the battle of life.

[1913 Webster]

:cup:

 

No it doesn't disagree. A battle is a proper subset of contest, with no rules. Therefore a battle and a contest are not the same.

[Turtle]

 

definitions, definitions, definitions...

At least one dictionary disagrees with your disagreement:

battle

2. A struggle; a contest; as, the battle of life.

[1913 Webster]

:cup:

No it doesn't disagree. A battle is a proper subset of contest, with no rules. Therefore a battle and a contest are not the same.

We'll leave it to the entire jury to decide whether I have used my terms appropriately. :cup:

 

The purpose of debate we accept is to come to some agreement.

This is incorrect and presupposes something which may or may not be true for each person.

Your phrase, 'may or may not be' is characterized by the word 'some' in my statement, as well as by my word 'Relatively' in the title.:cup:

[Cedars]

For one, it is not about winning the debate, but altering the way all people think everywhere no matter how long it takes.

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.

 

 

 

Let me start this by saying I used the evolution/ID debate only as an example of a situation where one debate side will be faced with an opponent who's base arguement is fallicious. And in my opinion, the way the human mind works, you need to impact those thoughts held with something like an "ah HA!" moment (more likely several of them) right there during the debate or you wont have the that moment later when they are going over the things in their mind in the quiet of the night. If your opponent makes the audience laugh, and makes you appear foolish, that is what they will be contemplating during the night. Laughter = pleasure and we all seek pleasure. Disrupting belief held by people, is frightful to consider and the first and basic response to that is to flee. That is how the human mind works (in general), and therein is where the real fight in a debate between evolution/ID is won/lost. Not to mention the whole 'witness to a crime' and their recall ability. Meaning an eye witness account of anything has potential to be misinterpreted on recall.

 

To be adept at deceptive debate tactic when dealing with a situation as described is the ability to communcate with your audience. Your not trying to convince the people who already subscribe to the notion that evolution exists, you are trying to reach the portion which does not comprehend the defintions of this in the way that you do. One method to reach them is being able to access these human minds in a way that they can process, retain, accept, and recall.

 

 

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.

And by your own words, what makes you think reason will not fall to these very same Rev. Dollar appeals. I have watched debates between evolution/god belief and have always been disapointed by the evolution sides inability to connect with those persons who they need to (those clinging to ID/creation).

 

Nowhere in my suggestion, did I say reason cannot be used in a fight like this, however, you can appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, etc. to open the mind to the information that is the reason within the arguement. You need the ground for the seed you want to plant. The ground here being a mind that does not regard fallicious arguements within their base beliefs as an obsticle to hold their conviction (gotta have faith).

 

Know your audience.

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.

 

But the preacher is not a fool. He is a human with all the qualities that the general population agrees qualifies as a moral human. Debate is not only about arguement, it is marketing, it is acting, its communication, it is more than words tossed back and forth. Debate that offers appeal to the largest potential audience is the one that can communicate with the target (opposing) opinion. Your not trying to convince the scientist for this example.

[Kriminal99]

Your belief is the common illusion that has slowed progress in debate all throughout human history.

 

I was arguing that seeing past this superficial illusion will allow you to be more succesful in the long run. Everyone knows that it seems like the smart thing to do is make the opponent appear foolish and use lots of metaphors and plays on words. However I know better than this.

 

Laughter in the context of a debate is often something other than a display of pleasure, rather it is a display of relief of insecurity. When you focus on the use of dishonest debate tactics usually you are trying to make your opponent appear foolish which heightens their feelings of insecurity and makes them feel the need to lash out and/or support someone who will lash out. Once you have done this, the person changing their mind is out of the question.

 

Rather than put the person on the defensive, arguing in an objective manner simply places information in front of them without putting any emotional pressure on them which will likely cause them to choose the more rational answer.

 

Of course, the audience must be able to udnerstand what you are saying. When I think of people "not connecting with the audience" in a debate I tend to think of people using all kinds of private language (or language specific to their discipline) as if the audience is going to go to great lengths in order to understand what they say if they want to be considered intelligent. I think this is equally rediculous.

