27 Aug 03
3 edits
The Art of Debating.
How should participants conduct themselves ?
Are there any "rules" of behaviour in order to debate "correctly" ?
How do we treat our fellow debaters ?
Should there be a "goal" in a debate ?
What kind of "goal" ?
Five questions ...
Any thoughts ?
IvanH.
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeGood question IvanH.
The Art of Debating.
How should participants conduct themselves ?
Are there any "rules" of behaviour in order to debate "correctly" ?
How do we treat our fellow debaters ?
Should there be a "goal" in a debate ?
What kind of "goal" ?
Five questions ...
Any thoughts ?
IvanH.
There are so many levels of debate that you would have different rules at each level. Starting at the top and working down...
International debate between national government.
National debate between parties.
Political debate between contenders.
Academic debate ( hard science.)
Academic debate ( social science.)
General debate amongst willing community. ( RHP)
General debate amongst unwilling communities. (Religion vs. Science)
Familial debate.
Work place debate.
Societal debate.
And then the really interesting debates... no glove types...
Fisherman debate.
Saloon debate.
Drunken debate.
Gutter debate.
A "gentlemans" debate at the club holds no resemblance to a drunken debate at the pub. Different debaters and techniques.
Having never had formal debate instruction, I didn't have any idea that there were rules.😕 You telling me that there is a point to debate other than coming out on top?😉
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeHow should participants conduct themselves ?
With confidence in their arguments if deserved, and with total intellectual humility otherwise.
Are there any "rules" of behaviour in order to debate "correctly" ?
Yes. Carefully consider what your opponenet says, and speak only rationally and disinterestedly. Change your views to suit the correct points of your fellow debat(o?)ers. Build the most formidable logical fortress you can. If it coincides with your "opponent's" position, then he/she was right to begin with, but you drew the conclusion yourself.
How do we treat our fellow debaters ?
As we would always treat our fellow humans. If they do not adhere to any standards of thought in their statements, merciless ridicule is in order.
Should there be a "goal" in a debate ?
To come to a defensible conclusion and further understand the issue.
This of course applies only to a few of the types of debate Mike mentioned. Many recent conversations on RHP have not exactly adhered to these rules, which should be bent and changed as the debators see fit.
27 Aug 03
1 edit
"See, as was said in "The Art of Debating", conversations like this will not really advance much further, since regardless of your arguments, Feivel will not change his position."
Royalchicken. 27 aug. '03 19:47. Thread: Religion (or lack of) page 20
So, in your view, the goal in a debate is to change your opponents position ...
IvanH.
27 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenWhat will happen, in your opinion , when your opponent has the same idea and attitude towards you in that debate ?
No, but rather to be correct so that an opponent will stop defending an untenable position and independently arrive at a more defensible one.
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenMark,
No, but rather to be correct so that an opponent will stop defending an untenable position and independently arrive at a more defensible one.
You have hit upon the secret of the entire UNIVERSE here.
Every position conceivable is tenable except in the one unbendable field that is provable. Mathematics. This is where it is so difficult for Math capable people because they tend to be able (at least in their own mind) to reduce many... indeed most, subjects, objects and actions to an irreducible True/False condition. When it serves their purpose. Most people don't have that false illusion. Politics, religion, manners, social custom, relationships, war, peace, eating habits, behavior, dressing habits.... Anything that is not built into the nature of the universe (see math) is not reducible to points of logic. It would be nice if they were, but no person is willing to give into that kind of reduction to logic. The great works on logic done by Russel and others has no bearing on everyday life. Sad but true. Only if every person involved in any particular argument understood Russel could there be a "slight" hope of meaningfully reducing to a logical, mathematically tenable position. Until then, "tenable" is defined not in terms of logic but in terms of the number of cheers one garners from the audience. This is what we are about. Garnering the most backers in case it comes to a fight or a war. See "Chimps Debate Ownership Of Bright Object Found In Forest".
27 Aug 03
2 edits
Originally posted by StarValleyWyExcellent post. I partly disagree though (no surprises there 😀). I think rationality is certainly possible in all aspects of life. You are certainly correct in saying that most debates cannot be reduced to certainly answerable questions, but it is possible to take positions in arguments that are more rational than others, because the basic assumptions in most arguments are as you say by necessity rather hazy. However, the basic knowledge common to all people is broad enough that some inferences can be drawn, and debates can be had that incorporate these inferences. So while you are right in saying that outside of the deductive sciences there cannot be absolute logical certitude, there can exist absolutely ridiculous arguments and ones that make a bit more sense. In a debate we strive for the latter.
Mark,
You have hit upon the secret of the entire UNIVERSE here.
Every position conceivable is tenable except in the one unbendable field that is provable. Mathematics. This is where it is so difficult for Math capable people becaus ...[text shortened]... See "Chimps Debate Ownership Of Bright Object Found In Forest".
As to the notion that the best argument is the one that gets fewest supporters, I think you are almost on but not quite. I think the most successful argument is the best supported one, but that is not the standard of quality that should be used. Rather, the best argument in the debate is the one that most successfully approximates rationality and explains the facts in the simplest feasible manner given the 'initial conditions' provided by common knowledge. Sherlock Holmes is an example of someone rather skillful at rational manipulations in the grimy physical world.
Mike, evolutionarily speaking, how could the faculty of logical thought have developed as such a defining aspect of the human mind if there were no application of it to the physical world?
Hmmm.....I wonder what the rules are for a "Bonobo Debate"....
