Some of the most “idiotic” debating techniques I’ve seen are:
- Wilful misunderstanding the difference between a theory in everyday use and scientific theory
- One which has already been mentioned many times, namely an opponents complete inability to grasp it when some factual has been presented to him
- Ignoring part of a post that proves the opponent to be wrong
- Attacking the SOURCE of a fact instead of the fact presented:
A: “Yeah, Michael Moore is fat and ugly.”
B: “What does that have to do with the fact that Florida votes were tampered with.”
A: “Moore is just a fat, ugly liberal.”
- In the religion forum I was quite entertained when I asked for factual proof outside the Bible (which is not validated as the word of God either) that Jesus ever exited, and was bombarded by… scripture!
- People who when they’re on the verge of loosing an argument, suddenly tries to pull a “comedy stunt”, or “Ah, I knew that… I was just…”
- Arguing from a foundation of premises that has NOT been established.
- This is not actually a debating technique, but still deserves mention: Some people who, in the middle of serious debate, just HAVE to post some “tehee, gaga is kewt me tinks.” And nothing else…
- People who uses a single personal experience (“of a friend”) to prove a point:
A: “Well, my friend got pregnant and she had the child and she’s happy so abortion is wrong!”
- Or the constant personal fixation: “Well, I SHOULD have been an abortion, but my mother had me and she’s happy and so am I. How would YOU feel if you’d been an abortion???”
Originally posted by The Omega
Some of the most “idiotic” debating techniques I’ve seen are:- Wilful misunderstanding the difference between a theory in everyday use and scientific theory
- One which has already been mentioned many times, namely an opponents complete inability to grasp it when some factual has been presented to him
- Ignoring part of a post that proves the opponent to be wrong
- Attacking the SOURCE of a fact instead of the fact presented:
A: “Yeah, Michael Moore is fat and ugly.”
B: “What does that have to do with the fact that Florida votes were tampered with.”
A: “Moore is just a fat, ugly liberal.”
- In the religion forum I was quite entertained when I asked for factual proof outside the Bible (which is not validated as the word of God either) that Jesus ever exited, and was bombarded by… scripture!
- People who when they’re on the verge of loosing an argument, suddenly tries to pull a “comedy stunt”, or “Ah, I knew that… I was just…”
- Arguing from a foundation of premises that has NOT been established.
- This is not actually a debating technique, but still deserves mention: Some people who, in the middle of serious debate, just HAVE to post some “tehee, gaga is kewt me tinks.” And nothing else…
- People who uses a single personal experience (“of a friend”) to prove a point:
A: “Well, my friend got pregnant and she had the child and she’s happy so abortion is wrong!”
- Or the constant personal fixation: “Well, I SHOULD have been an abortion, but my mother had me and she’s happy and so am I. How would YOU feel if you’d been an abortion???”
I saw on the news the other day that Denmark was the #1 Rated Happiest Place on Earth to live (no, seriously). Now I can really see why.
'assumed authority' pretentious tactic where one declares themselves an authority on a topic, and thus cannot be argued.
poster1: underclass minorities are just lazy and whiney. thats the only reason for the 'problem' with the underclass
poster2: um, thats ignorant and kinda eletist.
poster1: how can i possible my ignorant and eletist? (here comes the implied authority)
many of my friends are minorities/i grew up poor/i am black/i took a class on the subject...etc
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Hang on, why is being educated on the subject a poor defence against a charge of ignorance? Looks like the appropriate counter to me.
on its own its meaningless. why should credentials shadow fact and enforce opinion? and what proof do we have of said credentials. if im arguing the causes of lung cancer with a doctor, his status of education should be irrelevant. and in proving so, he should be able to bury my argument with valid facts and studies rather than wave his degree around as some sort of validation or even proof....right?
Well, if you want to debate the point whether the credentials are genuine, that is one thing.
But I do believe appropriate credentials do very much enforce opinion, as they make the speaker someone who is defintively knowledgeable on the subject in a way that can actually be demonstrated.
If I saw you arguing with a Doctor on lung cancer and his argument was "I am a qualified Doctor who has worked for seven years specificially studing the human body and how disease works, and you have no such training at all" then yes, I would sure as hell take that as a valid point that would bury your opinion compared to his. He can back it with whatever else he likes- though as ever, expert terminology is probably hard for laymen to understand- but the fact that ie is an expert counts for a lot simply on its own.
Serious education means something.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If I saw you arguing with a Docotr on lung cancer and his argument was "I am a qualified Doctor who has worked for seven years specificially studing the human body and how disease works, and you have no such training at all" then yes, I would sure as hell take that as a valid point that would bury your opinion compared to his.
never did i imply that education means nothing, but rather that credentials have nothing to do with a stated point. if someone conducted studies for several years and stated that, that would be one thing. to only state "im a doctor, and so your point is moot" is bullshit. there are doctors who believe that homosexuality is a desease. if they come to this forum and post in the "chosen or genetic" thread, do they 'win the thread'? by your statement it would seem so.
