All's Relatively Fair In Love & Debate

[Turtle]

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

 

I did not assume it false; I pronounced it inapplicable.

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"

The issue of the thread is communication, particularly the methods employed and whether or not purposeful use of phallicies is unethical or immoral.

I did not misunderstand it; as I replied to Clown above, I found it inapplicable.

 

I do not maintain lecture knowledge is worthless, or knowledge acquired in any manner, rather I mean to point out that disdain for reading is shortsighted inasmuch it a primary and efficient method of communicating knowledge. A further point is that lectures often have a fee attached as well as a schedule, wheras one may borrow a book for free and read it whenever one cares.

As to the topic of the thread, I think the body reinforces the relativity of fairness as we sort out agreements on what is or is not valid. :naughty:

[hallenrm]

Let me butt in your argument, dear Krim, KAC and Turtle! :) I think what you are missing in your arguments is the quality of information being provided, whether through print or orally. Then there are some words that we tend to imbibe instantly, because our minds are tuned at that moment to receive them.

 

I buy many books, but often after a few pages, I do not read them at that time, but I have experienced that the same books can keep me glued for hours several months or years later. That is indeed the power of the printed word, vis a vis the oral bites. The oral bites are transitory, while the printed text remains the same even years later.

 

But, what is of importance is not whether the thoughts are read or heard, it is the substance of the thoughts and our readiness to pay attention to them! :naughty:

[Turtle]

Let me butt in your argument, dear Krim, KAC and Turtle! ;) I think what you are missing in your arguments is the quality of information being provided, whether through print or orally. Then there are some words that we tend to imbibe instantly, because our minds are tuned at that moment to receive them.

 

I buy many books, but often after a few pages, I do not read them at that time, but I have experienced that the same books can keep me glued for hours several months or years later. That is indeed the power of the printed word, vis a vis the oral bites. The oral bites are transitory, while the printed text remains the same even years later.

 

But, what is of importance is not whether the thoughts are read or heard, it is the substance of the thoughts and our readiness to pay attention to them! :)

 

All are welcome. :eek: I have started the thread in the spirit of the Philosophy and Humanities Forum subtitle, "I think, therefore I argue." In that spirit, I may put forward arguments as much to stimulate debate as to sway anyone of their veracity.

 

Oddly enough, until a few weeks ago I had not read a new book in a number of years after spending scores of years devouring many. Instead, I took to listening to lectures on the television science shows, reading on the internet, conducting experiments, and forwarding my own research in mathematics and other fields that interest me.

 

Then, voila! Hypography! I can scarce remember reading so much, and I doubt I have ever written so much. I heartily agree on your statement of the importance of substance and attention to what is communicated and the criticism I proffer is based in just that. :naughty:

[Kriminal99]

I did not assume it false; I pronounced it inapplicable.

 

The issue of the thread is communication, particularly the methods employed and whether or not purposeful use of phallicies is unethical or immoral.

I did not misunderstand it; as I replied to Clown above, I found it inapplicable.

 

I do not maintain lecture knowledge is worthless, or knowledge acquired in any manner, rather I mean to point out that disdain for reading is shortsighted inasmuch it a primary and efficient method of communicating knowledge. A further point is that lectures often have a fee attached as well as a schedule, wheras one may borrow a book for free and read it whenever one cares.

As to the topic of the thread, I think the body reinforces the relativity of fairness as we sort out agreements on what is or is not valid. :)

 

The off topic side argument regarding information gained from lectures compared to information gained from reading (which is what the statement communication is not the issue is in regards to) is completely different from the thread topic which one might say has to do with communication. Yet another underhanded debate tactic :naughty:

 

I have already replied to your claim that reading is somehow a better form of communicating knowledge, with an argument that you seem to have completely ignored (and called obfuscation because you did not immediately understand it) in favor of misquoting and making straw men out of my claims.

 

To review that argument, I claim that reading is no more primary or efficient then any other form of communication since "communication" is really about how much the person chooses to get out of whatever they percieve. I have, on multiple occasions, used a single sentence to spark a long internal dialogue that gave me a much better understanding of a subject then other classmates who spent an equal amount of time or more reading the material.

