Argumentation

Conaeolos · Aug 30, 2017

The purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b, correct?
Generally it is consider a win if you can get the opposing side to agree, correct?
Since so many times neither side changes position, a judge is often used to determine merit, correct?

It is to this last point I raise my question. We know a good judge will use reason and evidence. It makes sense as the purpose in most cases is to excise in building ones rational thinking skills. Generally, to make for better lawyers etc and in concept the law is based on reason.

You will often hear in a debates without a judge however people bring up one logical fallacy or another to appeal to a judge which does not exist.

Ration is right!!!

If all positions are based on feelings(experience) and in most arguments there is no judge(with a motive to train reason). Why do so many people consider having the most rational argument make it most right?

Seems to me we’d be a lot better off if we spent less time getting hostile training our “critical thinking” and spent some of that time exploring “empathetic argumentation“. Not suggesting we should replace the other extreme “Emotion is right!!!” with some mother figure judge. I just mean that we train our ability to form our arguments and develop our positions in accordance with both measures as to have not only the best truth but the most practical truth.

I basically feel as of now, most of the time “empathetic argumentation“ has been reduced politeness. Interestingly, psychological data shows politeness drives peoples emotions nuts in the long-term and basically just slightly keeps hostility in check. In many cases it actually triggers someone to be less open to you. You will often find this when someone claim they don’t like a person for being snotty. Confidence, blunt and assertive expressions have always been shown time and time again make someone more receptive to a message in the long term.So why do we not study how to also effectively play people’s emotions in a argumentations as we spend so much time developing our critical thinking? Why is “emotional argumentation“ considered in such bad taste?

I mean one could argue a rational approach is better but so what if it lacks consensus. Even a strictly scientific argument like “evolution” if argued in an emotional void matter becomes “survival of the fittest” completely leaving out other aspects matters if “diversity/adaptability to account for environment change”.

Even in a husband and wife argument. Time and time again. I hear my friends tell me how crazy their wife is when they laid out the most polite-rational position in the world and she just said “no, I don’t care” and told him what to do; and I think to myself “I am not sure she is the crazy one buddy, you listen because she was honest and you tried to be polite-rational, fool”. After all, if they made their better factual argument with any sense of a strong emotion dimension, would not everyone be happier and making more right decisions?

Quag · Aug 30, 2017

Conaeolos said:
If all positions are based on feelings(experience) argumentation

Not all positions are based on feelings. As your premise is false the rest of your argument is irrelevant

Conaeolos · Aug 30, 2017

Quag said:
Not all positions are based on feelings. As your premise is false the rest of your argument is irrelevant

Fair challenge, but let’s dig into that statement “not all positions are based on feelings?”

My first question would be how many are and how many are not? In other words, would you agree if I restated that assumption as “most arguments are based on emotions” or even “some arguments are based on emotions”? Would any of those conditions change my later argument? If not than irrelevant in that you found some small exceptions where this argument would not apply as universal. So practical rather theoretical topic, so sorry but only irrelevant by an arbitrary standard that your own position likely doesn’t even come close to approaching.

After all if emotional basis is so rare whys it coming up in debate all the time? Are you suggesting that emotional argumentation only ever comes out of not having a rational argument? Or that the rational is always more persuasive than the emotional? Because you can prove that wrong to yourself in a second. Just rephrase any position.

So really, it comes back to theoretical or practical right-ness / truth-ness.

And I am not arguing we’d want to lose or disregard the amazing power of the theoretical, but it still seem strange to me we don’t typically choose to train the practical dimension with at least some degree of rigour over what is basically neglect. I mean a lot of people are horrible at emotional argumentation. Like awful.

It becomes “I feel right so you are wrong! I'll f-ing punch you if you don't shut your mouth!” which is the logical equivalent of saying “because I said so…” yet a heck of a lot more dangerous.

So, dismiss it all you want but its an argument worth having. Irrelevant only by dismissal of its truth. If ration is always more right outside its own domain : prove it!

Hawkeye10 · Aug 30, 2017

You judge for yourself, you figure out what the nature of the universe is for yourself, by what ever means you have at your disposal, by what ever works best. Same goes for figuring out and guiding your Union with your mate, and I say you are right that many men have not the slightest clue where their wife is or how to handle them. And thirdly we are both rational and irrational beings which will not change how ever much willpower we put into altering who we are.

