Actually I did assume his first post was satire, but since he never said "just kidding" in his second and instead started a frustrating argument, it became a foregone conclusion. Next time, if you're being satirical and someone responds without realizing you are, just say you didn't mean it literally in your next post.

Sorry, I can't help being devil's advocate every once in a while. I'll save that for another place next time guys.

Brice - don't be misleading. If you were attempting to be satirical, I would have expected you are wise enough to make it obvious. Not to mention that your original the comment was very much directed at me and my request that you not be inflammatory. Why would I think you were kidding? Please. You weren't.

When you put something in the Comments and Suggestions forum, we take it very seriously. If you were trying to be cute or funny, my guess is that you wouldn't have PMd as many people as you did regarding this issue.

As far as I'm concerned, Cephus is right. Our definition of inflammatory most often applies to trolls.

The definition stands as previously stated.

Didn't mean to direct anything towards you, Jamie, but I just got a tad annoyed with your dislike for my enthusiasm. Are we now on the same page?

Come on, Brice.

You're misleading everyone, and it is now bordering on being inflammatory.

You sent me several PMs regarding this, all making clear that you are serious. Lying to the general membership definitely makes you lose credibility.

Let's talk about the tactic you are using here:

First you come in and tell us that something that is against our rules is necessary for you to debate. You were very harsh, and rather non-constructive. Then, you are shot down not only by the staff, but by our members. And now, you are claiming this was all in good fun?

The next part of your tactic is playing innocent, and it's not going to work. We will be no less critical of your initial posts simply because you can come off as a nice guy in subsequent posts. Your first posts still stand, and you have confirmed to me that they are actually your opinion. Good cop/bad cop only works when there are TWO cops!

Reading your posts in this topic, it is obvious that you have progressively toned down your rhetoric. The tactic of coming on unnecessarily strong initially, and then toning down your verbiage whey you are so obviously in the wrong, may work well in a high school debate, but it doesn't work well here.

Everyone here knows and understands both the letter of the rules, and the spirit. I would suggest you spend several days reading and not posting so you may acquaint yourself with the form of debate we maintain here.

Nothing more can be said on the issue of being inflammatory without it being considering non-constructive. We have given you our definition, and that is the end of it. This particular issue is over. The next post by you in this topic regarding inflammatory posts will earn you a strike for being non-constructive and inflammatory. This is already getting old.

ADDED: If anyone has any questions about this, please send me a PM by clicking here.

Mike

I believe that at some points in time, using humor is a great tactic. Face it, humor is a powerful thing, and extremely common worldwide. There are TV networks devoted to humor, movies, ads, descriptions, etc etc. Everywhere you go you see humor used, and it can very clearly and accurately display a point. But, when used on a very serious issue or something of that sort, it can become offensive, so it's important that people use humor only when appropriate in a debate, otherwise it can be extremely harmful to one's argument.

If nothing else, humor can help people like you. People generally listen better when they like who's speaking. Then again, trying to be funny and failing can really backfire.

I am vexed when a poster brings up an erroneous point which is successfully refuted along with supplementary links, and that poster continues on with the same point as though the refutation never occurred....not even acknowledging the post but simply ignoring it completely.

You know, I am vexed when a poster brings up an erroneous point which is successfully refuted along with supplementary links, and that poster continues on with the same point as though the refutation never occurred....not even acknowledging the post but simply ignoring it completely.....wait...did someone say this already?

See how annoying that was? Don't be repetitive

I don't know about repetition being altogether bad...

If I point out that Conclusion A is logical, provide a link (or not), and then another poster answers (satisfactorily convincing themselves that I am now wrong) but does not fully convince, then the original conclusion and reasoning remains.

It is (to me) perfectly reasonable to then say : your reasoning does not refute my logical conclusion, therefore Conclusion A is still valid. Is something further required? Refuting another's argument does not require you to further substantiate your own conclusion. So it is perfectly valid to then restate your point.

Absolutely, Amlord. I agree. But I think MrsP was referring to those who only repeat their posts and make no attempt to constructively move the debate forward.

Your tactic, as described, is VERY constructive and NOT repetitive.

When posting it helps to ask yourself if you are bringing something new to the table. If not, it can't hurt to take a breather and not post until you do. Otherwise, we end up with "A" vs. "B" threads that appear to be pathetic rip-offs of the Monty Python Argument sketch.