 

Additionally, paying fees(or taxes) and attending lecture is a requirement of modern society, and whats more television is probably a far superior means of communication to reading on every level... It contains pictures in addition to just words, and you can rewind or pause it analogous to what you can do with a book etc.

 

But with such factors aside the main issue (with regards to learning from different sources) is still how much you choose to get out of any medium of communication. I personally find reading very stifling because you are exchanging time figuring out things internally based on less information for trying to decipher what the reader was saying, the latter being far less efficient.

 

Let me butt in your argument, dear Krim, KAC and Turtle! ;) I think what you are missing in your arguments is the quality of information being provided, whether through print or orally. Then there are some words that we tend to imbibe instantly, because our minds are tuned at that moment to receive them.

 

I buy many books, but often after a few pages, I do not read them at that time, but I have experienced that the same books can keep me glued for hours several months or years later. That is indeed the power of the printed word, vis a vis the oral bites. The oral bites are transitory, while the printed text remains the same even years later.

 

But, what is of importance is not whether the thoughts are read or heard, it is the substance of the thoughts and our readiness to pay attention to them! :eek:

 

Exactly, and our readiness to to "pay attention" is not a function of how dense in words a medium of communication is. Personally I am rarely "not ready" to consider something that is uttered (although it occasionally happens when too much information is given to me at once in like a high level math class or something and I am still thinking about things said before) and even when I do if what I missed is linked logically to what I heard and thought about I usually just deduce it on my own.

 

Therefore, at least for me, the books being unchanging over time is not as much of an issue. However as a last resort, if I am missing information on a subject I can always just go look it up somewhere and use whatever I find to spark a new internal dialogue all over again. Whether you want to consider reading a line or two on a subject at a time and thinking about it the same as sitting down and reading a book is up to you. If you do, then I guess I do read occasionally.

 

Back on topic

 

Now that I think about it, the idea that its ok to lie to get someone to believe the truth should even be something that you should have to argue about to see that it is wrong. If you think the ends justifies the means then just get an army and put guns in everyone's faces to make them believe that something is true. In hisotry this has proven effective many times. Lying to someone to get them to believe what you want is no different, you are still forcing them to believe what they want only this time they don't even know what you are doing.

 

Both of these tactics are wrong because there is no objective truth and everyone has a right to decide for themselves.

 

Dishonest tactics in place of reconciliation of ideas

 

Additionally dishonest debate tactics are extremely detrimental to the actual exchange of ideas. Like in this thread for instance, turtle keeps completely ignoring my arguments in favor of using tactics like quoting out of context, straw man, ad hominem fallacy based on whether or not I read etc.

 

He is wasting people's time and energy by using tactics which he thinks might "win" him the argument, but do absolutely nothing to reconcile the different belief sets. He just ignores what I say and reposts his own ideas that I have already addressed along with some dishonest tactic to make it look like he is still in the debate...

 

Take these tactics away and the only thing left to do is address the arguments directly... which is much better for everyone.

[Turtle]

The off topic side argument regarding information gained from lectures compared to information gained from reading (which is what the statement communication is not the issue is in regards to) is completely different from the thread topic which one might say has to do with communication. Yet another underhanded debate tactic :)

Did you seriously think I wouldn't employ tactics the thread is meant to justify? :hyper: You name yourself 'criminal" and then pretend to righteousness. :hyper:

 

I have already replied to your claim that reading is somehow a better form of communicating knowledge, with an argument that you seem to have completely ignored (and called obfuscation because you did not immediately understand it) in favor of misquoting and making straw men out of my claims.

You have no idea what I do or do not understand. If I have not made it clear enough, your insistence that reading is somehow inferior or lacking is ridiculous beyond the pale.

 

To review that argument, I claim that reading is no more primary or efficient then any other form of communication since "communication" is really about how much the person chooses to get out of whatever they percieve. I have, on multiple occasions, used a single sentence to spark a long internal dialogue that gave me a much better understanding of a subject then other classmates who spent an equal amount of time or more reading the material.

Again, you need to read some history. It is written language that has reshaped the world since its inception.

 

Additionally, paying fees(or taxes) and attending lecture is a requirement of modern society, and whats more television is probably a far superior means of communication to reading on every level... It contains pictures in addition to just words, and you can rewind or pause it analogous to what you can do with a book etc.