 

I am not surprised that you disagree with this level of understanding of the human mind - people do not admit when they are wrong often therefore it is hard to tell when your tactics have been long term succesful. You can however compare their future responses and beleifs to arguments you have made in the past and see that you have impacted them. Sometimes it is as subtle as someone yelling at you in an argument and then in the future just being really nice and respectful to you.

[Turtle]

Your belief is the common illusion that has slowed progress in debate all throughout human history.

 

Oh? But you claim in the poll about how many books we have read that you don't read and so how do you know what has transpired throughout human history? :phones:

I read a few fiction books when I was a kid. Other than that... don't really read much. That is why I took particular offence to the library card thread.

[Kriminal99]

Your conclusion is false. Secondary education requires studying of human history to some degree. I tend to listen to teachers to get the material rather than taking notes and not paying attention to what they are actually saying. You'd be surprised how much more than the average student this allows me to remember and understand about the course material for any given class.

 

...of course that should have been blatantly obvious considering the rest of the post which you oh so conveniently cut out. Exactly the type of weasly little tactics I was talking about. You rely on the fairly common ignorant belief that reading = intelligence to judge this information apart from it's counterargument.

 

It is quite a rediculous argument that anyone that does not read does not know anything. Writing is just one of many forms of communication.

[Cedars]

Your belief is the common illusion that has slowed progress in debate all throughout human history.

 

I was arguing that seeing past this superficial illusion will allow you to be more succesful in the long run. Everyone knows that it seems like the smart thing to do is make the opponent appear foolish and use lots of metaphors and plays on words. However I know better than this.

 

If it applies to the majority of the audience you are trying to reach it is more than a superficial illusion. Additionally, I didnt say anyone has to make the opponent appear foolish to make them laugh. I merely pointed out that it is easier to remember those portions of an exchange (especially when this is the base opinion that you hold) that made you laugh. Metaphors are a useful tool to communicate a foreign idea. It doesnt matter that YOU know better than this, it matters that you communicate your ideas in a method that will impact the ideas of your audience.

 

 

 

Laughter in the context of a debate is often something other than a display of pleasure, rather it is a display of relief of insecurity. When you focus on the use of dishonest debate tactics usually you are trying to make your opponent appear foolish which heightens their feelings of insecurity and makes them feel the need to lash out and/or support someone who will lash out.

 

Well we will just have to hold two different opinions on what laughter during debate is caused by. But my point wasnt about the humor itself it was about the memory of the persons participating/observing. I would also like to point out that there is no rule that the entire arguement must be composed of a dishonest debate tactics, as I understand the threads purpose:

 

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.

 

This is not to say I havent strayed a bit from the original intent.

 

 

Back to the post:

I have not suggested making the opponent feel foolish and have specifically posted appeal to Authority, appeal to Emotion, etc as examples of fallicious arguements within the context of logical fallacies. Pulling punches so the Rev. Dollar (for this example) doesnt feel flustered is not the opponents responsiblity. And if the Rev. Dollar reacts by lashing out that is the responsiblity of Rev. Dollar.

 

 

When I think of people "not connecting with the audience" in a debate I tend to think of people using all kinds of private language (or language specific to their discipline) as if the audience is going to go to great lengths in order to understand what they say if they want to be considered intelligent. I think this is equally rediculous.

 

This is one way to not connect with the audience. Other ways include not being in touch with your audience belief/position and being able to communicate with them on the level they see things from. Such as the division between Evolution/ID.

 

You can connect with the audience via the metaphor that bridges the gap between the audiences understanding and the knowledge you hold on a particular subject. You can also connect via using the existing belief of the opponent and applying that to your position, removing the flight response to the idea and thereby allowing the audience to process, retain, accept, and recall.

[Turtle]

You'd be surprised how much more than the average student this allows me to remember and understand about the course material for any given class.

 

...of course that should have been blatantly obvious considering the rest of the post which you oh so conveniently cut out. Exactly the type of weasly little tactics I was talking about. You rely on the fairly common ignorant belief that reading = intelligence to judge this information apart from it's counterargument.

 

It is quite a rediculous argument that anyone that does not read does not know anything. Writing is just one of many forms of communication.