Full script: here

And no - that was not an excuse to cite Monty Python as a legitimate source....ok, yes it was

I am quite tired of these myths being injected into debate as absolute truth. I personally think we could do without these embellishments in debate, why do people stick them in all the time, as if it wasnt just a lie told over and over. Do we NEED to rely on this? They ARE the most cliche since at least 1950, we were taught this crap in high school but its no longer relevant, at the very least as debate tactic:

America is the greatest nation on the planet. ( according to who, US citizens? Not to mention America is Canada, Mexico and South America too)

America/the US is the freest nation on the planet. ( not true)

America is the greatest/ most powerful/richest nation in the history of the world.
( absolute lie)

Everyone wants to come to America. (lie)

America is good, we do the right thing for the right reasons, always. ( seriously debatable)

Our leaders have more information than we do, therefore must know better than us. (does anyone really believe that?)

America is about freedom and democracy for all people. ( Ya sure, get informed)

America does not support terrorism. ( absolute lie)

We support our troops. ( absolute lie)

American ideals are the right ones for everyone, we bring freedom to the oppressed. We go to 'liberate'. ( no comment for idiocy quotient)

All of these statements are either untrue or seriously in question. Can we STOP spewing this rhetoric in debate ? How about if we up our game and stop insulting each other with this insidious crap injected continually between the lines? Its not like we havent heard it 1000 times before.

I believed this was the greatest country in the world in elementary school. We didn't talk about terrorism in the 50's and early 60's but we heard a lot about the Communist threat and there was a lot of chest beating, and the implication was there that only the United States stood against Communism.

But since Mom was a resident alien from Canada and Dad was born in Canada and had dual citizenship, I was told in no uncertain terms that the USA was not the only country that valued freedom and had representative government, and certainly the United States was not alone in winning the first and second world wars. Sometimes it's just the absence of other points of view that makes us think that our country is the be-all and end-all.

I take exception to the idea sometimes stated on this board that our country can do whatever it pleases because it is the "800 lb. gorilla." Please. We disregard what the rest of the world says to our peril.

Moderation notice: I merged Artemise's 08/27/03 7:27am post and Paladin Elspeth's 08/27/03 8:18am post from Casual Conversation to this thread, Debating Tactics.

Please continue on!

Artemise: While I agree entirely with what you're saying, I can't see this changing really. In terms of the US being the greatest country in the history of time, every discussion board is gonna have a bit of mindless jingo. Much as I'd love to see it all simply evaporate and be replaced by a bit of perspective, it just ain't gonna happen. I also think there's an extent to which a lot of these kinds of statements contain a presumed "IMO" (though seldom an "IMHO") - though few of their authors may be aware of the fact.

When it comes to factual errors - and lies ("America does not support terrorism") - well, every board is gonna have a few propagandists, too. The best that can be done is to point out the truth and hope that those without an agenda will take it on board. Expecting these types to change their stripes, though? Dream on...

I made that comment in another thread concerning Iraq, and I stand by that comment. There is no nation in the history of the world that has, or has ever had the global power of the US today. If someone wants to dispute that, they can open another thread somewhere.

In keeping with the subject of this thread though I would guide people to this link.

Logical Fallacies and the art of Debate

That's fine, but the point is that it's not a universal belief. It's not something that you should assume to be true and expect others to assume in order for the debate to continue. The true art of debate consists in large part of identifying where your beliefs differ from your interlocutors' and addressing such divergences based on mutually acceptable terms. Not everyone believes the US (not America BTW) is the greatest/whatever nation in the history of the world. They have reasons for their disbelief. If you disagree with their conclusion, and if it's relevant whether the US is the greatest (which is rarely the case), you must address those reasons. Ignoring the reasons and insisting on acceptance of your premise is simply not constructive.

In the context of that thread a discussion on whether or not the US was the most powerful nation in the history of the world would have been "off topic". I used the term in the context of whether or not I would support the US ridding this world of oppression, something along those lines. My response was that even though the US was the most powerful nation in the history of the world, it was beyond our power to do so.

One thing that I see as a problem in this discussion is; What is the goal of debate? I would hope it is to refine and explain our and others beliefs and hopefully in the end find some place of agreement and reduce disagreement. It is at times needed to call a duck a duck! We need to use the least inflamatory word that most closely defines our problem, and magnifies the issue at hand. At times that will mean that we have to question someones study and or knowlwdge of a subject to find out what supports it. If we understand as a community that we will be challenged. We can focus on displacing stereotypes associated with each of our ideologies. I have been challenged on the use of a word. I felt it appropriate that it was done. I believe it was Playapus, if I am wrong forgive me. I was forced to further explain my position adn justify its use. There is nothing wrong with this. we should all accept and reasonably respond to such challenges. I was also called to use different words by Wertz in hopes of displaceing narrowing views of words I was using. Philosophy and ethics for Theology and Morality. Once again, appropriate and appreciated. I was asked to expand upon a one line response because it was difficult to debate by Jaime. As a newer member I think this forum handles such issues appropriatly and directly. You must defend your views and the words that you use. I have only seen it as an issue when someone refuses to respond, or they have no point other than I disagree for its usage and its purpose is to offend. I for one encourage the self policeing, from members and committee.