What we dont do is spend enough bandwidth understanding ourselves, that is the major problem, because we can not understand others till we understand ourselves. Once we get that down we can start working well together comparing notes on the nature of the Universe.

Quag · Aug 30, 2017

Conaeolos said:
Fair challenge, but let’s dig into that statement “not all positions are based on feelings?”

My first question would be how many are and how many are not? In other words, would you agree if I restated that assumption as “most arguments are based on emotions” or even “some arguments are based on emotions”? Would any of those conditions change my later argument? If not than irrelevant in that you found some small exceptions where this argument would not apply as universal. So practical rather theoretical topic, so sorry but only irrelevant by an arbitrary standard that your own position likely doesn’t even come close to approaching.

After all if emotional basis is so rare whys it coming up in debate all the time? Are you suggesting that emotional argumentation only ever comes out of not having a rational argument? Or that the rational is always more persuasive than the emotional? Because you can prove that wrong to yourself in a second. Just rephrase any position.

So really, it comes back to theoretical or practical right-ness / truth-ness.

And I am not arguing we’d want to lose or disregard the amazing power of the theoretical, but it still seem strange to me we don’t typically choose to train the practical dimension with at least some degree of rigour over what is basically neglect. I mean a lot of people are horrible at emotional argumentation. Like awful.

It becomes “I feel right so you are wrong! I'll f-ing punch you if you don't shut your mouth!” which is the logical equivalent of saying “because I said so…” yet a heck of a lot more dangerous.

So, dismiss it all you want but its an argument worth having. Irrelevant only by dismissal of its truth. If ration is always more right outside its own domain : prove it!

It all depends on the person and on the argument.
You cannot quantify that in any rational way. You could say most, some, few, none and you could no more defend that claim than I could if I made a counter claim.
You also must remember that one can have an argument that is completely rational but become emotional about it without making it an emotional basis for the argument.
Eg 1+1=2 and 2+1= 3 thus 1+1+1=3 you F#$%#Q@#C.
So I repeat there is no point in delving into your argument as it is based on a false premise.
Logical Fallacies | The Skeptics Guide to the Universe

zyzygy · Aug 30, 2017

Quag said:
Not all positions are based on feelings. As your premise is false the rest of your argument is irrelevant

As usual.

Conaeolos · Aug 30, 2017

Quag said:
It all depends on the person and on the argument.
You cannot quantify that in any rational way. You could say most, some, few, none and you could no more defend that claim than I could if I made a counter claim.
You also must remember that one can have an argument that is completely rational but become emotional about it without making it an emotional basis for the argument.
Eg 1+1=2 and 2+1= 3 thus 1+1+1=3 you F#$%#Q@#C.
So I repeat there is no point in delving into your argument as it is based on a false premise.
Logical Fallacies | The Skeptics Guide to the Universe

You my friend are arguing semantics, which is a form of emotional argumentation by confusion. I find it quite ironic. In any case, your entitled to your dismissal of my premise on grounds of the claim my "language" is poor. I would though highlight as you yourself explore in your post, you're clearly lying in your claim of confusion and just appealing to the idea that my words and ideas are too contextual and one can claim confusion about context ad infinium. Why discuss context its too contextual? I agree it is contextual, which as as it happens is the topic. Why not try to discuss and explain how you approach the problem of emotional argumentation? I take it generally dismissal for reason of inability to use your critical thinking skills? So what if it is an unanswerable question? Can one not discuss and explore a topic with disagreement? Your own framing is non-sesensical as to aim, maybe that why you just declare that the fault of the question and basically contribute that's you feel its a dumb premise that should be self-evident. Self-evident to whom? A rational person?...

Alas, no matter how ironic your post in comparison to your claim. I accept your proof of concept. :mrgreen:

Cephus · Aug 30, 2017

I'd argue that no good positions are based on feelings at all. If all you have are feelings, you've lost before you began.

William Rea · Aug 31, 2017

Conaeolos said:
The purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b, correct?
Generally it is consider a win if you can get the opposing side to agree, correct?
Since so many times neither side changes position, a judge is often used to determine merit, correct?