27 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenAre you sure that "it is possible to take positions in arguments that are more rational than others"...? If you debate Jerry Fallwell on "Is God A Scientist" ? Who is going to win based on taking a more rational position? Suppose you are arguing at Cambridge University before a gathering of Nobel Scientists. Then suppose you are arguing before a tent revival in Arkansas? Is there any way that the "rationallity" of a position comes into play in either case? Or are you just preaching to the choir in both cases? Then we must add up the "worth" of the two arguments. There are 100 nobel scientists that say you win. There are 1000 revivilists who say you lost. How many refivilists are equal to 1 scientist? 10? One to One? Are some positions more logical than others? Or are they just more winnable depending on the circumstance?
Excellent post. I partly disagree though (no surprises there 😀). I think rationality is certainly possible in all aspects of life. You are certainly correct in saying that most debates cannot be reduced to certainly answerable ques ...[text shortened]... er skillful at rational manipulations in the grimy physical world.
You can't say that "In a debate, we try for the latter." Jerry Fallwell chose the absolutely most ridiculous set of arguments and i'm betting he will win every time in front of his audience.
You are making a big, as in gigantic, mistake in refering to "Common Knowledge". This is something that doesn't exist. It goes with the notion that "society sets the rules" and that "we all know that"... neither is the case. Each of us set our rules. No two people share the same set of universals and/or values based on being.
In your logical fashion, "simplest feasible manner" has meaning. Does it? Also "initial conditions"? Does Jerry have the same initial conditions as you in the above debate?
Uh... Sherlock Holmes isn't real.😲 Just to prove the point about "common knowledge".
27 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyMike, you are assuming that an argument is won when a sufficiently large group of people agree with the winner. I'm assuming that an argument is a Platonic object that is a "winning argument" when the "winner" has inferred his conclusions in such a way that they don't contradict things that he knows. You are speaking of audience-dependent rhetorical argument, me of removed dialectical argument. In the latter case, arguments must be tested for rationality, in the former, only for effectiveness. (I am also opening myself to charges that I am guilty of the things you describe.)
Are you sure that "it is possible to take positions in arguments that are more rational than others"...? If you debate Jerry Fallwell on "Is God A Scientist" ? Who is going to win based on taking a more rational position? Suppose y ...[text shortened]... sn't real.😲 Just to prove the point about "common knowledge".
I was wrong/unclear to speak of common knowledge so freely. I meant that arguments should be made based on principles that both parties agree with, if many parties are involved. If there is no common ground, then rational and rhetorical arguments are impossible, and shouldn't be pursued (eg science vs. dogma).
Jerry Falwell does not "win an argument" in my sense, because he does not dispute points; he presses one unsubstantiated viewpoint. It is certainly not the "dialectical" argument I describe, nor is it the equally valuable "rhetorical" argument you are talking about. It is just inflated drivel.
"Simplest feasible manner". Based on information available to anyone, it is possible to see if an explanation (argument) can explain that which it purports to (feasible). Determining simplicity can be done in several ways, from actual measurement of the information content of sentences (a bad and overly reductionist approach), to examining how much must be assumed in drawing the conclusion. In a world lacking absolute truths, the argument that can maintain logic while making the fewest assumptions about the world is the one that usually holds up.
Sherlock Holmes may as well be real, because a person (Art Conan Doyle) could conceive of his methods.
Your claims would seem to undercut empirical science to some degree.
What about the evolution question I asked?
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchicken" Thy Rod and Staff shall defend me. Controversy shall follow me all of my days"🙄
Mike, evolutionarily speaking, how could the faculty of logical thought have developed as such a defining aspect of the human mind if there were no application of it to the physical world?
Hmmm.....I wonder what the rules are for a "Bonobo Debate"....[/b]
Here goes. As far as we know, in tests done on children and on brains... what we are born with are called "intuitions." These appear to be "innate predispositions" but not "abilities". Humans appear to have several "intuitions", ie, Matching, Spoken Language, Counting, Physics. There is no intuition IN THE GENERAL PUBLIC for Logic. Some very few are born with it, but that is speculation on my part. It has never been demonstrated in a new born baby. Logic, Math and Written language are all "Learned". Years and Years of Learning. We have no evolutionary use for them, apparently. Most people have absolutely no need for logic. It seems counter intuitive, but examine your world more closely and you will see that it is so. Scarry! But true. If people had anything resembling a "Logic" circuit do you think that TV could exist in it's current form? The first time an advert came on, we would all have a good laugh, turn it off and never turn it on again. Or Government? Or institutionalized education? Or Medicine by Sales Rep? (See General Practicioner... "How To Push Pills for Research Commissions"😉
Bonobo Debate involves Queue's up to a quarter mile in length.😛 They are generally more civilized than other "primative" types of debate. (Good Pun!)😵
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyReally? There is no logical process involved in noticing that seeds don't grow too well when just thrown on the dirt, and then poking a hole with a sharp stick, by way of planting?
" Thy Rod and Staff shall defend me. Controversy shall follow me all of my days"🙄
Here goes. As far as we know, in tests done on children and on brains... what we are born with are called "intuitions." These appear to be "innate predispositions" but not "abilities". Humans appear to have several "intuitions", ie, Matching, Spoken Language, ...[text shortened]... gth.😛 They are generally more civilized than other "primative" types of debate. (Good Pun!)😵
I suppose you know more about the brain than I, but aren't 'intuitions' just 'lines of reasoning' conducted at high speed and with no verification process?
You are maybe right because I seem to better remember everything that happened to me after learning how to read.
Excellent pun sir! We've hijacked another!
27 Aug 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeI don't think it is an art.
The Art of Debating.
How should participants conduct themselves ?
Are there any "rules" of behaviour in order to debate "correctly" ?
How do we treat our fellow debaters ?
Should there be a "goal" in a debate ?
What kind of "goal" ?
Five questions ...
Any thoughts ?
IvanH.
If you think something and you don't care what others think about you,
Lyn