Honest and Dishonest Debate

[The Rabbi]

I saw this posted elsewhere. Virtually every thread where libs post is plagued with all of these. And not a few as well from some conservatives.

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics

1. Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as “disgruntled” or “bitter.” These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent.
   
   
2. Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent
   
   
3. Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2...

Edited for copyright compliance.

Much, much more at link.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Grandma got her yahoo email back huh

 

[boedicca]

Looks like Rabbi found the Progressive How To Debate manual.

 

[The Rabbi]

Grandma got her yahoo email back huh

Thanks for illustrating Point 24.

 

[occupied]

Everyone here is guilty including you, Mr. holier than thou. No one is perfect because there are no perfect arguments to be made in the messy, illogical and emotional world of American politics.

 

[The Rabbi]

Everyone here is guilty including you, Mr. holier than thou. No one is perfect because there are no perfect arguments to be made in the messy, illogical and emotional world of American politics.

Thanks for illustrating Point #52!

 

[Nosmo King]

I saw this posted elsewhere. Virtually every thread where libs post is plagued with all of these. And not a few as well from some conservatives.

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics

Edited for copyright compliance.

Fifty Seven points! Wow! How can a simple TOILET INSPECTOR be expected to keep all those in his head when someone with a towering intellect like yours routinely ignores them?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Grandma got her yahoo email back huh

Thanks for illustrating Point 24.

No Problem LOL *sigh*

 

[TheOldSchool]

I saw this posted elsewhere. Virtually every thread where libs post is plagued with all of these. And not a few as well from some conservatives.

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics

Edited for copyright compliance.

tl;dr

 

[The Rabbi]

I saw this posted elsewhere. Virtually every thread where libs post is plagued with all of these. And not a few as well from some conservatives.

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics


Edited for copyright compliance.

Fifty Seven points! Wow! How can a simple TOILET INSPECTOR be expected to keep all those in his head when someone with a towering intellect like yours routinely ignores them?

Points 1,2, 15 and 24.
Congratulations!

 

[occupied]

Everyone here is guilty including you, Mr. holier than thou. No one is perfect because there are no perfect arguments to be made in the messy, illogical and emotional world of American politics.

Thanks for illustrating Point #52!

Thanks for illustrating Point #56!

 

[The Rabbi]

Everyone here is guilty including you, Mr. holier than thou. No one is perfect because there are no perfect arguments to be made in the messy, illogical and emotional world of American politics.

Thanks for illustrating Point #52!

Thanks for illustrating Point #56!

Point #4.

Wow, I had no idea this was this easy.

 

[R.D.]

Grandma got her yahoo email back huh

Pionts 1 and 2 right out of the gate

 

[occupied]

Everyone here is guilty including you, Mr. holier than thou. No one is perfect because there are no perfect arguments to be made in the messy, illogical and emotional world of American politics.

Thanks for illustrating Point #52!

Thanks for illustrating Point #56!

Point #4.

Wow, I had no idea this was this easy.

It's easy because it's a meaningless and stupid troll.

Now, I am not guilty of 52 because I did not claim hypocrisy, I sited the irrational nature of human politics, you cannot deny that.

I am not guilty of number four since faulty arguments are not at all irrelevant to the debate at hand.

 

[The Rabbi]

Everyone here is guilty including you, Mr. holier than thou. No one is perfect because there are no perfect arguments to be made in the messy, illogical and emotional world of American politics.

Thanks for illustrating Point #52!

Thanks for illustrating Point #56!

Point #4.

Wow, I had no idea this was this easy.

It's easy because it's a meaningless and stupid troll.

Now, I am not guilty of 52 because I did not claim hypocrisy, I sited the irrational nature of human politics, you cannot deny that.

I am not guilty of number four since faulty arguments are not at all irrelevant to the debate at hand.

You dont think calling someone "mr holier than thou" is not an accusation of hypocrisy? What is it?

 

[kiwiman127]

Ha Rabbi!
Mr talking points, copies and pastes things he should apply to his own postings.
Rabbi, have you figured out when people ask you for a link, you should respond with a link, instead of your own opinion. Here, this might help you out.
"Computer Science A segment of text or a graphical item that serves as a cross-reference between parts of a hypertext document or between files or hypertext documents. Also called hotlink, hyperlink.
v. linked, link·ing, links
link - definition of link by The Free Dictionary
OK, now next time someone asks you to back up your BS, well use links and not from some partisan friendly resource either.
Then we have the name calling syndrome. Got a mirror Rabbi?
And then there's # 22! Read it and again, look in the mirror.
I'm not going to go through your total waste of cyberspace but I do have another word for you,,,,,,hypocrite.

 

[norwegen]

I saw this posted elsewhere. Virtually every thread where libs post is plagued with all of these. And not a few as well from some conservatives.

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics

Edited for copyright compliance.

tl;dr

Point numbers 6, 8, 11, 13, 25, 40, 46, 57, and 78.

 

[occupied]

Everyone here is guilty including you, Mr. holier than thou. No one is perfect because there are no perfect arguments to be made in the messy, illogical and emotional world of American politics.

Thanks for illustrating Point #52!

Thanks for illustrating Point #56!

Point #4.

Wow, I had no idea this was this easy.

It's easy because it's a meaningless and stupid troll.

Now, I am not guilty of 52 because I did not claim hypocrisy, I sited the irrational nature of human politics, you cannot deny that.

I am not guilty of number four since faulty arguments are not at all irrelevant to the debate at hand.

You dont think calling someone "mr holier than thou" is not an accusation of hypocrisy? What is it?

By posting this topic I took it mean that you thought yourself innocent of logical failacies. I did not exclude myself from from the statement that we are all at least occasionally guilty of bullshitting each other.

 

[Foxfyre]

I saw this posted elsewhere. Virtually every thread where libs post is plagued with all of these. And not a few as well from some conservatives.

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics

Edited for copyright compliance.

In formal debate, all these concepts are taught and debaters learn how to avoid them because a good judge will score downward for use of any of them, along with a whole host of logical fallacies. As somebody said, the best of the best will occasionally slip and slide into these kinds of areas, but the best of the best will more often than not avoid them.

Generally the beginner or message board participant will do okay if they simply know and observe the following:

1. Make no statement of fact that you are unprepared to defend.
2. Stay on topic
3. Refrain from all personal insults regarding the other members and/or their associates and associations including ad hominem.
4. Know what a red herring or straw man argument is and avoid them as much as possible.
5. Provide as much information in your post as is necessary to be specific about what you are saying.
6. Avoid making every post a 'wall of text'. (This last one is a skill I have not yet consistently mastered and the error of which I am most often guilty.)

 

[Syriusly]

The author of this list seems to be guilty of most of his complaints.