 

LOL While you debate strenuously agin my premise, I see you're not above a little name-calling yourself. :hihi: Nicely done, as it makes my point. (I didn't Red 'ignorant' as 'name-calling' inasmuch as it primarily connotes 'not knowing.')

 

I don't hold that reading = intelligence, rather that reading = knowledge. I suggest that no lecture is sufficient to communicate the knowledge gained by reading Homer for instance.

 

I would also like to point out that there is no rule that the entire arguement must be composed of a dishonest debate tactics, as I understand the threads purpose:

Well perceived Cedars. :doh: Moreover, no part of a particular debate need make use of purposefull fallacious arguments at all. Like any collection of tools, one uses whatever is best suited to the job at hand. :doh:

 

While I chose not to quote an entire post, it is still available for all to read in its original context. (I see we have a neat new feature which links a partial quote to the entire post; very nice. :doh: )

[Kriminal99]

Post moved due to response before finished.

[Turtle]

Such actions are not always productive, but they are also not deceptive which is the main issue. However weasly describes "tactics" in that sentence therefore it is not name calling. Also ignorant describes the belief that reading = intelligence, again not a person.

 

These are not necessary, since I can just make the argument for why I think they are so instead, but then again I am only human and unless there is strict enough moderation that such things are prevented or punished it becomes difficult to remain perfectly objective.

 

The issue is not simply deception; if that is not clear enough in the title of this thread, I made it clear in the first post. One who uses the weasly (:eek: ) tactic is implicated as a weasel, so it is namecalling. The same for the use of the term ignorant if you mean it derogatorily. My issue is whether it is unethical or immoral, and I hold that such a judgment is relative to a case by case basis.

Your attempt to employ the tactics I support as relatively fair in a manner intended to make me label you unethical or immoral, is transparent and ineffective because you decry it vehemently elsewhere.

Your pride in personal ignorance of written works lends weakness, not strength, to your replies. Without knowledge to apply intelligence to, it is of little value.:)

[Kriminal99]

Such actions are not always productive, but they are also not deceptive which is the main issue. However weasly refers to the act of purposely quoting someone out of context in that sentence therefore it is not name calling of a person. Also ignorant describes the belief that reading = intelligence, again not a person.

 

Does a label imply more than what has happened?

 

Perhaps these are not necessary, since I can just make the argument for why I think they are so instead, but then again its little different then saying "I think it is dishonest to quote someone out of context" just instead of dishonest I used weasly... Dishonest deceptive conniving weasly they mean relatively the same thing... I suppose you could say that conniving or weasly are metaphors of sorts that try to imply things past just that lying is wrong for reasons like I outlined above. Like that people who lie are like sneaky weasels. I suppose that makes sense. But with conniving I am not so sure. Does this imply that people who lie do other things like plot to hurt others for their own benefit? Or is that fair game because lying basically is hurting people for your own benefit? Do connivers do more than lie that makes it a term you should use to describe a liar? Maybe a weasels are only regarded negatively because they sneak around deceptively with the intent to benefit themselves at the expense of others?

 

Using dishonest seems to imply that maybe the person just did something they didn't realize was deceptive, whereas liar seems to imply that someone purposely tries to make others think what the liar wants with no regard for the truth.

 

When tribal (or self centered) morality and not namecalling

 

When dealing with such issues the problem of tribal morality often comes up... Like for instance if I start a new job at a bank full of african americans and one of them misrepresents a problem to the manager to make it look like it was my fault and I say she lied, the bank manager might get mad at me for "accusing" her of lying. Motivating her actions isn't that the person didn't lie, but that the liar is her friend and I am not therefore if she lied she must have had a good reason or I must have forced her to do it somehow. If that person threatens me then it must also be my fault by driving her to it somehow.

 

She has simply defined anything her friends do as moral and anything I do as immoral. Even though she HAS lied or threatened me, those exact words have implications of immorality so I get in trouble for making "[false] accusations" (since her friends actions are always moral, therefore any claim that she has done something immoral must be false) Of course this type of thinking exists on a spectrum: Few people would be so dense as to talk about me making "[false] accusations" if I came out of the back bleeding to death claiming that a coworker has stabbed me.