Oh yeah; books don't have pictures. :doh:

 

But with such factors aside the main issue (with regards to learning from different sources) is still how much you choose to get out of any medium of communication. I personally find reading very stifling because you are exchanging time figuring out things internally based on less information for trying to decipher what the reader was saying, the latter being far less efficient.

Pure gobbledygook.

 

 

Therefore, at least for me, the books being unchanging over time is not as much of an issue.

Clearly.

 

Back on topic

 

Now that I think about it, the idea that its ok to lie to get someone to believe the truth should even be something that you should have to argue about to see that it is wrong.

If you read more you might acquire better writing skills; I'm sure you meant to say 'should not even'.

If you think the ends justifies the means then just get an army and put guns in everyone's faces to make them believe that something is true.

Talk about your logical phallacy. :doh:

 

Dishonest tactics in place of reconciliation of ideas

 

Additionally dishonest debate tactics are extremely detrimental to the actual exchange of ideas. Like in this thread for instance, turtle keeps completely ignoring my arguments in favor of using tactics like quoting out of context, straw man, ad hominem fallacy based on whether or not I read etc.

Your arguments are written in your posts for all to see in context. Again, my purposeful ignoring of many of your comments is my comment that I have considred them immaterial.

 

He is wasting people's time and energy by using tactics which he thinks might "win" him the argument, but do absolutely nothing to reconcile the different belief sets. He just ignores what I say and reposts his own ideas that I have already addressed along with some dishonest tactic to make it look like he is still in the debate...

If you find this a waste of time, stop participating.

 

Take these tactics away and the only thing left to do is address the arguments directly... which is much better for everyone.

 

Directly, I baited you with this thread and you have the hook set deep in your mouth. The reason we teach syllogistic logic is so one can judge the truth of a matter, and the truth of the matter is that people deceive and often to a better result than not relative to a particular circumstance. I see your continued insistance that someone must step in and make it stop naive, unrealistic, and whining. So again, if you think this a waste of time, have the strength of your logically arrived at conviction and stop participating.

Debating For The Sheer Sport,

Turtle :cup:

[IDMclean]

We like to consider ourselves open minded, but we do not like to see commercials, arrogant comments, or flames.

 

Turtle, I would like to note this from the book. I would encourage you to review your style, technique and manners.

[Turtle]

Turtle, I would like to note this from the book. I would encourage you to review your style, technique and manners.

 

My rejoinder to your retort is, with a screen name like 'Kick ***', your encouragement is tantamount to the pot calling the kettle black. I sincerely appreciate the generous, thoughtful, and loving attention you have given to my style, technique, and manners. All's relatively fair in love and debate; or is it? :hihi:

 

Discuss. ;)

[IDMclean]

:umno:

 

My comment is not ment to be arrogant, but informative. Nor is my screen name.

 

The many meanings that one can take all are interesting, but hardly germane to anything regarding this discussion.

 

You name yourself 'criminal" and then pretend to righteousness.

 

Ad hominen. :Clown:

 

Directly, I baited you with this thread and you have the hook set deep in your mouth. The reason we teach syllogistic logic is so one can judge the truth of a matter, and the truth of the matter is that people deceive and often to a better result than not relative to a particular circumstance.

 

Arrogant, baiting comment. Plain and simple. :hihi:

 

I see your continued insistance that someone must step in and make it stop naive, unrealistic, and whining. So again, if you think this a waste of time, have the strength of your logically arrived at conviction and stop participating.

 

Insensitive, condecending, dismissive comment. Not consequitive to civil manner. :shrug:

 

What you make of it all, is your problem, and not mine. I commented on that, as you have made an open admission of break of policy regarding the site. I do not find your manner humorous, cute, witty or any thing of the sort. I find your aptitude for baiting individuals, taking on a condescending mannerism, cutting remarks and other such to be a negative, and undesired influence upon the site. :esad:

 

I realize in the whole of things I am the new person here, and my views maybe diminished, or out right ignored because of this. However I feel none the less that it is an issue which needs to be addressed to continue civil discourse and keep pleasant my stay here at hypography, and hopefully everyone else's.:)

 

Do with that what you will, it's not you I wish to inform, nor persuade. I need not do anything, besides keep objective and civil in my discourse.