It is to this last point I raise my question. We know a good judge will use reason and evidence. It makes sense as the purpose in most cases is to excise in building ones rational thinking skills. Generally, to make for better lawyers etc and in concept the law is based on reason.

You will often hear in a debates without a judge however people bring up one logical fallacy or another to appeal to a judge which does not exist.

Ration is right!!!

If all positions are based on feelings(experience) and in most arguments there is no judge(with a motive to train reason). Why do so many people consider having the most rational argument make it most right?

Seems to me we’d be a lot better off if we spent less time getting hostile training our “critical thinking” and spent some of that time exploring “empathetic argumentation“. Not suggesting we should replace the other extreme “Emotion is right!!!” with some mother figure judge. I just mean that we train our ability to form our arguments and develop our positions in accordance with both measures as to have not only the best truth but the most practical truth.

I basically feel as of now, most of the time “empathetic argumentation“ has been reduced politeness. Interestingly, psychological data shows politeness drives peoples emotions nuts in the long-term and basically just slightly keeps hostility in check. In many cases it actually triggers someone to be less open to you. You will often find this when someone claim they don’t like a person for being snotty. Confidence, blunt and assertive expressions have always been shown time and time again make someone more receptive to a message in the long term.So why do we not study how to also effectively play people’s emotions in a argumentations as we spend so much time developing our critical thinking? Why is “emotional argumentation“ considered in such bad taste?

I mean one could argue a rational approach is better but so what if it lacks consensus. Even a strictly scientific argument like “evolution” if argued in an emotional void matter becomes “survival of the fittest” completely leaving out other aspects matters if “diversity/adaptability to account for environment change”.

Even in a husband and wife argument. Time and time again. I hear my friends tell me how crazy their wife is when they laid out the most polite-rational position in the world and she just said “no, I don’t care” and told him what to do; and I think to myself “I am not sure she is the crazy one buddy, you listen because she was honest and you tried to be polite-rational, fool”. After all, if they made their better factual argument with any sense of a strong emotion dimension, would not everyone be happier and making more right decisions?

Listen, be clear and be honest and you will reap what you sow. I am not sure in all instances but, I believe that anyone that does that on here would get backed up by many people regardless of the lean of their argument. Regardless of their stance, if I thought that a person was doing those things and was getting unjustifiably piled upon I would defend them.

No one is obliged to accept what anyone asserts but, if they can demonstrate what they say then I'm reasonably sure that people will. My personal dislike is people that base their argumentation in ignorance and uncertainty in order to try to work around this and also then imply that all arguments are based on the same levels of ignorance. In my opinion, if you have to regress so far back into ignorance to the point of 'brains in vats' in order to defend your argument then you have by default lost.

One thing to remember, despite the fact that you can still indulge confirmation bias, is that the internet is a place where what you say can be checked or at least a place where the means to check can be found. I have done this before, it takes a little effort but, many prominent people are actually quite open to being contacted to verify what they said or did.

Quag · Aug 31, 2017

Conaeolos said:
You my friend are arguing semantics, which is a form of emotional argumentation by confusion. I find it quite ironic. In any case, your entitled to your dismissal of my premise on grounds of the claim my "language" is poor. I would though highlight as you yourself explore in your post, you're clearly lying in your claim of confusion and just appealing to the idea that my words and ideas are too contextual and one can claim confusion about context ad infinium. Why discuss context its too contextual? I agree it is contextual, which as as it happens is the topic. Why not try to discuss and explain how you approach the problem of emotional argumentation? I take it generally dismissal for reason of inability to use your critical thinking skills? So what if it is an unanswerable question? Can one not discuss and explore a topic with disagreement? Your own framing is non-sesensical as to aim, maybe that why you just declare that the fault of the question and basically contribute that's you feel its a dumb premise that should be self-evident. Self-evident to whom? A rational person?...

