It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Decent Debating

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Thanks for posting the list of logical fallacies. It was in my favorite philosophy course at University, and one of the few things that impacted the way I think permanently. The False Dichotomy is so common! (As are others, but that's my fave because it's seen in the most mundane to the most critical analyses.)

It was great to go through the list again.




posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Every belief systems is built on a set of assumptions. Based on these assumptions you have common sense. The problem is most people do not even realized they have assumptions. They just think everyone else is crazy. Unless two people share the same set of assumptions you will think the other person is crazy.

To give you an example consider the assumption, "God exists." Having this one assumption, or not having it, will lead to wildly different ways of thinking based on having it or not having it. The same is true with politics. Everything in politics is built on a set of assumptions people consider to be true without any proof.

Unless you identify someone else's assumptions in a conversation you will find some of the other person's assertions of truth as being insane.



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Personally, I think the best debaters are people who don't have any particular opinion on a subject they are debating. They may have a leaning in the beginning, but they're not cemented into this opinion. They throw out the facts they have which support their observations, and then learn from the counter points coming back.

People who are hard-over, entrenched and ultra-passionate about a subject generally don't make good debaters. Their mindset is out in front of the person they are debating, and they're not patient enough to fill in the blanks along the way, so they jump to the extreme side of their position. Then things just degenerate from there.

I've lost a couple debates here, and I admitted defeat. In those cases they were always subjects where I held a very strong opinion, but was misinformed. In essence I was blinded by my own passion for the topic. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

That's my .02

Oh, and BTW, FD...you're WRONG!! LOL!



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

I struggled with his character as well. When he just got out of his car and left it on the freeway I jumped for joy because I understood his angst. With the clerk in the bodega, to me it was not so much the clerk himself but rather the entire system that would not bend a small rule to help a person in plight.

I recognized his character cuz he was to a large degree, me. As the movie progressed he continued to not understand that he as well as the situations he encountered was off kilter,,,that I could see.

When he snapped it was not a quick and out of the blue thing, it was a process for him. Of getting off on his own self righteousness which blinded him to each step he took away from sanity. At that point in my life I was very, really very, self righteous and it was killing me. Slowly, incrementally.

There were a couple of times where my rage did snap and I engaged in some property destruction. I kinda went off and there was a white blinding kind of thing going on in my head and I raged.... Though it felt good at the moment, exerting my sense of putting the world back in balance, a few minutes later when I came back to my senses I was really glad that it had not been people who had been in my way. That for me was a blessing....

So, had I really been him at the end when he realized that ''he was the bad guy'' and he did the suicide by cop, for me at least the message was clear. Keep on like that and you will die,either slowly or abruptly. So far I have managed to avoid the abruptly.

Thank you for your reply Falling, it was nice to discuss with you.



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 01:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk


Oh, and BTW, FD...you're WRONG!! LOL!


Damn

I knew I shouldn’t have apologized .

When I was right . 😁



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: drussell41

These are the fallacies I see the most .

The irrelevant conclusions fallacy .


Irrelevant conclusion,[1] also known as ignoratio elenchi (Latin for 'ignoring refutation') or missing the point, is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid and sound, but (whose conclusion) fails to address the issue in question. It falls into the broad class of relevance fallacies.


Which is related to one everybody knows the strawman fallacy.

Misdirection



Straw man is a device or trope used in arguments. The phrase describes a misrepresentation or false version of an argument. This is an informal fallacy. The reasoning is flawed because it distorts issues. A false version of the other side's argument is proved wrong and it looks as if the real argument has been proved wrong.


Make your own argument



This fallacy works hand-in-hand with either of the above options . I tend to fall victim to this fallacy more than any other because of my stubbornness and disregard for the circumstances of the debate .

The ridicule fallacy


Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]) is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or humorous, and therefore not worthy of serious consideration.

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke. This is a rhetorical tactic that mocks an opponent's argument or standpoint, attempting to inspire an emotional reaction (making it a type of appeal to emotion) in the audience and to highlight any counter-intuitive aspects of that argument, making it appear foolish and contrary to common sense. This is typically done by making a mockery of the argument's foundation that represents it in an uncharitable and oversimplified way.


Popularity contest

What about you which one do you fall for ? Everybody’s got a weakness .

edit on 26-11-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-11-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

First and foremost an argument, statement or proposition has to be presented correctly. There really is no logical debate to be had about a sniplet from a dubious source and an OP making some ad hominen attack based on the info in the article.

These kinds of threads make up a large percentage of "discussions" on ATS as of late.

I tend to fall for all fallacies (except the ad hominen) at some point in discussions if I am too involved in the subject....

I do like to play devil's advocate sometimes and take the most controversial standpoint. It makes it far more easy to defend if you are just in it for discussion sake....

Peace


edit on 26-11-2019 by operation mindcrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: drussell41

What about you which one do you fall for ? Everybody’s got a weakness .


Mine was the false dichotomy.....and once recognized, I see it everywhere. I'm not sure about my biggest weakness now.



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: vethumanbeing
But the education system has programmed these kids to only think with their feelings . They have done it so completely I don’t think many will ever mature from their view of the unjust world.

Get them young and dumb, indoctrinate them and hope they stay childlike; they will at some point have to crawl out of their dogs thundersheets, make a living and deal with societies built in unsafe spaces (survival of the fittest).


Fallingdown: I see a little hope. In the 80s the economy boomed and they saw the cash.
In the 90s tech took off and they saw the cash. Trump will create another great economy . Especially when he wins the tariff war. I’m just not convinced this generations is going to want the cash . Which will put us on the road to full-scale socialism. The 30-year-old’s with a adolescent outlook on life...... buy me, save me , get me, give me
In another 10 years their numbers will triple. If we don’t do something about public education they’ll keep churning them out . That’s the Democrats end game .

Don't be too concerned. Once common sense comes back to play; cannot get a job with that Comparative Literature degree...the pendulum has to swing the other direction.
edit on 26-11-2019 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: Fallingdown

Every belief systems is built on a set of assumptions. Based on these assumptions you have common sense. The problem is most people do not even realized they have assumptions. They just think everyone else is crazy. Unless two people share the same set of assumptions you will think the other person is crazy.

Two people *believing* the same assumption that a system exists for anything (constructed by others) is bad medicine; once organized into a money maker is a DISASTER. I can name five major religions that qualify as unmitigated train wrecks for humanity.
edit on 26-11-2019 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

If people never take a philosophy class it's hard to awaken people to logical thinking. Science is too specialized to teach logical thinking broadly.

I saw the seal who shot bin laden harping on how military leaders and politicians are creating a problem in the field being afraid to defend or assault as ordered.

Could be true. However it was in response to the to a navy seal who took a picture with an enemy corpse and was turned in by a dozen people in his unit for being a general psycho.

It was a perfect red herring and people ate it up like bacon (vagan or regualar)


edit on 26-11-2019 by luthier because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2019 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: drussell41

I do my best to stay on point which results in me repeating myself .

Eventually the strawman or Red Herring is picked up as the original narrative by most .

It lieu of the original position .

So I guess the two that hit me the most are the strawman and bandwagon fallacies .

My weakness is the ad hom fallacy .

It comes out when I get frustrated . ( greatly tempered here )

Hence the apology earlier .


This is starting to feel like a AA meeting . 😁



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 02:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: drussell41

I do my best to stay on point which results in me repeating myself .

Eventually the strawman or Red Herring is picked up as the original narrative by most .

It lieu of the original position .

So I guess the two that hit me the most are the strawman and bandwagon fallacies .

My weakness is the ad hom fallacy .

It comes out when I get frustrated . ( greatly tempered here )

Hence the apology earlier .


This is starting to feel like a AA meeting . 😁


LOL! Yeah, Strawman, Red Herring and Ad Hominem are pretty ubiquitous too. Really irksome when people with authority use them. Deliberate or untrained minds? Who knows.

Ad hominem pretty much makes me dismiss the entire argument. It's like a switch with me, one entitled "End Conversation." Some vicious stuff out there.
edit on 27-11-2019 by drussell41 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire


Myself though, I do not like debates so much. I much prefer discussion.


I prefer discussion as well. Perhaps I am too rigidly interpreting the word 'debate', but the approach of some on discussion forums in general lends an impression of applying tactics learning in a debating class. Those people are not present for an exchange of information; they want to WIN a debate. Fine for those who enjoy it, but in any given discussion it is hard to know if the person one is engaging is in discussion or debate mode.

Cheers



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

I"m not much for adversarialism. I don't know why that is. While others like to win, I like to contribute.

I find learning to be difficult in what around here is called debate. So much of it is opinion glued ''facts'', that is it is information held together by the holders preferences of truth. And it's not that that is so bad, it's just that when held as ''truth'' it is near impossible to discuss the merits of opposing positions. So if one '' holds the truth'' why even bother to listen to something that opposes that ''truth'' because the opposing information must be ''untruth''. That approach to information is so limiting. So I prefer to discuss.



posted on Nov, 27 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Fallingdown
I saw the seal who shot bin laden harping on how military leaders and politicians are creating a problem in the field being afraid to defend or assault as ordered.

Obama put in place a doctrine called "Rules of Engagement" that contradicted Warfare as the United States Armed Services understood it to be. Believe me these rules are ridiculous and were meant to shame/demean career military; take a swipe at Military doctrine, and discourage recruitment. Trump wisely rescinded them.

luthier: Could be true. However it was in response to the to a navy seal who took a picture with an enemy corpse and was turned in by a dozen people in his unit for being a general psycho.

This is what happens when a President attempts to undermine the Defense Department (take its funding and tie combatants hands in the field). The photograph was a joke advertisement to deter ISIS recruitment. Do you really not understand the wisdom of 'gallows' humor?


edit on 27-11-2019 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join