|
Even though I take great joy in all forms of debate and logical arguments, I take particular interest in studying one fascinating character trait of modern human beings: "Being very poor at logical and intellectually honest debates." I've spent much of the last few years of my life focusing less on the substance of what people are debating, but more on the structure of how they debate, and how they construct logic for use in debates. This forum is a wonderful place to do such observing, and in general this is one of the best, if not the best, place to find above-average logical debate. However, as we can all see, with the prevalence of partisan politics, science, religion, etc... in everyday modern life, the art of debate has become more common than ever. This is not to say it has been done well. In fact, I think we can all agree that modern "debate" is a sickening ghost of what proper and logical debate should be. The fact is, regardless of whether or not a particular side of an argument is "wrong" or "right", the people in todays society will debate the issue without any semblance of logical thought or intellectual honesty. If you went out on the street corner, and asked a random stranger to debate you about something entirely simple and easily defensible, they will still somehow find a way to circumvent the logical line of thought and needlessly bring up Hitler or Liberals/Conservatives. The point is, people are smarter than we can tell, many times. The problem, however, lies in the fact that they do not, or cannot, relay their arguments or logic in any sort of reasonable fashion. Debate is the key to education, and without proper debate in society, we lose all hope of securing truth. So, here is my proposal for you, fine people of D&D. Let us have our first round of "FLAWLESS DEBATE", in the spirit of practicing logical debate, and learning to spot logical fallacies and intellectual honesty. We shall choose a debatable topic, probably one of a controversial nature (in order to stir the embers of argument), and once we settle upon one, we shall formally begin "THE FLAWLESS DEBATE". At this point, you guessed it...we debate. However, the main thing I want most observers to keep notice of is NOT what is being debated, per se, but more importantly the logic that is accompanying it. If someone argues their point in a way that is logically incoherent, they shall be called out on it, and we should all understand WHY that argument was improper and incorrect, regardless of our opinions about their side of the argument. I want everyone to take time and really filter through what you are arguing before you post it, and my hope is that if you do not, then you will be reminded of your error immediately. Hopefully, by the end of the first subject, we can have a debate that is perfectly logically consistent, pertains exactly to the issue at hand, and backs up its beliefs with cold hard facts. It is my hope that, through exercises like this, with children especially, we can teach this generation of people to be better debaters, and therefore better thinkers overall. What do you say? What shall we debate?
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2008 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
Megatheory posted:We should be doing this already in every debate. Debate is most often about ego when it should be about finding the truth behind things. Precisely, and that is why I think we need to put some real proactive effort into guiding the world back into the understanding that debate is about learning, and growing, and facts, and evidence, and REALITY. It is not a "game" that is won or lost. As someone else said, that is the main problem, that modern debate is a sport that has a winner. This causes people to formulate strategies and ways of cheating, in the hopes that the other person will not catch them, and they will then "win". No, debate is absolutely the best form of learning and understanding. Much better than "I tell you things and then you accept them", and MUCH better than "Lets agree to disagree".
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 00:18
|
|
|
Molimo posted:We all know how often it happens that someone actually concedes defeat in an argument over current events or politics, i.e. never. In fact, how many important issues have actually been settled by one-on-one debating? I believe this is due to personal illogical pride and ego stemming from the concept of "winning and losing", as mentioned earlier. I had hundreds of debates when I was growing up about the literal historical accuracy of the Bible. I believed it was accurate, they didn't, and I debated for years about it. At the time, I honestly refused their arguments and knew I was right. Until I grew older and dabbled in my philosophy of debate, I was unable to really ALLOW myself the right to accept some arguments from the other side. "Allow" is the key word here. My thinking on the subject today is FAR different than my thinking would have been without those debates. However, it would have all been for naught had I not allowed myself the ability to truly accept and filter through their arguments, and judge them based on their factual merits, instead of what my opinion was. It takes a lot of strife and struggle to allow yourself to do that. I think it's something that many/most people can't allow themselves to do. I think that's the problem with modern debate, not debate in and of itself.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 01:00
|
|
|