Alas, no matter how ironic your post in comparison to your claim. I accept your proof of concept. :mrgreen:

I am not arguing semantics I am pointing out your argument is based on a false premise.
Perhaps this will help you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

Conaeolos · Aug 31, 2017

Quag said:
I am not arguing semantics I am pointing out your argument is based on a false premise.
Perhaps this will help you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

If you were just “pointing out my argument is based on a false premise”. The obvious question is for what purpose? As that ignores the framing axiom of that premise: The purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b?

it additionally rejects, the point was addressed before in context:

“We know a good judge will use reason and evidence(where you can claim ‘unanswerable question’ void). It makes sense as the purpose in most cases is to excise in building ones rational thinking skills. Generally, to make for better lawyers etc and in concept the law ect. is based on reason.”

In context of this discussion, your statement claiming the claim (all arguments are based on feelings) is when boiled down, saying: “I feel your question is stupid. The only valid discussions are based on reason > emotional inquiry.”

Which is a fine emotional opinion, but what does it contribute?

It likely indicates you actually believe the opposite of your statement, and in fact hold emotional reasoning the foundations. That is why I called it ironic.

As to why its semantics is that it is dishonest to imply you didn’t approve of argument, when your issue was with the structure and language [which you show understanding toward later] and rather then state your emotional opinion forthrightly you dress it up as a rational argument based on a language issue, for as you yourself admit, your personal opinion of how many arguments are emotional is a above zero and simply not all. In all of those cases however the premise stands. So your being dishonest by calling it false. As you saying the phrasing is false rather than the underlying idea, which is all you need to continue a discussion about it. When confrount you claim it unanswerable in which case your challange a differnet premise: the purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b; which is fine, and would have been logical and emotional sound approch which would let us discuss further.

Quag · Aug 31, 2017

Conaeolos said:
If you were just “pointing out my argument is based on a false premise”. The obvious question is for what purpose? As that ignores the framing axiom of that premise: The purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b?

it additionally rejects, the point was addressed before in context:

“We know a good judge will use reason and evidence(where you can claim ‘unanswerable question’ void). It makes sense as the purpose in most cases is to excise in building ones rational thinking skills. Generally, to make for better lawyers etc and in concept the law ect. is based on reason.”

In context of this discussion, your statement claiming the claim (all arguments are based on feelings) is when boiled down, saying: “I feel your question is stupid. The only valid discussions are based on reason > emotional inquiry.”

Which is a fine emotional opinion, but what does it contribute?

It likely indicates you actually believe the opposite of your statement, and in fact hold emotional reasoning the foundations. That is why I called it ironic.

As to why its semantics is that it is dishonest to imply you didn’t approve of argument, when your issue was with the structure and language [which you show understanding toward later] and rather then state your emotional opinion forthrightly you dress it up as a rational argument based on a language issue, for as you yourself admit, your personal opinion of how many arguments are emotional is a above zero and simply not all. In all of those cases however the premise stands. So your being dishonest by calling it false. As you saying the phrasing is false rather than the underlying idea, which is all you need to continue a discussion about it. When confrount you claim it unanswerable in which case your challange a differnet premise: the purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b; which is fine, and would have been logical and emotional sound approch which would let us discuss further.

I have no idea what your purpose was in making this thread only you can answer that question.
None of what you said changes the fact you made it with a false premise and I didn't use semantics nor emotion to point it out.

Tim the plumber · Sep 1, 2017

Conaeolos said:
The purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b, correct?
Generally it is consider a win if you can get the opposing side to agree, correct?
Since so many times neither side changes position, a judge is often used to determine merit, correct?

So the audience is the judge.

It is to this last point I raise my question. We know a good judge will use reason and evidence. It makes sense as the purpose in most cases is to excise in building ones rational thinking skills. Generally, to make for better lawyers etc and in concept the law is based on reason.

You will often hear in a debates without a judge however people bring up one logical fallacy or another to appeal to a judge which does not exist.

Audience.

Ration is right!!!

Rationality? Reason? The real world?

If all positions are based on feelings(experience) and in most arguments there is no judge(with a motive to train reason). Why do so many people consider having the most rational argument make it most right?

Most people don't. Few people base their views on reason. Most react emotionally to a question then find words to justify their view.