Artemise: I'm pretty sure there are threads to address each one of the "myths" you mentioned. If you believe the statements are false, why not debate it there? I'm pretty sure there are many thing members post which other members consider false. This is a debate site after all

Your can not debate myths in a factual manner. Any premise based on a belief system is not as strong as one based on facts. When a person has a belief system, you have pretty much zero change of changing their mind. It is important to recognize when a point is being made via a belief system. Premises and conclusions based on them should not be given much value, unless you share the same beliefs.

Artemise made a very good list of premises based on the belief system of patriotism. If you a person who believes citizens should back their own country 100% no matter what, you will put much value in these premises and arguments based on them. For the rest of us, it is a junk list and arguments based on them are weak.

Belief based debating can be annoying to those not sharing those beliefs.

I agree that most beliefs are very hard to debate, and that in 99% of the cases, a belief will not change. But that doesn't mean that they are not worth debating. That 1% of the time where someone who holds a belief which has little evidence to back it up actually realizes that that's the case, they might change their mind. Belief based debate can definitely be annoying, but it can also be rewarding every once in a while.

Pheeler, yes, debating a belief system within itself may occassionally be "rewarding" but when a belief system is put forth as a fact in a factual argument, the reward is unattainable.

That depends. A "belief system" is not necessarily irrational. I think many of the members of this site are rational people who will admit something if it is shown clearly to be true in the course of a debate, I've seen it happen (heck, I've done it )

Turnea,
I couldnt debate it IN the threads because it would have thrown them 'off topic'. I did post it to Aquilla, but I felt my response was swerving the thread. I read something similar the day before which I refrained for the same reason, so I thought it better to start a new topic, although I didnt know where to put it, Im glad Jaime put it in its rightful place.

The question is not whether the statements are true or false, the issue is throwing them in for embellishment where they do not apply, which seems to be constant with our super-patriots who can manage to work this stuff into any and every thread. To be fair, Bush detractors also use this tactic in opposite too often.


I feel the same way about debaters who attribute every subject they dont agree with to 'all you liberals/conservatives'. It becomes a base blow which takes people off the topic wastes our time suddenly defending ourselves for our affiliations because we cannot be categorized on every subject. This was most likely dealt with earlier in this thread.

Another interest for me are those purporting that this nation is all one belief system, in essence, theirs. As in :(assimilation into) American culture, American beliefs, America is a religious nation, American values. Arguments of this type are hard to debate because these things are so totally different to each and every one of us. I get wondering often what people are talking about because 'fitting into' American anything is such an open category. IE: Fitting into American culture if you live in NYC is so different from fitting in in Louisiana or Nebraska or Orange County or East Side LA. Totally subjective. As far as I can see, there is very little that is common to all of us. I shuuur would love to know how I fit into American culture, values etc. Maybe theres a test? lol

I think there are plenty of threads where people can state their beliefs, party affiliations and gripes about the 'other' without using every thread hyping up America or collectively bashing those who put a party affiliation on their profile. Wertz, asking for too much, I know.
I realize we are almost all guilty of some sort of propagandizing occasionally, I dont claim to be without.

Heres mine: We , America, the richest most powerful nation in the history of the world should take care of our impoverished and homeless, provide citizens with full health care, a good education and secure pensions instead of invading and overthrowing third world dictators to our own detriment and stop making war on countries we cannot possibly manage or care for as our own citizens continually suffer in this great USA.

How does it sound? Grandiose? Out of touch? Radical? Those who use these tactics sound the same to me.

I have serious issues with sweeping generalizations, broad stereotypes, presenting opinion as fact without support and...well, that's enough for now.

This often comes up in certain forums such as Race Debate. It's often a haven for all three of those annoying debate tactics I mentioned.

America is the greatest country on the planet. That's a generalization, but I don't have a problem with that statement because for many people they accept this as a fact. Maybe they've never been anywhere and don't want to compare America to other nations. Maybe they have and they are firmly convinced according to their own criteria America grades out "A-Number #1."

That's fine, but please don't jump down my throat if I respectfully disagree with that assessment.

Broad stereotypes bug the hell out of me. I call it the Blazing Saddles Syndrome. If you're familiar with that movie it was ALL about stereotypes. Stereotypes about Jews, blacks, whites, cowboys, Indians, German, homosexuals and just about everyone else! It was hilarious as a comedic device, but in debate it's worthless.