[Kriminal99]

Did you seriously think I wouldn't employ tactics the thread is meant to justify? :) You name yourself 'criminal" and then pretend to righteousness. :Clown:

 

My name is irrelevant.

 

You have no idea what I do or do not understand. If I have not made it clear enough, your insistence that reading is somehow inferior or lacking is ridiculous beyond the pale.

 

It is quite obvious when your responses miss the point entirely of the posts they claim to address that you either completely misunderstood and hold some straw man version of your opponent's reasoning, or are purposely attempting to conceal superior reasoning with a might makes right attitude justifying winning the argument anyway you can.

 

The former demonstrates how dishonest debate tactics impede reconciliation of ideas, while the latter exposes the dangerous result of accepting such tactics under the pretense of working for the greater purpose of helping people find truth. In either case, I am fully justified in pointing out that you misunderstood what you quoted.

 

Again, you need to read some history. It is written language that has reshaped the world since its inception.

 

Completely irrelevant to the argument you have quoted twice now without actually responding to. Completely irrelevant to what is even being discussed here for that matter: The rate at which a particular medium effects the human race as a whole throughout history is a completely different issue than which medium is superior for a particular person or which medium is superior when used correctly.

 

The reason for this can be seen quite easily: I can profess a profound philosophical truth that I have come across to dozens of people in dialogue who may pay little attention using straw men and other dishonest debate tactics to avoid having to consider my arguments and create the illusion of being able to compete with the superior reasoning. I might die out before encoutering a small handful of people who challenged themselves to understand my ideas and spread them in turn, and the ideas could easily die with me or with them. On the other hand if I write them down then a person with an open mind can recreate the beliefs despite all the ignorant sheep between him and myself barring communication.

 

This trait of written communication has no effect on a single person's ability to get information from it. Rather it is a law of large numbers issue - it exposes the same written idea to more people.

 

Oh yeah; books don't have pictures. :hihi:

 

I seriously hope you do not to intend to imply that a book could compare with a television program in terms of richness. The pictures in a book (which are usually few and far between) don't move, if it really must be broken down into such simple terms for you to understand... Not that the number of senses that a medium of communication makes use of is any more meaningful than the number of words uttered or written.

 

Pure gobbledygook.

 

Oh thats brilliant. Unfortunately royal decree of your opponent's arguments being false serve little purpose on a debate forum.

 

Clearly.

 

If you read more you might acquire better writing skills; I'm sure you meant to say 'should not even'.

 

Talk about your logical phallacy.

 

How ironic that in the next sentence after criticising my language skills you go on to mispell a word for the 200th time in this thread. Such shows the FALLACY of appealing to language skills in a online forum debate... Hardly a substitute for logical reasoning ability.

 

Your arguments are written in your posts for all to see in context. Again, my purposeful ignoring of many of your comments is my comment that I have considred them immaterial.

 

Your ignorance of the signifigance of other people's arguments is irrelevant apart from any arguments that you may have attempting to justify said ignorance; However attempting to decieve readers by drowning out superior reasoning with dodgy responses is immoral.

 

If you find this a waste of time, stop participating.

 

Getting frustrated are we? Just think, if and when there is one of me in every room to expose dishonest debate tactics like yours for what they are, such tactics will get you nothing but a lack of respect from everyone around you. What choice will people such as you have then, other than to face the ideas of your opponents head on such that a better understanding of the issue on all sides will result?

 

Directly, I baited you with this thread and you have the hook set deep in your mouth. The reason we teach syllogistic logic is so one can judge the truth of a matter, and the truth of the matter is that people deceive and often to a better result than not relative to a particular circumstance. I see your continued insistance that someone must step in and make it stop naive, unrealistic, and whining. So again, if you think this a waste of time, have the strength of your logically arrived at conviction and stop participating.

Debating For The Sheer Sport,

Turtle :shrug:

 

Baited? What your small intentions were are irrelevant. If someone has an opposing belief set I will take every opportunity to reconcile, obviously this is in accordance with the views I have professed here and in every other thread.

 

Without your hiding behind the anonymity of the internet, one such as I would hardly need anyone else to "step in" to deal with the likes of you. Anyone attempting such behavior with me in a real life debate is quickly exposed for what they are for all to see, and a lack of respect is all such people have to show for their behavior. The result is either that the person learns to behave like a real person, or learns to avoid confrontation with me at all costs.