rawstorm posted:If two people are arguing, it is because they misunderstand each other, or they disagree at a fundamental level. Or they are just arguing for fun. I think the basic function of what I call "Flawless Debate" is not to necessarily come to a solution or finishing point, despite our natural tendency to want to finalize a debate in some form or another. I think flawless debate's main purpose is to minimize exactly what you said, misunderstandings. These are caused by the debaters lack of discipline in staying on topic, staying intellectually honest, and staying humble. Many times, when faced with a solid rebuttal to ones claim, one will spin their initial statement slightly, just enough to get around the new rebuttal, due to lack of easy counterpoint. This leads to the "misunderstanding" of ones viewpoint, due to the fact that it is easily misconstrued by the very person proclaiming it, in the efforts to not cede ground to the opposing side. Again, with perfect debate, these spins and twists would be minimized through a simple acknowledgment of the solid rebuttal, and the search for a solid rebuttal to the rebuttal. If none can be found, there you go. Keeping the "Yeah, but, I meant..." to a minimum is key, through discipline.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 02:12
|
|
|
flavor posted:That has two sides, like all things. It can be legitimate if someone's words had been misconstrued to mean something else or it can be moving the goalposts. Again, those would be personal debate flaws that need to be acknowledged and called out. That kind of focus will keep the dodging and spinning to a minimum, regardless of the originating source.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 02:25
|
|
|
flavor posted:How do you objectively determine dodging and spinning? It needs to be acknowledged by the one doing the spinning and dodging, or else you are correct, it is something that we cannot see from the outside. But, honestly, deep down you know when you alter your own argument in order to circumvent a solid problem with it. You don't actually BELIEVE your new altered argument, you have just used it to circumvent this one instance of the problem, and you still retain your base beliefs. This leads to the confusion of your true stance by the other side, since your argument is no longer internally consistent. It is THIS that needs to be acknowledged and ceased by the debater, in the pursuit of intellectual honesty. Atomic Number 42 fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Dec 20, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 02:41
|
|
|
flavor posted:Right, but I can honestly also tell you that I've had many instances in which I had to explain myself better because language barriers or definitions came into play. The problem is that all communications are imperfect and won't always (if ever) convey 100% of any mental concept. I understand that, and honestly there's nothing wrong with that. I'll even use it in this post. Look, what I meant was...that through discipline we can keep ourselves on a pattern of "claim, rebuttal, rebuttal, rebuttal" as opposed to the more popular "claim, rebuttal, no wait you don't get it, confusion" based around avoiding having to give a rebuttal, because they don't have one. Obviously restating your position out of honest communication is good. Restating your position just to avoid acknowledging a solid rebuttal is more what I was concerned with. I completely understand and agree with what you said.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 05:21
|
|
|
I think we need to make clear the borders between different types of debate. One would be a debate where the topic being discussed is primarily of an opinionated or "decision making" nature. Examples: Banning abortion, lowering the drinking age, raising the speed limit, etc... These debates, by nature, will end without a conclusion, due to the fact that the disagreement arises, necessarily, from a fundamental difference in how one perceives the world, and their wishes for it. In any case, these debates do not, or rarely, involve facts. When they do, the facts are irrelevant. It all depends on where the debaters "draw the line" on the subject. Where do you draw the line on when a fetus in a human (A non-answerable question)? Where do you draw the line on how many teenagers can die from alcohol related deaths (non-answerable question), etc... These type of debates, by nature, are unable to be debated flawlessly. Due to the fact that rhetorical appeals are the major weaponry in this type of argument, it is silly to assume that we can smoke it out. An abortion debate without emotion is no debate at all. These type of debates are "debates of art" and are outside the scope of this thread. However, the main type of debate I began this thread in reference to is "Factual Debates", mainly revolving around questions that have a definite factual answer in the universe. Examples such as: Did we land on the moon? Is the theory of evolution accurate? Did John Doe shoot his wife last night? Etc... These type of debates DO have an answer, and the point of the debate is to weed out that correct and factual answer, regardless of ones wishes for the answer. Generally these answers are in the form of "yes" and "no". As opposed to a "Debate of art", these are "Debates of Science". THESE are the types of debates that necessitate a flawless debate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 19:53
|
|
|
TrevorS posted:it would probably be better to limit yourself to saying that these factual claims are factual because they are justified, and leave the universe out of it. I agree. My purpose for using "the universe" the way that I did was simply to make clear the idea that certain events did occur as far as physicality is concerned. Take for instance the moon landing. In July of 1969, the atoms of a US built lunar lander did indeed touch the atoms of lunar soil upon the moon. This is generally the physical definition of the moon landing. My point was simply that, in the physical record of the universe, these conditions were met, and that certain arguments are formed around this sort of definition. If we were going to debate whether or not the moon landing occurred, this is the core debate that is taking place, the physical record of the event, and has zero room for elasticity on the matter. (Until the definition of the event is changed) As far as WE are concerned, factuality and truth is harder to come by, through the gates of definitions and connotations and understanding. But, I simply invoked "The Universe" to order to show the linkage between physical universal occurrences, and how we define them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2008 22:17
