• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The REAL debate rules

HelloDollyLlama

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
277
Reaction score
44
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So it is "fact" that if you bring "logic" within a "hundered yards" of a Republican, he will "burst into flames"?



Interesting. Could you provide me with supporting documentation and evidence demonstrating this hyper-spontaneous combustion you claim is a fact.


I shall wait. :lol:


Of course it is. I brought logic into this forum, and you've been flaming me ever since.

See, I lay a trap that even a blind man would have the sense to avoid, and I still have a victim. God, I love Republicans!
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Of course it is. I brought logic into this forum, and you've been flaming me ever since.


I still await you to prove spontaeous rigth wing compustion based on proximity of "logic". :lol:


See, I lay a trap that even a blind man would have the sense to avoid, and I still have a victim. God, I love Republicans!


:lol: what trap?
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My point is that in the vast majority of things discussed on this site, there is no "truth." If the question is "what was the unemployment rate last month," then yea, there is a "truth." But if the question is "what will the stimulus do for us/which party has the better ideas/who is more corrupt," then there's no point in trying to label anything as "truth."

AND ... if the question is "what will the stimulus do for us/which party has the better ideas/who is more corrupt," ... then knowledge of fallacies, etc, could be really helpful for anyone that wants to get at what is "true." there may not be an obvious "truth," but there will definitely be a "false."
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
AND ... if the question is "what will the stimulus do for us/which party has the better ideas/who is more corrupt," ... then knowledge of fallacies, etc, could be really helpful for anyone that wants to get at what is "true." there may not be an obvious "truth," but there will definitely be a "false."

This might just be me, but I've never had much of a use for the whole formalized "fallacies" thing. The vast majority of them are common sense logical propositions that are good to know in the abstract. It's when people use them as a crutch in their debate that they become effectively useless.

Identifying fallacies in someone else's argument doesn't make your positions any stronger or your arguments any less crappy.
 

ReverendHellh0und

I don't respect you.
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 13, 2007
Messages
79,903
Reaction score
20,981
Location
I love your hate.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This might just be me, but I've never had much of a use for the whole formalized "fallacies" thing. The vast majority of them are common sense logical propositions that are good to know in the abstract. It's when people use them as a crutch in their debate that they become effectively useless.

Identifying fallacies in someone else's argument doesn't make your positions any stronger or your arguments any less crappy.





There is no thanks button, so THANKS!
 

niftydrifty

Too big to fail
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2006
Messages
4,725
Reaction score
1,391
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
This might just be me, but I've never had much of a use for the whole formalized "fallacies" thing. The vast majority of them are common sense logical propositions that are good to know in the abstract. It's when people use them as a crutch in their debate that they become effectively useless.

Identifying fallacies in someone else's argument doesn't make your positions any stronger or your arguments any less crappy.

It's not just you. it's most of the people here. and it's tragic.

knowing about fallacies, and being able to identify them, is more than "a crutch." if they are known, they aren't just going to help you identify fallacies in other's arguments, they're going to help you avoid using them in your own.

I disagree with you, being able to identify fallacies most definitely will make your positions stronger and your arguments less crappy.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
It's not just you. it's most of the people here. and it's tragic.

knowing about fallacies, and being able to identify them, is more than "a crutch." if they are known, they aren't just going to help you identify fallacies in other's arguments, they're going to help you avoid using them in your own.

I disagree with you, being able to identify fallacies most definitely will make your positions stronger and your arguments less crappy.

I think I wasn't clear in what I was trying to say. I'm not saying that the majority of things on that list aren't worthwhile to know in some sense. I'm saying that it's not at all necessary to know them in the formalistic sense that some people tend to use them.

Example:


A: "747’s can fly, 747 engines are part of 747’s, therefore 747 engines can fly"
B: That doesn't make much sense, because it doesn't necessarily follow.

That's great. It doesn't really matter whether B knows that that's dumb because it's one of the "fallacies," or whether B knows that it's dumb because it's just logically dumb. Either way, he knows it.

Here's what I'm complaining about:

A: "747’s can fly, 747 engines are part of 747’s, therefore 747 engines can fly"
B: OMG thats the Fallacy of Division !!!111

It's just douchey.
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
90,217
Reaction score
28,853
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Excellent post. Too bad many on here will continue to ignore the facts of the matter and engage in breaking just about every rule you listed up there.

I think I'll use it as a "red flag" reference.

:mrgreen:
 

rebelbuc

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
574
Reaction score
235
Location
New Orleans
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
It's not just you. it's most of the people here. and it's tragic.

knowing about fallacies, and being able to identify them, is more than "a crutch." if they are known, they aren't just going to help you identify fallacies in other's arguments, they're going to help you avoid using them in your own.

I disagree with you, being able to identify fallacies most definitely will make your positions stronger and your arguments less crappy.

Knowing the names of the logical falacies is no substitute for having a logical mind that knows that one's opponent has used a deceptive tactic. The truly logical mind, trained in debate theory or not, doesn't need a label to call one's bluff. Now, on the other hand, I find a lot of illogical posters love to throw the "ad hominem" and other labels around when they have no other logical response! This thread poses as a lesson on debate theory while actually providing a cut-and-paste collage of conservative-bashing and wiki-like reprinted definitions. The opening post defines one of the falacies, I'm sure... I won't bother to analyze further!
 

Real Talk

Banned
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,772
Reaction score
173
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In my opinion, the greatest and most common fallacy in peoples arguesments is the tendancy to state things beyond limits of certainty.
A highly related problem is the idea of mono causality.
When a person says "I think this based on this which makes me think it is at least part fo the truth, but certainty not the entirity of it", there position is unasaleable.
In my eyes, people who fail to state things within limits of certainty automatically fail at debating.
 
Top Bottom