to use "what i believe is..." as the core of your argument in a scientific debate of which you are completely ignorant. granted, in debates concerning science/bible colliding topics like evolution you have to deal with biblical 'evidence', but this refers to the act of 'belief=evidence' which a member pretty much makes up evidence on the spot. when said evidence is challenged, more evidence will be made-up in their active imagination.
end result as always: win
My encounters with shoddy debating generally run through cycles. They'll start with one and as they fail they'll try the others.
- Picking out part of my viewpoint, maybe an individual sentence or point, and refuting it. It both ignores the larger argument and usually takes the original sentence out of context, making it easier to logically refute.
- Finding some absurd connection with what I'm actually saying to something far more negative or irrational. It's essentially putting words in my mouth, but at a glance seems ok because they try to link the two ideas together somehow. It's false, of course, but passes inspection if a reader isn't being thorough.
- Reductio ad absurdum (sic?): They take whatever I'm saying and push the idea further than I ever intended it to go, and further than it would ever be taken by a reasonable individual, then try to defeat me with slippery slope arguments of "well, this is where your idea leads." Only if one is dumb about it.
- Hypothetical situations: Everyone's seen the amusing (but pointless) "Can God make an object so large he can't lift it?" style of argument. It presents a hypothetical situation that seemingly refutes a concept. And much like that question's inability to make any meaningful comment about religion, these sorts of scenarios don't accomplish much. A situation can be created where nearly any religious, political, logical, or philosophical position ends up looking silly or is unable to resolve the hypothetical situation. But taking such impossible extremes and pretending that they discredit an idea in normal settings is almost universally false.
...
These are actually flaws I find in regular debating a lot. I wouldn't consider them "idiotic" because their use is fairly widespread, and it's easier to fall into these traps than some of the more obvious moronic debating we often encounter on the forums.
great post. however:
Originally posted by DigiMark007
These are actually flaws I find in regular debating a lot. I wouldn't consider them "idiotic" because their use is fairly widespread,
i disagree. in fact i find the following...
Originally posted by DigiMark007
- Picking out part of my viewpoint, maybe an individual sentence or point, and refuting it. It both ignores the larger argument and usually takes the original sentence out of context, making it easier to logically refute.- Finding some absurd connection with what I'm actually saying to something far more negative or irrational. It's essentially putting words in my mouth, but at a glance seems ok because they try to link the two ideas together somehow. It's false, of course, but passes inspection if a reader isn't being thorough.
...to be used very often in an entirely deliberate fashion to attempt to slander, and distort other members' posts. the first entry in particular ("nitpicking while ignoring the point", ill call it.) being the most exploited and idiotic.
one debating tactic...or more precisely non debating tactic, is prevalent in the music forum about all other...the people who put "band x...anyone heard of them...i love them"
well...good for you then
no links to the band website or myspace pages are ever provided....no info on the band ever given...not even a basic genre is given....
given that from experience, and its something that i highlighted in this thread before in that people are too lazy to even read a large opening post but have an opinion anyway, how do people form the opinion of the band from the information
my own personal way of doing it is by looking at the posters sig and avi...determining if it looks emo...and then not bothering my ass to find out about the band if it does look emo
fair tactic?...no....well then provide some links to the bands stuff so i can actually form a proper opinion
of course this tactic isn't limited to the music forum...you often see it in the movie section and even more often and more irritatingly in the foreign movie section
why is it irritating in the foreign section?...because these films may be gems but chances are most people aren't going to have heard of the film or know what it's about...therefor the post
"film x...anyone seen it....it's great" is perhaps the most useless thing you could ever type
seems like i've harped on about this too much but it really is something that can be avoided...especially given that the posters of the threads are trying to spread info about a band/film that they want others to hear/see....so how about pushing the boat out a little more and actually telling us something about it other than the fact that you like it
Originally posted by jaden101
one debating tactic...or more precisely non debating tactic, is prevalent in the music forum about all other...the people who put "band x...anyone heard of them...i love them"
I've only done drive-by's in the music forum; from what I saw, it's people saying shit like "*band name* or *singer* is the best band/singer ever!"
Originally posted by DigiMark007
http://www.qwantz.com/archive/000516.htmlLovin it.
Oh, come on!