|
|
|
Jack Fool posted:Doing this here is a problem because anyone can post in any thread. There's a forum over here where they limit each thread to two people and they square off and then have a parallel peanut gallery thread in a different forum. I had never seen that website/forum before, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I think that's wonderful, what they have set up. Shame it seems so sparsely used. I'd love to see something like that implemented in D&D. Very formal, refereed, and focused debate.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2008 07:48
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:On a more related note, what place is there in a theoretically flawless debate for analogies? I think that as long as the analogy is clear cut in its appropriateness, and everyone understands the limitations of the parallels between the analogies, it is intellectually proper to use it. But, as you said, it's a tough situation because it is very often used as a proxy for the actual debate, outside what the analogy was built to deal with, and we draw incorrect assumptions from a fundamentally different scenario.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2008 00:05
|
|
|
deptstoremook posted:So I'd say the OP's "debates of art" are as legitimate as "debates of fact". I never said they were any less legitimate, just arguing fundamentally different concepts, and they follow different rules. One is "I will try to make you feel as I do" and one is "I will try to make you know as I do" The problem is when rules from one type of debate get conflated with the other type. "We landed on the moon, and this is my evidence-centric argument for it" rebutted with "The government is inherently evil and this is my emotional-appeal to that effect" You can see that we get nowhere when we don't stay within the boundaries of the debate. Atomic Number 42 fucked around with this message at 00:14 on Dec 22, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2008 00:09
|
|
|
Halloween Jack posted:I would debate you on whether or not we have entered this age. The population of the United States would be far better-educated and better-informed if they regularly looked up controversial issues that piqued their curiosity on Wikipedia. I would agree. The problem is not that people have information at their fingertips. The problem is that they don't care, and thus don't utilize the ability to find that information. Look, if people today ran to the internet to look up and/or confirm any information at the drop of a hat, the world would be 100 times more educated. People just don't care enough to search for the information in any respect, and this is what we need to change. Even if you locked people in a library, it wouldn't cause them to learn about anything, because they would just roll their eyes at it and go back to talking on their cell phone. trans fat posted:I'm generally pretty smart, at the least I have a good enough memory to do well in Quiz Bowl/Academic Team situations. I don't really consider someones ability to remember or memorize facts to be a good indicator or intelligence. I find critical thinking and debating to be a much "better" indicator of how well a person has a grasp on the marbles in their head. I never took a debate class, but I think it could help you in some respects. In other respects, I think it is basically a way for people with a good foundation to "polish up" their logical links, but if someone is simply incoherent logically from the get-go, then I don't think debate team will do them any good. Atomic Number 42 fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Dec 22, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2008 19:05
|
|
|
Now that we seem to have gotten the "Debate about Debate" out of our system, anyone want to take a crack at a proper topic for debate? Obviously it needs to be something worth debating, or else I don't expect anyone to get involved. I will offer my own, since I have the opportunity. I just had this debate last night with my mother (a teacher). Should the government allow parents to home-school their children without any manner of standard curriculum? (Essentially the parent has free reign to teach their child what they wish, in what manner they wish). Or should the government uphold and insist upon a standard curriculum of studies for all children, regardless of their place of schooling? (Home, private, and public schools)? If this sounds good, let's go. If not, someone else can suggest a topic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2008 20:31
|
|
|
Weggie11 posted:Are we supposed to debate this flawlessly? If so, I don't know where to start. Perhaps you could offer some guidance. Well, I think basically you should pick a side, or offer an alternative opinion pertaining to the topic, and then support it with rationale and evidence. It's really just like regular debate, except you just take an active role in weaseling out your own biases and flawed logic before using them in the argument. This demands that your desire is honestly "To find the best answer/rationale" and not "My opinion is the best, and I will win". If you use twisted logic, try to spin your argument, or in any way try to play up your argument in a dishonest way, then you clearly are more interested in winning the debate than actually finding the best answer to the debate, even if that happens the opposite of yours. When we find the best answer, everyone wins. It's