Jump to content

Argumentation Guidelines for Real Life™


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1
Swad

Swad

    Founder.

  • Administrators
  • 3,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
Ok, as much as I love this forum, we've had a lot of bad arguments being thrown out on a lot of issues. Most of what I've seen is called an Ad Hominem argument (literally, "an attack against the person"), which is where you attack the person (or a group of persons) rather than their argument.

Example 1: You are a man. You can't talk about abortion since it doesn't affect you.


Problem: The person who is delivering the argument has no relation to the arguments being presented. A male is very well qualified to speak to the pros and cons of abortion, since his arguments can be just as valid as anyone else's.

Example 2: Israel/Palestine/USA/UK/EU/NATO is a bunch of lying scumbags and can't be trusted. This war/action is just wrong because they're doing it.

Problem: Ok, so you've called them names... but your point has no weight behind it. This is another example of an Ad Hom attack. If you want to build your case, why not use Just War Theory or some kind of rational progression of thought?

Logic calms tempers - Ad Homs and bad logic enrage them. We'll only have logical arguments here in this forum.

Things to keep in mind during a debate:

* Understanding and identifying the presentation of an argument, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.

* Identifying the conclusion and the premises from which the conclusion is derived

* Establishing the "Burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance

* For the one carrying the "Burden of proof", the defender, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked

* For the attacker, to listen and find faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument

#2
killbot1000

killbot1000

    InsanelyMac Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,232 posts

Ok, as much as I love this forum, we've had a lot of bad arguments being thrown out on a lot of issues. Most of what I've seen is called an Ad Hominem argument (literally, "an attack against the person"), which is where you attack the person (or a group of persons) rather than their argument.

Example 1: You are a man. You can't talk about abortion since it doesn't affect you.


Problem: The person who is delivering the argument has no relation to the arguments being presented. A male is very well qualified to speak to the pros and cons of abortion, since his arguments can be just as valid as anyone else's.

Example 2: Israel/Palestine/USA/UK/EU/NATO is a bunch of lying scumbags and can't be trusted. This war/action is just wrong because they're doing it.

Problem: Ok, so you've called them names... but your point has no weight behind it. This is another example of an Ad Hom attack. If you want to build your case, why not use Just War Theory or some kind of rational progression of thought?

Logic calms tempers - Ad Homs and bad logic enrage them. We'll only have logical arguments here in this forum.

Things to keep in mind during a debate:

* Understanding and identifying the presentation of an argument, either explicit or implied, and the goals of the participants in the different types of dialogue.

* Identifying the conclusion and the premises from which the conclusion is derived

* Establishing the "Burden of proof" – determining who made the initial claim and is thus responsible for providing evidence why his/her position merits acceptance

* For the one carrying the "Burden of proof", the defender, to marshal evidence for his/her position in order to convince or force the opponent's acceptance. The method by which this is accomplished is producing valid, sound, and cogent arguments, devoid of weaknesses, and not easily attacked

* For the attacker, to listen and find faulty reasoning in the opponent’s argument, to attack the reasons/premises of the argument, to provide counterexamples if possible, to identify any logical fallacies, and to show why a valid conclusion cannot be derived from the reasons provided for his/her argument



in regards to the abortion post, i believe I said "im assuming youre a man, how can you dicate whether women have to deal with the consequences or not?" not "you are a man, you cant talk about abortion" and maybe im just crazy, but that changes the whole meaning of what I said, my assumption can be wrong which is why i stated that it was an assuption, I apologize if ive offended people, or whatever, that was not my intent at all, im just angry, and lonely...hahah Ill try to be less heated :).

#3
Swad

Swad

    Founder.

  • Administrators
  • 3,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago
Yeah, killbot I was just using that as an example since I've heard it so many times. Your post was essentially saying the same thing, but that's over, so we can forget about it. :)

#4
james2mart

james2mart

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Retired Developers
  • 344 posts
2+2=5.

4 8 15 16 23 42.

I don't know why I posted this.

#5
A Nonny Moose

A Nonny Moose

    Proud PPC User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,421 posts
  • Gender:Male

2+2=5.


Actually 2+2=5 for higher values of 2. Take 2.4 and 2.3. Both numbers essentially round down to 2. Add them together and we get 4.7, which rounds up to five.

BTW, Mash, you're a poopy head for not mentioning that engaging in petty name calling is not only a way to not argue, but it also shows childishness and it invalidates every argument you've made to date. Also, (standard fare for some bloggers) calling Bush a Nazi, or calling Bill O'Reilly an "abomination to humanity" certainly isn't the way to discuss things either.

#6
Swad

Swad

    Founder.

  • Administrators
  • 3,709 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

...and it invalidates every argument you've made to date.


I hope that "you" here is operating as an indefinite pronoun and doesn't mean "Mash". :) I hope that I'm not guilty of that which I decry in this post.

#7
A Nonny Moose

A Nonny Moose

    Proud PPC User

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,421 posts
  • Gender:Male
I was using the word you in a collective sense rather than individually singling you (as in Mash) out. You're certainly not a petty name caller ,but the jury is still out on being a poopy head, lol

#8
AppleLegal

AppleLegal

    who wants a subpoena?

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 89 posts

Actually 2+2=5 for higher values of 2. Take 2.4 and 2.3. Both numbers essentially round down to 2. Add them together and we get 4.7, which rounds up to five.

or if you leave a margin of error to the 1's place.

#9
rogabean

rogabean

    My Mac wants you!

  • Retired Developers
  • 863 posts
  • Location:Orlando, FL (U.S.A.)
Two and Two make five and quarter, that's why people fall in love.

#10
oregano

oregano

    oregano!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 510 posts
  • Gender:Male
well 2+2=5 under base three, if the first number after 3 is 5

#11
LifeDroidGenesis7007

LifeDroidGenesis7007

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts
  • Gender:Male
omg, 2+2=4. ok? If it equals five then all of logic is wrong and we should all shut up.

#12
Ayanami

Ayanami

    How very.

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan
2 + 2 = 5?
Yeah, maybe if you're Thom Yorke or Johnny Greenwood. =p

Why can't we have the Ad Hom rule in the Windows threads? How many people in there just go "Waaahhh...M$ Sux" "Windoze" "Wahhh...Vista"
*insert more whining Windows examples here*

#13
GlasGhost

GlasGhost

    InsanelyMac Protégé

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 26 posts

2 + 2 = 5?
Yeah, maybe if you're Thom Yorke or Johnny Greenwood. =p

Why can't we have the Ad Hom rule in the Windows threads? How many people in there just go "Waaahhh...M$ Sux" "Windoze" "Wahhh...Vista"
*insert more whining Windows examples here*


But windows is pretty bad.

I just Couldn't resist.

#14
oldtopman

oldtopman

    InsanelyMac Sage

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 348 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:A galaxy far far away...
The Fallacy Detective, Thinking Toolbox are excellent books on this subject.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

© 2014 InsanelyMac  |   News  |   Forum  |   Downloads  |   OSx86 Wiki  |   Mac Netbook  |   Web hosting by CatN  |   Designed by Ed Gain  |   Logo by irfan  |   Privacy Policy