If the Doctor stating that homosexuality is a disease was a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist, then his opinion would count for a hell of a lot more than just a person on the street, I am afraid.
However, an important point here is that there are plenty of expert opinions you can reference to counter that. That is valid. The point is that an unqualified opinion is definitely inferior to a qualified one.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, if you want to debate the point whether the credentials are genuine, that is one thing.But I do believe appropriate credentials do very much enforce opinion, as they make the speaker someone who is defintively knowledgeable on the subject in a way that can actually be demonstrated.
If I saw you arguing with a Doctor on lung cancer and his argument was "I am a qualified Doctor who has worked for seven years specificially studing the human body and how disease works, and you have no such training at all" then yes, I would sure as hell take that as a valid point that would bury your opinion compared to his. He can back it with whatever else he likes- though as ever, expert terminology is probably hard for laymen to understand- but the fact that ie is an expert counts for a lot simply on its own.
Serious education means something.
If you are actually knowledgeable about a subject the arguments and facts will show that...a diploma does not matter in that case.
If you could present such facts, backed by appropriate experts, then fine.
But even then, if he said that in his position as an authority on the subkect that he thought all those facts were wrong, then once more as an expert in that field his refutation of such things would count for a hell of a lot more than any old person's refuation, even if I still thought he was wrong.
You simply cannot discount the value of being a trained and educated expert. A diploma DOES matter, very much so, and I am disturbed at a trend around here to discount such things.
And I am afraid your final sentence is hopelessly optimistic. Nearly always in conte tious areas the facts are very unclear and in dispute.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
However, an important point here is that there are plenty of expert opinions you can reference to counter that. That is valid.
...well then i guess we agree. but my argument is that some use credentials alone. entire sample reply: "im a doctor and you dont know what your talking about so stfu".
however i use an exagerated example for the benefit of your side of the debate. in reality, most people who use this tactic will just state that they are more educated or read more or...whatever. point being that they cheap-talk credentials with the hope that the opponent will become intimidated and give up.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you could present such facts, backed by appropriate experts, then fine.But even then, if he said that in his position as an authority on the subkect that he thought all those facts were wrong, then once more as an expert in that field his refutation of such things would count for a hell of a lot more than any old person's refuation, even if I still thought he was wrong.
You simply cannot discount the value of being a trained and educated expert. A diploma DOES matter, very much so, and I am disturbed at a trend around here to discount such things.
And I am afraid your final sentence is hopelessly optimistic. Nearly always in conte tious areas the facts are very unclear and in dispute.
Give me a second, that guy would also jsut be a person like me, right? Sure he has a diploma, great...but does a diploma mean that he knows better about a subject or does it mean that he got his information from a specific source (university)?
Originally posted by PVS
\'assumed authority\' pretentious tactic where one declares themselves an authority on a topic, and thus cannot be argued.
Poster 1: I\'ve exstensively studied African history and am currently teaching a class in it, and am about to obtain my masters degree in American History. In addition, I already have a masters in Economics and another in Political Science. I fully understand the plight of African Americans in the ghettos. But racism as we knew it in the 50s and 60s is non-existant, so there is no longer a need for affirmative action, as it is quite easy for any able bodied educated individual to find a high paying job in corporate America.
Poster 2: I am an African American male who grew up in the ghetto. I work full time, go to school full time, and am about to get a degree in Marine Biology. I have never done drugs and have never been in jail, and I still have a hard time finding a job, waving down a cab late at night when coming home from night class, and getting stopped by the cops when out with my friends. How do you know more about the plight of Black Americans than I do?
Poster 1: Perhaps you need to also take a course in reading comprehension. I am a white male who teaches a course in African American studies. Please educate yourself in African American history and Economics before you make such idiotic comments again.
Poster 2: But I\'m a black man who has lived in the ghetto!!!
Poster 1: Correction: You are a black man who has lived in the ghetto, and who needs to educate himself in African American studies and Economics.
Originally posted by Mr Ed
Poster 1: I\'ve exstensively studied African history and am currently teaching a class in it, and am about to obtain my masters degree in American History. In addition, I already have a masters in Economics and another in Political Science. I fully understand the plight of African Americans in the ghettos. But racism as we knew it in the 50s and 60s is non-existant, so there is no longer a need for affirmative action, as it is quite easy for any able bodied educated individual to find a high paying job in corporate America.Poster 2: I am an African American male who grew up in the ghetto. I work full time, go to school full time, and am about to get a degree in Marine Biology. I have never done drugs and have never been in jail, and I still have a hard time finding a job, waving down a cab late at night when coming home from night class, and getting stopped by the cops when out with my friends. How do you know more about the plight of Black Americans than I do?
Poster 1: Perhaps you need to also take a course in reading comprehension. I am a white male who teaches a course in African American studies. Please educate yourself in African American history and Economics before you make such idiotic comments again.
Poster 2: But I\'m a black man who has lived in the ghetto!!!
Poster 1: Correction: You are a black man who has lived in the ghetto, and who needs to educate himself in African American studies and Economics.
Yeah, both should present more arguments and evidence and talk less about their racial or academic background.