 

The only thing the world needs in order to deal with the likes of you entirely is more people like me, and fewer "enablers"

 

This topic tends to remind me of the pathetic weasles I have come into contact with in my life that seem to model the same type of behavior.

 

My personal experience with a compulsive liar

 

A particular person (with whom I am now living with for purposes of convenience) comes to mind, whom within 30 seconds of meeting I determined was emotionally dependent on the way people react to him by gauging his facial expressions. Although it is possible that such a person only achieve desired results by honest means, this is rarely the case and indeed it was not here.

 

This person immediately proceeded to try and impress a third party with insincere flattery and what she (the third party) later described to me as simply "trying to hard". When attempting to have conversations with this person regarding my previous exploits with women, he would become defensive for apparently no reason. (obviously the guy is an insecure putz) He would often attempt to paint himself as a "player", indicating several times that he thought his deceptive behavior was the means by which one would achieve such a status

 

This person (the roomate), over the time I have known him, would often become quite angry with me over his girlfriend being too nice to me, talking about me, making too much eye contact, defending me etc and resort to all kinds of deceptive tactics to try an cause her to pay more attention to him instead. These tactics ranged from taking profound things I had said and claiming them as his own, to all kinds of straw men, to claiming I said and did things I did not, to making sure she wasn't around when a girlfriend of mine was and then claiming he had never seen me date etc.

 

Of course all of his efforts were completely in vein, until such a time as the girl realized it was not my intention to actually steal her. After overhearing a fight involving the girlfriend being angry that he had deleted an instant message from me that was supposed to be directed to her, I then later got in contact with her but made no effort to carry on an extended conversation - At which point of course she stopped defending me and even took to saying a negative thing or two herself.

 

What would one expect from someone that would date such a person to begin with? She probably thought such behavior made her just as much a "player" as my roomates lying made him. Unfortunately the truth is far too evident - the girl's previous boyfriend physically abused her, so the move to a mentally and emotionally abusive boyfriend is a step up for her. Obviously the fact that someone cares enough to manipulate her so is a turn on for her... but apparently not as much of one as my honest and caring interaction with her was. Much of her other behavior points to the same thing... her constant exaggeration of laughter and statements made as if to demand attention from her surroundings... Very similar to her boyfriends behavior.

 

Both of them seem to have constructed a completely imaginary world where they are superior to everyone else as established by their poor reasoning and straw man versions of everyone else.

 

If anything is to be learned from this, it is that people who rationalize lying are equally likely to exhibit self-delusional behavior. As demonstrated by the fact that I live with them, their behavior has minimal emotional impact on the likes of me.

 

Despite their physical proximity, people such as them (and forum posters who act in a similar manner) of are little consequence to me. The girls I typically set my sights on rarely suffer such behavior as exhibited by my roomate, being of the more competitive variety with much higher self esteem. If you had a choice between someone who ACTUALLY gives you what you want, and someone who constantly lies to you to try and make you think that noone could give you what you wanted better than they could, which would you choose?

[Turtle]

Well, by a preponderance of words Criminal is clearly right in everything he says. (Save for me intentionally misspelling fallacy.) Time is up and the case goes to the jury. :)

[sebbysteiny]

Well, by a preponderance of words Criminal is clearly right in everything he says. (Save for me intentionally misspelling fallacy.) Time is up and the case goes to the jury.

 

I'd rather read too much than too little.

 

Like KickAssClown, I have only recently read this thread, mainly because I started a similar thread and I wanted to see if there was any overlap. However, I am discussing the tactics of fair debating, you are discussing the morality of fair an unfair debating. So it seems to me there is no overlap at all.

 

But I can't help but notice that you are using as many unfair debating tactics as possible to help support your premise that all is fair in debate.

 

Now yes, once you have established your premise, then you can morally use them. But to try and use them to establish your premise seems to me to be the logical falacy of begging the question.

 

I think I might help Kriminal99 out against your debating tactics so that I may serve as a vaccine against them.

 

Did you seriously think I wouldn't employ tactics the thread is meant to justify? You name yourself 'criminal" and then pretend to righteousness.

