Argumentation Guidelines for Real Life™

[Swad]

Ok, as much as I love this forum, we've had a lot of bad arguments being thrown out on a lot of issues. Most of what I've seen is called an Ad Hominem argument (literally, "an attack against the person"), which is where you attack the person (or a group of persons) rather than their argument.

Example 1: You are a man. You can't talk about abortion since it doesn't affect you.

 

Problem: The person who is delivering the argument has no relation to the arguments being presented. A male is very well qualified to speak to the pros and cons of abortion, since his arguments can be just as valid as anyone else's.

 

Example 2: Israel/Palestine/USA/UK/EU/NATO is a bunch of lying scumbags and can't be trusted. This war/action is just wrong because they're doing it.

Problem: Ok, so you've called them names... but your point has no weight behind it. This is another example of an Ad Hom attack. If you want to build your case, why not use Just War Theory or some kind of rational progression of thought?

 

Logic calms tempers - Ad Homs and bad logic enrage them. We'll only have logical arguments here in this forum.

 

Things to keep in mind during a debate:

 

* Understanding and identifying the presentation of an argument, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.

 

* Identifying the conclusion and the premises from which the conclusion is derived

 

* Establishing the "Burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance

 

* For the one carrying the "Burden of proof", the defender, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked

 

* For the attacker, to listen and find faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument

[killbot1000]

Ok, as much as I love this forum, we've had a lot of bad arguments being thrown out on a lot of issues. Most of what I've seen is called an Ad Hominem argument (literally, "an attack against the person"), which is where you attack the person (or a group of persons) rather than their argument.

Example 1: You are a man. You can't talk about abortion since it doesn't affect you.

 

Problem: The person who is delivering the argument has no relation to the arguments being presented. A male is very well qualified to speak to the pros and cons of abortion, since his arguments can be just as valid as anyone else's.

 

Example 2: Israel/Palestine/USA/UK/EU/NATO is a bunch of lying scumbags and can't be trusted. This war/action is just wrong because they're doing it.

Problem: Ok, so you've called them names... but your point has no weight behind it. This is another example of an Ad Hom attack. If you want to build your case, why not use Just War Theory or some kind of rational progression of thought?

 

Logic calms tempers - Ad Homs and bad logic enrage them. We'll only have logical arguments here in this forum.

 

Things to keep in mind during a debate:

 

* Understanding and identifying the presentation of an argument, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.

 

* Identifying the conclusion and the premises from which the conclusion is derived

 

* Establishing the "Burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance

 

* For the one carrying the "Burden of proof", the defender, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked

 

* For the attacker, to listen and find faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument

 

 

in regards to the abortion post, i believe I said "im assuming youre a man, how can you dicate whether women have to deal with the consequences or not?" not "you are a man, you cant talk about abortion" and maybe im just crazy, but that changes the whole meaning of what I said, my assumption can be wrong which is why i stated that it was an assuption, I apologize if ive offended people, or whatever, that was not my intent at all, im just angry, and lonely...hahah Ill try to be less heated .

[Swad]

Yeah, killbot I was just using that as an example since I've heard it so many times. Your post was essentially saying the same thing, but that's over, so we can forget about it.

[james2mart]

2+2=5.

 

4 8 15 16 23 42.

 

I don't know why I posted this.

[A Nonny Moose]

2+2=5.

 

Actually 2+2=5 for higher values of 2. Take 2.4 and 2.3. Both numbers essentially round down to 2. Add them together and we get 4.7, which rounds up to five.

 

BTW, Mash, you're a poopy head for not mentioning that engaging in petty name calling is not only a way to not argue, but it also shows childishness and it invalidates every argument you've made to date. Also, (standard fare for some bloggers) calling Bush a Nazi, or calling Bill O'Reilly an "abomination to humanity" certainly isn't the way to discuss things either.

[Swad]

...and it invalidates every argument you've made to date.

 

I hope that "you" here is operating as an indefinite pronoun and doesn't mean "Mash". I hope that I'm not guilty of that which I decry in this post.

[A Nonny Moose]

I was using the word you in a collective sense rather than individually singling you (as in Mash) out. You're certainly not a petty name caller ,but the jury is still out on being a poopy head, lol

[AppleLegal]

Actually 2+2=5 for higher values of 2. Take 2.4 and 2.3. Both numbers essentially round down to 2. Add them together and we get 4.7, which rounds up to five.

or if you leave a margin of error to the 1's place.

[rogabean]

Two and Two make five and quarter, that's why people fall in love.

[oregano]

well 2+2=5 under base three, if the first number after 3 is 5

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

omg, 2+2=4. ok? If it equals five then all of logic is wrong and we should all shut up.

[Ayanami]

2 + 2 = 5?

Yeah, maybe if you're Thom Yorke or Johnny Greenwood. =p

 

Why can't we have the Ad Hom rule in the Windows threads? How many people in there just go "Waaahhh...M$ Sux" "Windoze" "Wahhh...Vista"

*insert more whining Windows examples here*

[GlasGhost]

2 + 2 = 5?

Yeah, maybe if you're Thom Yorke or Johnny Greenwood. =p

 

Why can't we have the Ad Hom rule in the Windows threads? How many people in there just go "Waaahhh...M$ Sux" "Windoze" "Wahhh...Vista"

*insert more whining Windows examples here*

 

But windows is pretty bad.

 

I just Couldn't resist.

[oldtopman]

The Fallacy Detective, Thinking Toolbox are excellent books on this subject.