just like when someone argues that you should pick company #1 to build your building because they can do the job for 30,000 dollars, and someone else argues that you should pick company #2 because they can do the job for 25,000 dollars. We end up choosing company #2. However, the only way that company #2 can actually do the job for 25,000 is if you don't include the cost of legal paperwork and government fees. WITH those additional fees it will cost 35,000, and harms everyone in the end. The man who was lobbying for company #2 was being dishonest, and knew he was exploiting a debate loophole in the fact he himself defined the "job" as the actual parts and labor to build the building. This indeed would cost $25,000, but was simply using a loophole in the debates definition of "the job" in order to win the argument. If the lobbyist would have honestly cared about giving the customer the best deal, he would have acknowledged that company #1 had the best deal. Instead, he weaseled his argument into a loophole, and won the debate. That's what happens when you argue with your own interests in mind, and not honestly looking for the best answer. This is what ruins debates, and why they often do not come to the best answer. Simply put, the flawless debate requires everyone to desire the best and most factual answer to the argument. As long as that is priority #1, the rest comes naturally. Atomic Number 42 fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 27, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2008 22:55
|
|
|
I have lived long enough to see my dream of flawless debate blossom. It's like watching a child take its first steps, then stumble off the balcony.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2008 23:11
|
|
|
Rhymenoceros posted:Edit: at least I guess it says something about the flawless debate As much as a blind man driving a car into a lake says something about the car
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2008 23:33
|
|
|
Someone give me a topic, pick a side, and I will hold the opposite. Doesn't matter what that side is, I just want to exercise my brain for today. So, lets go.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 00:11
|
|
|
AsexualAtheistAnime posted:Who do you think would win in a fight, Goku or Superman? We will assume a silver age Superman and a Goku from near the end of Dragonball Z. My personal choice would be Superman, but as this is simply a debate I am willing to argue either side. I leave the choice up to you. I will need to choose option C in this debate: "Neither will overpower the other overwhelmingly enough to predict". They essentially have the same attributes and abilities (As far as I can tell from Wikipedia), and it would come down to a coin-flip as to who would win. It would probably depend on outside circumstances, like which one of them has a lover who is in danger.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 00:43
|
|
|
AsexualAtheistAnime posted:Thats not how a debate works man you gotta choose one of the sides. Who says that's not a side? Now you tell me why it wouldn't be a coin flip result.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 00:45
|
|
|
peenworm posted:You initiated the challenge as "I will debate any position on any subject" and now you're pulling this "well can I go with option C? That seems more likely" which pretty much negates the exercise. Well he shouldn't have left my position open. He gave me the choice, so I made the one I was most comfortable taking. If he wants to force one upon me, by all means. Edit: But the problem is that I we can already forsee every argument in the debate. It will be a stalemate under any circumstances, like any fictional-all-powerful-character-fight debate would be. It's like playing checkers on a 1 square by 1 square board. Atomic Number 42 fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Dec 30, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 00:49
|
|
|
Grum posted:Goku. Alright, so what's your support.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 00:52
|
|
|
The Welfare Queen posted:No, he was telling you to argue for Goku. Ah, well then, what is your support for Superman's victory then. I know little to nothing about Goku, so I'm going to need to play defense so I can narrow down what I need to support my side with.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 00:54
|
|
|
peenworm posted:It would probably be a better exercise of your brain to inform your position adequately to advance it. But due to my lack of knowledge, I need to take it in smaller chunks, so I can make sure I know what I'm talking about. That's the point. I don't know if I could make an initial broad statement about this subject accurate enough to start it. It would be a better argument logic wise for him to start. Once we start, he can totally blow me away, but I need a nucleus to work from.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 00:57
|
|
|
The Welfare Queen posted:Goku fact: Goku can take power from every living thing in the universe and put into a ball and throw it at Superman. Well, alright, we are doing this backward, so I will just turn that around. Goku will win because he can throw a ball of infinite energy at superman, which superman cannot do.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 10:48 |
|
|
AsexualAtheistAnime posted:he has access to an insane number of superpowers and super science...Also, Superman has been established as being able to travel through time, so even if he came to the brink of defeat, he could simply rewind the fight back to the start. In the interest of Flawless Debate, I would have to concede that Superman's ability to go back in time makes him effectively invincible, which Goku does not have the ability to accomplish, and thus Superman would win the fight. I lose. Bravo.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2008 01:09
|
|