Idiotic Debating Tactics

Naturally a doctor would have more authority on a subject than some random person, because the experience is a combination of book studies, hands-on studies and years of doing the job.

I'll take his opinion over someone else, so I agree with Ush there.

However, I think what PVS meant was (could be wrong) the kind of person who studies a class for a bit and assumes to be an authority on the subject over someone else. Anyone can study from a book, just because you got taught it doesn't mean you know more than someone who didn't. They could easily know what you know anyway.

Where as I can't say to a doctor, "I've operated on someone.".

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Naturally a doctor would have more authority on a subject than some random person, because the experience is a combination of book studies, hands-on studies and years of doing the job.

I'll take his opinion over someone else, so I agree with Ush there.

However, I think what PVS meant was (could be wrong) the kind of person who studies a class for a bit and assumes to be an authority on the subject over someone else. Anyone can study from a book, just because you got taught it doesn't mean you know more than someone who didn't. They could easily know what you know anyway.

Where as I can't say to a doctor, "I've operated on someone.".

-AC

The thing is if someone actually knows what they are talking about their arguments will be more clear and they will just generally know the evidence for either side better...they don't have to pull out their note that says "Doctor" to impress anyone. Take The Omega, she has good arguments and well structured posts that she also happens it have a degree is of no importance since she knows her facts. Someone with a degree that is generally an idiot will still be one and should not be taken more serious just because he happened to pass some sort of school.

what i mean simply is that credentials alone are useless, when missing a valid point and most important: source (even if that posted source is of your own study as would be the case in the exagerated doctor scenario)

right: i am a doctor and have condicted studies in blah blah and here are my findings: *lists sources/references*

wrong: well you just dont know what the hell you are talking about. and believe me, i know since i'm a doctor.

i refer to the use of sources to prove one's point. not just saying "i read these books, so i know" but rather quoting a passage from that book which supports your claim.

what i mean is just what i was saying: credentials alone mean precisely dick on a forum. its a debate, not a higher education pissing contest.

I see your "Michael Moore is a fat slob" and raise you a "Bush can't talk lolz".

Originally posted by FeceMan
I see your "Michael Moore is a fat slob" and raise you a "Bush can't talk lolz".

Well, the thing is that if Bush actually can't talk he can't bring his points across and it also means that he might be unfit for what he does...that Michael Moore is fat has nothing to do with what he does....that he is a radical biased weirdo does though.

Originally posted by FeceMan
I see your "Michael Moore is a fat slob" and raise you a "Bush can't talk lolz".

both are true, however poor language skills exhibit a lack of proper education where being a fat slob exhibits a lack of proper diet. which is more relevant to political influence? although i will agree that most of the time bush's monkey'isms are not relevant to a political discussion.

Well, there's a difference between being an able public speaker versus being unlearned.

In response to educated individuals verses uneducated individuals:

I would say that at this point it would become the less educated participant's burden to falsify the claims of the educated individuals. Not vice versa.

I won't bother citing evidence of classical conditioning's effectiveness to someone just because they don't believe me. I also won't bother posting a string of references to prove something that is solidly supported either, unless they give me some credible references that are refuting my claims.

point: missed

Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, there's a difference between being an able public speaker versus being unlearned.

True, but his general lack of of orator skills seem to be quite odd for someone that should be an educated person.

Originally posted by Regret
In response to educated individuals verses uneducated individuals:

I would say that at this point it would become the less educated participant's burden to falsify the claims of the educated individuals. Not vice versa.

I won't bother citing evidence of classical conditioning's effectiveness to someone just because they don't believe me. I also won't bother posting a string of references to prove something that is solidly supported either, unless they give me some credible references that are refuting my claims.

And you decide who is educated and who not?

Originally posted by FeceMan
Well, there's a difference between being an able public speaker versus being unlearned.

yes, there is. public speaking can be stressful and people fumble their words. however when someone consciously decides to use broken/horrid english as the leader of the free world i feel thats a different matter. especially coming from the same group which claims to hold the english language sacred and worthy of preserving.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you decide who is educated and who not?

exactly. perhaps a new category "assumed master of reality"...i dont know

Originally posted by PVS
point: missed

You are saying that the doctor must provide sources.

I am saying that before he needs to, credible sources against him must be shown to refute his statements.

Originally posted by Regret
You are saying that the doctor must provide sources.

I am saying that before he needs to, credible sources against him must be shown to refute his statements.

Of course he must, he's debating with someone...if he doesn't want to debate he should piss off.

Originally posted by PVS
what i mean simply is that credentials alone are useless, when missing a valid point and most important: source (even if that posted source is of your own study as would be the case in the exagerated doctor scenario)

right: i am a doctor and have condicted studies in blah blah and here are my findings: *lists sources/references*

wrong: well you just dont know what the hell you are talking about. and believe me, i know since i'm a doctor.

i refer to the use of sources to prove one's point. not just saying "i read these books, so i know" but rather quoting a passage from that book which supports your claim.

what i mean is just what i was saying: credentials alone mean precisely dick on a forum. its a debate, not a higher education pissing contest.

Yeah, I definitely agree there.

-AC

Originally posted by Regret
You are saying that the doctor must provide sources.

I am saying that before he needs to, credible sources against him must be shown to refute his statements.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course he must, he's debating with someone...if he doesn't want to debate he should piss off.

........um.....yeah. exactly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And you decide who is educated and who not?

No. I have a Doctorate in Psychology. I do not know much about physics, only up through engineering physics I, thus Omega, who claims to know about physics, will trump my knowledge.

If someone states that they have the knowledge, and I don't know that what they are saying is false, I will assume they do until I have researched the topic myself, if I care enough to do the work.

Originally posted by Regret
No. I have a Doctorate in Psychology. I do not know much about physics, only up through engineering physics I, thus Omega, who claims to know about physics, will trump my knowledge.

If someone states that they have the knowledge, and I don't know that what they are saying is false, I will assume they do until I have researched the topic myself, if I care enough to do the work.

Not really, she might have more knowledge than you, but her degree alone doesn't trump your opinion.

And it is great that you will research it, but once you did (and I think that is what we are assuming in this example) a degree doesn't matter...the arguments and facts presented do.

Originally posted by PVS
........um.....yeah. exactly.

It's okay, just lay back, I'll handle this, I read a book about this kind of situation once.

Originally posted by Regret
In response to educated individuals verses uneducated individuals:

I would say that at this point it would become the less educated participant\\\'s burden to falsify the claims of the educated individuals. Not vice versa.

I won\\\'t bother citing evidence of classical conditioning\\\'s effectiveness to someone just because they don\\\'t believe me. I also won\\\'t bother posting a string of references to prove something that is solidly supported either, unless they give me some credible references that are refuting my claims.

It depends on how you define less educated and credible though.

A bullshit argument is a bullshit argument, regardless of how educated the person is who makes it.

Bullshit spews from the learned just as freely as it does from the unlearned. Most of the time, the learned are able to present their bullshit better to the public. But in the end..both of their shit still has the same stink to it.

But what the hell do I know anyway. I\\\'m just a talking horse.

Wilburrrrrr.....