Seems to me we’d be a lot better off if we spent less time getting hostile training our “critical thinking” and spent some of that time exploring “empathetic argumentation“. Not suggesting we should replace the other extreme “Emotion is right!!!” with some mother figure judge. I just mean that we train our ability to form our arguments and develop our positions in accordance with both measures as to have not only the best truth but the most practical truth.

My bold.Yes you are.

I basically feel as of now, most of the time “empathetic argumentation“ has been reduced [to] politeness. Interestingly, psychological data shows politeness drives people[']s emotions nuts in the long-term and basically just slightly keeps hostility in check. In many cases it actually triggers someone to be less open to you. You will often find this when someone claim they don’t like a person for being snotty. Confidence, blunt and assertive expressions have always been shown time and time again make someone more receptive to a message in the long term.So why do we not study how to also effectively play people’s emotions in a argumentations as we spend so much time developing our critical thinking? Why is “emotional argumentation“ considered in such bad taste?

So when Angel tells me I am arrogant for telling it how it is you jump to his (her?) defense. Why?

I mean one could argue a rational approach is better but so what if it lacks consensus. Even a strictly scientific argument like “evolution” if argued in an emotional void matter becomes “survival of the fittest” completely leaving out other aspects matters if “diversity/adaptability to account for environment change”.

You have no clue about evolution.

Even in a husband and wife argument. Time and time again. I hear my friends tell me how crazy their wife is when they laid out the most polite-rational position in the world and she just said “no, I don’t care” and told him what to do; and I think to myself “I am not sure she is the crazy one buddy, you listen because she was honest and you tried to be polite-rational, fool”. After all, if they made their better factual argument with any sense of a strong emotion dimension, would not everyone be happier and making more right decisions?

Lots of such interpersonal arguments are about teritory within that relationship. You have to understand that you will have to win some and lose some for you both to feel in control of the household.

Conaeolos · Sep 1, 2017

So I got the clear answer I was looking for when I was talking to a friend of mine yesterday about the topic and he really got the heart of what this is boiling down to something you all said:

Tim the plumber said:
Most people don't. Few people base their views on reason. Most react emotionally to a question then find words to justify their view.

Hawkeye10 said:
You judge for yourself

William Rea said:
Listen, be clear and be honest and you will reap what you sow.

Cephus said:
I'd argue that no good positions are based on feelings at all. If all you have are feelings, you've lost before you began.

That was my mistaken assumptions were in “burden of proof” and purpose of “rational thinking”

Rational thinking = seeking conflict resolution (truth)

Emotion thinking = survival and coming to a truce (a short term compromise)

So when an asserter makes a rational argument for position A.

And their opponent returns with an emotional argument against position A.
[you can appeal to the reason in your opponent yes; but, be careful not to join the fray but assuming than your defending A and them B, they are simply an objective critic of your postion]

If someone says “argument is irrelevant”, “You have no clue”, “no, I don’t care”

The rational approach, is to understand that is a new position (position C)

And defending position A against such a claim is illogical and fruitless. It will stand on the reason you’ve presented.

You are now in a space of inquiry, not knowing, not pro-A not not-C. And your course of action is to evaluate the facts of position C.

If your ever in a position A verses position B, you’ve already lost your rational foundation.

The truth stands for itself.

A rational debate is one position being held to scrutiny against truth! Ration thought is a way to approach the search for truth not win converts like emotional argumentation.

AYSM · Sep 21, 2017

Conaeolos said:
The purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b, correct?

Incorrect the moment you added the word "all".

Generally it is consider a win if you can get the opposing side to agree, correct?

Not necessarily, it would depend on the purpose for having the argument.

Since so many times neither side changes position, a judge is often used to determine merit, correct?

I doubt judges are involved in the majority of arguments.

Daisy · Sep 21, 2017

FTR I don't like to argue..I think it's an entire waste of time and energy...but I did see a cute tee shirt that said..."I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right"...:tongue4:

Argumentation

Conaeolos

Quag

Conaeolos

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man

Quag

zyzygy

Conaeolos

Cephus

William Rea

Quag

Conaeolos

Quag

Tim the plumber

Conaeolos

AYSM

Pffffft

Daisy

"guide our feet in the way of peace.”

Argumentation

Buttermilk Man

Pffffft

"guide our feet in the way of peace.”

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency