Comments on: How Not To Argue http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/ The official blog of the Skeptologists Sat, 11 Feb 2012 21:38:44 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Aaron http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-14959 Aaron Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:21:53 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-14959 Hello to everyone that has posted a blog or two on these many different ways to win an argument. I'm a football at Miles College, here in Alabama and I have a debate/argument so to say, to do with others in my speech class about why we should not track sex offenders. Now this is for a grade and I really need to pass, so I thought reading thses procedures and blogs, would enhance my knowledge and further my understanding, so I can ultimately win this discussion. I have read everything on this page, therefore I wanted to ask everyone, who clearly seems to understand all of this with great intellect. So, with that said, "How can I win this argument, against a group that is trying to say that sex offenders should be tracked?" I do not know what they are coming with, to try and persuade the audience, but what my group and I are coming with is that, 1. They don't keep track on murderers when they leave prison or equivalent. 2. They don't keep tabs on rapist, in which they rape people of their age group. Ex. A 50 yr old rapes a 43 yr old, he is not considered a sex offender, is he? 3. Yes we can track them, but we don't know what they are doing, it's not like we can put a camera inside their living quarters, that's an invasion of privacy. 4. How much of "OUR" taxes are being paid to keep track of these particular individuals, then if we can maybe show our audience some figures that represent how much of their money is being taken annually from their paychecks to support people behind bars, and kepping track of these individuals. Yes we can by tracking them, keep them from living in school related areas, but just because we are tracking them does not mean, we keep the ones that are traveling up to schools, away from schools. Yes you can track where they are in reference to their living quarters, but ultimately not what they do so, would you like to keep spending money, x amount to track these people, when we still cannot control what they do. 5. Then how many people are wrongfully accused, because they have no adequate lawyer to back their case, and now what that hinders individuals to do because of their falsified accusation, of the given proposition. I know it's not a lot, but it's all we've got so far. Guidelines: -15 minute dicussion proving our side -10 minute question answering segment and then our opposition goes for the same time limit. If any advice, on how we can attck this "case" will be greatly appreciated! Please post or email me at aaron_jones_1@yahoo.com Hello to everyone that has posted a blog or two on these many different ways to win an argument. I’m a football at Miles College, here in Alabama and I have a debate/argument so to say, to do with others in my speech class about why we should not track sex offenders. Now this is for a grade and I really need to pass, so I thought reading thses procedures and blogs, would enhance my knowledge and further my understanding, so I can ultimately win this discussion. I have read everything on this page, therefore I wanted to ask everyone, who clearly seems to understand all of this with great intellect. So, with that said, “How can I win this argument, against a group that is trying to say that sex offenders should be tracked?”
I do not know what they are coming with, to try and persuade the audience, but what my group and I are coming with is that,
1. They don’t keep track on murderers when they leave prison or equivalent.
2. They don’t keep tabs on rapist, in which they rape people of their age group.
Ex. A 50 yr old rapes a 43 yr old, he is not considered a sex offender, is he?
3. Yes we can track them, but we don’t know what they are doing, it’s not like we can put a camera inside their living quarters, that’s an invasion of privacy.
4. How much of “OUR” taxes are being paid to keep track of these particular individuals, then if we can maybe show our audience some figures that represent how much of their money is being taken annually from their paychecks to support people behind bars, and kepping track of these individuals. Yes we can by tracking them, keep them from living in school related areas, but just because we are tracking them does not mean, we keep the ones that are traveling up to schools, away from schools. Yes you can track where they are in reference to their living quarters, but ultimately not what they do so, would you like to keep spending money, x amount to track these people, when we still cannot control what they do.
5. Then how many people are wrongfully accused, because they have no adequate lawyer to back their case, and now what that hinders individuals to do because of their falsified accusation, of the given proposition.
I know it’s not a lot, but it’s all we’ve got so far.

Guidelines:
-15 minute dicussion proving our side
-10 minute question answering segment
and then our opposition goes for the same time limit.

If any advice, on how we can attck this “case” will be greatly appreciated! Please post or email me at aaron_jones_1@yahoo.com

]]> By: Julianne http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-4142 Julianne Mon, 02 Mar 2009 05:31:00 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-4142 Great post, thanks for the info Great post, thanks for the info

]]> By: Joel http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-4021 Joel Wed, 25 Feb 2009 03:44:13 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-4021 Is there an RSS feed I can sign up to to get updates? Is there an RSS feed I can sign up to to get updates?

]]> By: Xplodyncow http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-3434 Xplodyncow Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:49:37 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-3434 I don't know who wrote the adaptation to Schopenhaur’s original, but the list sounds an awful lot like the approach Capaldi and Smit take in their critical-thinking exercises in the book <i>The Art of Deception</i>. I don’t know who wrote the adaptation to Schopenhaur’s original, but the list sounds an awful lot like the approach Capaldi and Smit take in their critical-thinking exercises in the book The Art of Deception.

]]> By: chickenfish http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-3424 chickenfish Sat, 07 Feb 2009 14:31:20 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-3424 I suggest common knowledge is exactly as Max describes but as is with most things different people have different ideas about what a word or phrase may mean or how it is to be used. Perhaps presumed knowledge would better describe what most would think of as common knowledge. Presumed knowledge is knowledge that people are presumed to know unless they state otherwise. At least this is my legal position. I suggest common knowledge is exactly as Max describes but as is with most things different people have different ideas about what a word or phrase may mean or how it is to be used. Perhaps presumed knowledge would better describe what most would think of as common knowledge.

Presumed knowledge is knowledge that people are presumed to know unless they state otherwise. At least this is my legal position.

]]> By: Max http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-3416 Max Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:34:24 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-3416 For something to truly be "common knowledge", not only must you and I know it, but also I must know that you know it, and you know that I know it, and I know that you know that I know it, and so on. For something to truly be “common knowledge”, not only must you and I know it, but also I must know that you know it, and you know that I know it, and I know that you know that I know it, and so on.

]]> By: badrescher http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-3399 badrescher Fri, 06 Feb 2009 08:43:22 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-3399 IMHO: The goal of an arguer may not be truth, but the purpose of an argument actually is. Belief does not equal truth, as Max said, and truth is not private. Truth is neither subjective nor is it "fact(s)". Facts are either falsifiable or verifiable, but facts are merely common beliefs that are deemed highly likely to be true. Truth can never be known with 100% certainty. We SEEK truth. We settle for reasonable certainty of what is true. IMHO:
The goal of an arguer may not be truth, but the purpose of an argument actually is.
Belief does not equal truth, as Max said, and truth is not private. Truth is neither subjective nor is it “fact(s)”.
Facts are either falsifiable or verifiable, but facts are merely common beliefs that are deemed highly likely to be true.
Truth can never be known with 100% certainty. We SEEK truth. We settle for reasonable certainty of what is true.

]]> By: TaoMacGuy http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-3368 TaoMacGuy Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:08:55 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-3368 Wow. I'm reading this little ditty and thinking, this could have been written by Stephen Colbert! These tactics describe his on-air persona on "The Colbert Report" to a T! Marvelous! Wow. I’m reading this little ditty and thinking, this could have been written by Stephen Colbert! These tactics describe his on-air persona on “The Colbert Report” to a T!

Marvelous!

]]> By: tmac57 http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-3353 tmac57 Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:09:19 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-3353 Max, Thanks for your above examples. I instinctively got what you were talking about but couldn't think of one off the top of my head. Max,
Thanks for your above examples. I instinctively got what you were talking about but couldn’t think of one off the top of my head.

]]> By: TSK http://www.skepticblog.org/2009/02/02/how-not-to-argue/#comment-3301 TSK Wed, 04 Feb 2009 04:55:22 +0000 http://skepticblog.org/?p=1089#comment-3301 > Arthur Schopenhaur was a German philosopher who lived from > 1788-1860. He was a rationalist and logician. Not really. His philosophy was strongly based on Eastern religions and his main thesis was voluntarism -> the world is *not* based on the interaction of natural laws, but the result of an all-existent blind will. > What he did write was a book called The Art of Controversy - here > is a free 0nline English translation (another wonder of the > internet). In this book Schopenhaur does indeed review the tactics > of deceitful and fallacious arguments, but he does not frame them > as satirical advice. [...] > The purpose is to recognize them when you encounter them so you > can point them out and hopefully defuse them, and also to avoid > these shady logical tactics yourself. The book was dated back to the years 1830/31, but Schopenhauer never published it; it was found in the estate after his death in 1860. If he intended to enlighten, why did he never publish it ? Given the background information that Schopenhauer was cantankerous and misanthropic, it is safe to assume that Schopenhauer did not intend to "avoid" this tactics, he used them *himself*. > Arthur Schopenhaur was a German philosopher who lived from
> 1788-1860. He was a rationalist and logician.

Not really. His philosophy was strongly based on Eastern religions
and his main thesis was voluntarism -> the world is *not* based on
the interaction of natural laws, but the result of an all-existent blind will.

> What he did write was a book called The Art of Controversy – here
> is a free 0nline English translation (another wonder of the
> internet). In this book Schopenhaur does indeed review the tactics
> of deceitful and fallacious arguments, but he does not frame them
> as satirical advice. [...]
> The purpose is to recognize them when you encounter them so you
> can point them out and hopefully defuse them, and also to avoid
> these shady logical tactics yourself.

The book was dated back to the years 1830/31, but Schopenhauer never
published it; it was found in the estate after his death in 1860.
If he intended to enlighten, why did he never publish it ?
Given the background information that Schopenhauer was cantankerous and misanthropic, it is safe to assume that Schopenhauer did not intend to “avoid” this tactics, he used them *himself*.

]]>