 

Humour is an unfair debating tactic. All jokes must have an element of truth and the humour distracts the conscious mind from the truth contained. This is why, for example, racist jokes tend to be abundant in communities that are about to commit genocide. One good response is a counter retort.

 

Another is to expose his cheap trick.

 

Compare

 

My name is irrelevant.

 

with simply

 

Ad hominen

.

 

Technically, they are both saying the same thing. But KickAssClown's is better. Why?

 

Because you are going on the defensive. It's weak and if you win, you can only draw. KickAssClown accused Turtle of using a logical falacay. This is more aggressive and strong. It undermines Turtle's credibility and switches people on who would not have otherwise noted Turtle's use of cheap debating tactics.

 

My response has also further undermined Turtle since I have assumed him to be wrong rather than actually argued with the assertion that making fun of your handle amounts to any logical defence. But I can get away with this because the notion is so rediculous. So another response is to assume he is wrong and go with that. Everytime you make a point that people agree with, they must also agree with the underlying assumption.

 

All good tactics.

 

Oh yeah; books don't have pictures :girl_hug:.

 

I seriously hope you do not to intend to imply that a book could compare with a television program in terms of richness. The pictures in a book (which are usually few and far between) don't move, if it really must be broken down into such simple terms for you to understand...

 

I admit I have difficulties with this type of argument. But I think the correct response to the tactic of trying to prevoke a reaction is to be 'bigger' than it. Don't ignore it, but react in a way that suggests you are too big to play childish games.

 

The problem is that if you react, you are acknowledging the frame of his argument: that you are an idiot. You have pretty much already lost. Being bigger than it implies that Turtle is just a juvinile name calling baby. Which frame is better at winning a debate?

 

 

And on the last point about style, and this applies to both you and Turtle, but especially you as my experience in another thread showed.

 

Just because you wrote down your ideas does not mean that the reader will understand them properly. And just because you have read the words of what someone else has said does not mean you will understand it properly. So if somebody is misrepresenting what you said, then rather than call 'strawman' and get aggressive, you might want to try and find the source of the point they do not understand. You might have explained it badly. He might be a bad reader. Chances are it is a mixture of both.

 

I have often found with you that you are quick to accuse people of being stupid for not understanding you and are just as quick to assume you know what the other is saying. I'm not sure this is a productive or accurate.

 

You may disagree with me of course :boy_hug:.

 

 

Right, now for my contribution to the topic rather than the methodology being used to discuss it.

 

I agree that unfair debating tactics work. The problem is, Turtle, that sometimes, their use can be counter productive. Lets look at the Palestinian methodology of arguing . I've seen it work, and it is undeniably effective.

 

The only problem is, hypnotic suggestions and other types of brainwashing (including linguistical abuse / gynastics) do not work on me. Every time I hear Palestinian arguments now, something inside me makes me want to spew. And it is not because of the content. It is because there is no content. It usually consists entirely unfair debating tactics with no more substance than a few pictures of injured babies repeated again and again.

 

The reason they don't work on me is because I am kinda immune to them. And now that I know of them, I have a defence to them. Another problem is that I am fully aware of the counter arguments and cheap debating tactics do not address them, they hide from them. Even the best brainwashing tactics cannot work if they fundamentally conflict with the ideas already contained in the subconscious. This is similar to the way hypnosis cannot make somebody do something they would never do. This makes me doubly immune

 

But this is not a minor problem for the Palestinians. So a Zionist supporter does not back them. But the problem is, all zionists will be extremely difficult to convince (as indeed they are). And the problem is, it is far more important for the Palestinians to convince somebody like myself (who has direct influence over events in Israel, who cares for the both Israeli and Palestinian wellfair and wants genuine peace),to support their cause, than some ignorant country bumpkin in a city 3000 miles away looking for a cause to give them some kind of fulfillment.

 

Which leads me to my main point.

 

Every unfair debating tactic has within it a counter. If you are caught using such a tactic, you will be exposed as being manipulative and unfair, your credibility and therefore your ability to pursuade deminishes significantly.

 

The best way to win a debate is to have the facts on your side.

 

The only reason why unfair debating tactics still work is because not enough people are familiar with them. Nevertheless if you are arguing with somebody who is, you will end up losing.

 

So the best way is to stay honest. Yes, you might have to extend the debate by a few rounds but you do not run the risk of losing before you even begin.