 

It might not always be easy to strike a balance between using words with unnecessary connotations and using words that accurately convey what has happened. However this issue is not nearly as signifigant as other blatantly dishonest debate tactics.

 

Reading vs Lecture

 

You say that lecture does not communicate as much information as reading. However communication (which really isn't even the issue) isn't measured by the number of words which fall on one's ears or eyes. Rather whether you are reading or listening you must formulate in your own mind something that resembles the ideas the writer/lecturer had when he wrote/said that which you are percieving. In either case you will probably formulate things that were not directly communicated to you based on what is said and you also might not formulate something that resembles what was directly communicated to you (miss something)

 

So that being said how EXACTLY is reading better than lecture? Listening to a lecture there are more gaps for me to think, and it seems that I do not have to exert myself as much when reading to understand what has been said. Using these gaps I reason far past what I have heard and end up with a much better understanding then I might have had I labouriously read some book without pause perhaps missing one idea while concentrating on another and reading on.

 

Perhaps I have been conditioned to gather tiny bits of information wherever I can steal them from my cold impersonal surroundings and use them to create an understanding of, rather than conditioned to just read on and have the answer given to you on a silver platter. Personally I feel this makes me better adapted to understanding things with limited information and with no social support, whereas some avid readers seem to conditioned to believe the only knowledge is that which someone else has already written...

 

@ Cedars - Metaphors

 

A Metaphor being a tool of communication... Well if the two situations compared in the metaphor are alike in every way to necessitate the same result then the metaphor is logically sound. But the next question is why use a metaphor instead of just establishing the soundness of the original premise when you have to do that anyways to justify the metaphor.

 

If it is your intent not only to not justify the metaphor, but rely on the opponent's inability to determine signifigant differences between the two situations compared in the metaphor then your intent is to decieve....

 

Metaphor as a motivator

 

I suppose though one might still might use a justified metaphor not so much to convince someone of the validity of your claims as much as to motivate them to consider your claims by putting it in terms of something they were interested in. However to not be skeptical of this opens the floodgates for people to use metaphors for dishonest purposes, and also even if no deception is intended both parties might miss a signifigant difference between the ideas compared in the metaphor and then a poor understanding of the topic has been communicated.

 

And if there are no signifigant differences one might still question the quality of understanding a metaphor relays... Consider the following:

 

An example

 

It is said by some that the person who invented television was a farmer who got the idea from thinking about plowing methods. Did this farmer try to make tvs out of ideas from observing a million natural phenomenon failing everytime because of the physics involved behind televisions causing differences from natural phenomenon until finally stumbling upon one that worked? Or being a physicist, did he know that the plowing method would work when the idea came to him while plowing the fields?

 

If the latter is the case, and the physicist said that a tv works like a plow across the screen in a zig zag fashion, has he really communicated much understanding of how a television works without the other knowledge that he knew connected the two situations?

 

My answer is not to outright reject the metaphor, but always be extremely skeptical of the strength of the connection and the level of understanding it conveys.

 

Does the end justify the means in this case?

 

You and Turtle's argument seems to be that the end justifies the means, IE having people believe the truth having used a logical fallacy is better than having them remain ignorant.

 

I might have a hard time disagreeing with this but for one or two minor details...

 

A) There is no objective truth. Rather truth is determined by examining all the evidence you can find and holding beliefs which are not contrary to that evidence.

 

:eek: Each person has a right to decide for themselves what to believe, as a function of them deciding how to best use their limited resources to benefit themselves being the model which maximizes happiness.

 

These combined give all kinds of counterarguments to the claim that the ends justifies the means.

 

If it is allowed that you can decieve people to help them find truth (even if there was objective truth) then what's to stop you from decieving people so you can benefit at their expense? They won't know the difference, since they have been decieved. Making it impossible to detect an immoral action encourages it and makes it more likely to occur.

 

If you decieve people to get them to agree with what you believe to be true, then how do you know they might not have disagreed with your beliefs had they access to all information and ultimately shown it not to be true?

 

Why would you have the right to decide for other people what is true? In the above example not only have you impeded your own ability to discover truth, but you have also impeded other people's ability to discover truth. According to free market morality, they should be responsible for their own truth finding for better or worse (because it makes them more efficient when they are)

 

Alternative

 

It is possible that some people argue from your point of view with the belief that it is the only way to impact others whatsoever. Perhaps my dissenting opinion is motivated by having access to alternatives that others may not have.

 

Perhaps through my study of philosophy and my learning style which allows me to build understanding of things beyond what others have communicated to me through any medium and use any belief set as a medium of communication, I have become able to make arguments which need not use as many dishonest tactics and fallacies and still impact others signifigantly whereas many others cannot do this.

 

However if this is the case, I believe the right thing to do would be identify the dishonest tactics as logical fallacies for what they are and then more people with such logical debate skills would arise in response. You set the rules to what they should be and then people get better at playing within the rules. (:) Please feel free to assualt the connection with this metaphor)

[Turtle]

...You say that lecture does not communicate as much information as reading. However communication (which really isn't even the issue) isn't measured by the number of words which fall on one's ears or eyes. Rather whether you are reading or listening you must formulate in your own mind something that resembles the ideas which you are percieving. In either case you will probably formulate things that were not directly communicated to you based on what is said and you also might not formulate something that resembles what was directly communicated to you (miss something)...

 

So that being said how EXACTLY is reading better than lecture? .

Communication is the preeminent feature of both lecture and reading.

 

 

I'll dispense with all I found obfuscation in your post, and focus on the question of reading vs. lecture. First, there are far more books than lectures, leaving a lot of knowledge unembraced. Second, the book can be re-read as many times as necessary, the lecture not. Third, one has the leisure of time to stop reading a book and use a dictionary or other reference source to clarify terms. Fourth, the lecture is someones inbterpretation of what is written.

 

Given your apparent disdain for reading and your pride in the ignorance that fosters, I take very little of what you communicate to have any substance. Nuthin' but puffery.

[IDMclean]

Just note, Turtle, that in that last post you revealed a major fallacy on your part. You make the error of assuming Kriminal's information is false, based on the origins of his information.

 

An argument's validity does not hinge on the past, present, or future conditions of the individual themselves.

 

Genetic Fallacy

[Kriminal99]

Communication is the preeminent feature of both lecture and reading.

 

 

I'll dispense with all I found obfuscation in your post, and focus on the question of reading vs. lecture. First, there are far more books than lectures, leaving a lot of knowledge unembraced. Second, the book can be re-read as many times as necessary, the lecture not. Third, one has the leisure of time to stop reading a book and use a dictionary or other reference source to clarify terms. Fourth, the lecture is someones inbterpretation of what is written.

 

Given your apparent disdain for reading and your pride in the ignorance that fosters, I take very little of what you communicate to have any substance. Nuthin' but puffery.

 

Sounds to me like you just didn't understand what I was saying. The reason I question the signifigance of "communication" is because if for example I hear a philosophy professor say "how do we know we aren't really dreaming?" and I then go on to have a 2 hour internal monologue regarding this concept in my head and logically deduce twice as much information as was written in the textbook regarding the subject (whereas the student next to me thinks "god thats stupid" and then spends two hours that night reading the textbook to get 1/4th the understanding), one might ask how much of it was communication and how much of it was my own effort.

 

And I was about to ask just that, but then I realized that even if you sit there and read a book and do not stop to have an internal monologue, you are still not taking directly what is written but rather trying to formulate ideas in your head that resemble the ideas the writer had when writing it and tried to communicate.

 

So then one must ask where the line is drawn between communication and slight inspiration followed by personal effort? Is it a length of time since the communication occured? That seems arbitrary... perhaps it is the amount of effort exerted by the lecturer/writer compared to the effort of the listener/reader. Seemingly less arbitrary but impossible to qualify - There are issues of feigned or poor effort, and the fact that an infinite amount of effort on the part of the writer/lecturer cannot compensate for a lack of effort on the listener, whereas the opposite is true of the opposite (a person can deduce the same thing completely on their own as someone else already has)

 

In any case, the issue is not communication at all but rather final understanding of the topic.

 

PS If the quote you posted was really unclear, try substituting "ideas that resembled those the writer/lecturer had when he wrote/said what you are percieving" for "ideas that resembled those which you are percieving"