 

Again, I want to take the Palestinian activist approach as a case in point. If you go to University, certainly in England, or even on the streets, you will find that Zionists are outnumbered by Palestinian activists by almost 50:1. At one point at my time in Oxford, there were 4 well funded highly organised pro-Palestinian organisations. There were 0 pro-Israel ones.

 

Yet the few Zionists that there were had a disproportionate impact since their debating tactics are much more reasonable and they were able to expose this. And I'm sure that the facts are on their side helps somewhat too :teeth:

[Kriminal99]

The other thread was 14 pages long though, and alot of it was me and you going back and forth... I don't know if that qualifies as quick to judge...

 

Plus it isn't an issue of stupidity anyways, but rather willingness to consider others ideas. You are more willing to consider the ideas of others when you are less certain yours are right and everyone else just doesn't understand you are right.

 

This is a perfect example of how philosophy is useful but it's usefulness cannot easily be viewed externally by someone that does not value it. Everyone often feels in a debate that their views are right and the other person's are wrong. If you have a good understanding of skepticism you will be more open minded and able to understand and respond to or accept your opponent's arguments more often (If you don't have much self skepticism, it takes someone a lot of effort to get you to consider their viewpoint) But anyone on the outside will not recognize the difference.

 

I have pointed out several times that turtle's tactics are fallacies, I guess I just figured by that point anyone reading already knows why my name is irrelevant.

 

I really don't feel like I can determine how people interpret an online debate - in a debate in person I know my methods to be succesful. If the person acts irrationally I just pretend like they are acting rationally and calmly explain why they are wrong in simple and easy to understand language (meaning I am succesful in communicating). I know that to get mad in response to something negative someone says gives a bad appearance and alot of people just ignore things like that to try and make the opponent look small like you said. However I find that often by responding rationally to someone acting irrationally causes them to start acting more rationally again, and perhaps even apologize for their behavior.

 

I have seen this to some degree on internet forums as well as in real life debates. There is always some person who is not phased by being wrong nor do they think there is anything wrong with being irrational. Rather they have some retarted (by this I mean the book definition of retarded) might makes right view of things where they violence is illegal but its ok to use any kind of lie or deception to alter people's perception and for them to be able to do so is the definition of being right. In person in my experience other people will gang up on this person as long as I am able to expose their behavior and counter their arguments well enough. But on the internet it just seems to drag out forever because the person doing it is so sheltered.

[Turtle]

I'd rather read too much than too little.

 

 

I agree that unfair debating tactics work. The problem is, Turtle, that sometimes, their use can be counter productive.

 

Ergo my qualifier 'relatively' in the title. I love you guys even if you do tend to verbosity. Thanks for participating. :cup:

[sebbysteiny]

I agree that unfair debating tactics work. The problem is, Turtle, that sometimes, their use can be counter productive.

 

Ergo my qualifier 'relatively' in the title.

 

'relatively fair' is not the same as 'relatively effective'.

[Turtle]

'relatively fair' is not the same as 'relatively effective'.

 

Fair enough.

[IDMclean]

I have to ask, turtle. What is it that you mean by relative? Relative to what?

 

When two people come to an agreement, relative to one another they have reached an objective position. Relativity only comes into play between one or more bodies, and only when there is a detectable difference between them, that is observable by one or more of them.

 

Therefore, Fairness is not relative. As it requires agreement on what consitutes fair and what does not. Take for instance, in war not all is fair. You can not, by international agreement, snipe your enemy's commander. You are can not, by international agreement, drop an atomic bomb. These things are not relative positions, they are objective to those who are concearned, and violation creates an unacceptable relative position between the body of person who hold the agreement, and the person who broke from that objective position.

 

That principle is prevalent even in debate, and other systems.

[Edella]

You can not, by international agreement, snipe your enemy's commander. You are can not, by international agreement, drop an atomic bomb.

Completely off topic,but can you tell me the international agreement that states you cannot snipe your enemy's commander?As I understand,an enemy commander would be a primary target of a sniper and perfectly acceptable under the Geneva Conventions.I also know of no international agreement the U.S. subscribes to which prohibits all use of nuclear weapons.As a matter of fact,The Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations is the current U.S. doctrine on when and under which circumstances to use nuclear weapons.