Is it true what they say about you people? was a question posted by a white woman to a black man before they were about to engage in sex in Blazing Saddles. Here on America's Debate you will read with appalling frequency statements that verge on homophobia, sexism, racism, religious intolerance and what have you. Often without malicious intent, but with enough frequency to make me shake my head in disbelief.

A poster in a recent thread made a comment about how black people "breed like rabbits." It was all I could do not to add, Yeah, and they sho' do like to play basketball and eat fried chicken.

Just because we all have nice computers and enjoy the benefits of a quality education doesn't mean that at one time or other we ALL aren't guilty of generalizations, stereotyping and stating our opinion as if it were proof. Some of us just do it a LOT more than others and I sure wish they would stop abusing the privilege.

nighttimer said "A poster in a recent thread made a comment about how black people "breed like rabbits." It was all I could do not to add, Yeah, and they sho' do like to play basketball and eat fried chicken."

Thank you nighttimer, that is not only funny because its true on how some people think, but just the way you said it too, good job.

I have to things I would like to address, one is you could be wrong about something, and two, I usually don’t write very long posts, but it sucks when someone takes your entire post, quotes it, then adds one line in about something. I think I have done this myself once or twice, but overall I don’t view it as lazy but rather dishonest, i don’t like it very much.

Additional Problems:

Confusing cause and effect. Examples abound, one in this thread, such as this:



Now, the problem with Gray Seal's assessment is this: does a person who holds the premises listed by Artemise do so because he is a "patriot", or is he a "patriot" because that is the natural end result of the beliefs he holds about America?

Bait and switch dismissal
Another related tactic that should be exposed for the fraud it is is the practice of dismissing an argument in this fashion: Aside from the irony inherent in that statement (ironic, because the statement itself derives from a belief system, not fact!), there is the problem of bias. How do you, the "dismisser", know that you aren't basing your dismissal on your own belief system? The treatment of Artemise's list is a perfect example of that.

Failure to distinguish between subjective assessments and objective
Again, Artemise's list provides us with a fine example.
What's the standard? Are we the most powerful nation in the history of the world? How do we measure it? If you are unwilling to put your criteria on the table, AND to allow others to put their criteria in play, AND to recognize that the importance of different critieria is often subjective, then you are spiraling down the sinkhole of faux objectivity. This is especially rankling because subjective statements usually carry buzzwords, making them easy to identify.

Conflating what was with what is
This can be problematic, because often an argument is couched in conversational terms, which creates confusion. Someone may say that America is not an imperialist power. Immediately, someone else says, "yes, America is because of its imperial behavior vis a vis the Phillipines from 1898 to 1945" Well, this is "what was" vs "what is". Such temporal flimflammery is common, and should be shot down like the lame duck it is.

Irrational standards
A favorite of some, this entails setting up an impossible standard, and then indicting as evil/flawed/stupid/etc any who fail to meet this standard. What is most irritating about this tactic is that the standard itself is generally unassailable. When the standard is derived metaphysically, then it can be give a pass, if, however, the standard is utopian... aarggg

Now, for the absolute most important element, which sadly has gone unmentioned thus far:
Charity. When you respond to another's argument, strive to do so by first casting it in the most charitable fashion. If you are uncertain whether someone is making a categorical versus comparative statement, don't assume that which is most profitable for your argument, but rather that which best supports their argument. Challenge them on the lack of clarity, but refrain from assuming the worst. Rather, assume the best while you seek clarification.

It depends on the belief system, of course. Religious belief, for example, is notoriously difficult to change, even if absolute proof that the belief is wrong is presented. The same can be said oftentimes for some political beliefs. It is unfortunate that there are people who would rather listen to a comforting lie than an uncomfortable truth, but I guess that's just human nature.

The tactic I would hate the most is if someone used solid logic and evidence to proove that a thesis of mine is wrong. It has never happened, but it is theoretically possible.

It's too bad that the people whose ideas have been soundly defeated through logic and evidence don't actually CHANGE their ideas. I guess believing in faulty things matters more than admiting you're wrong and accepting the truth.

The reason issues are debated is because there is no universal accepted right or wrong on the issue. It does not mean debate cannot change someones mind, it is just it can seldom prove them wrong on an issue. On details, or facts in dispute, someone can be proven wrong. Seldom can someone be proven wrong on their stand on an issue.

I often see people claim a position has been soundly refuted when it has only been refuted in the mind of the one claiming so.

There are many issues which are open-and-shut cases. Take for example someone who declares that the Earth is flat. You can prove, beyond any doubt, that they are wrong. Absolutely, completely, totally, indisputably wrong. Doesn't mean they will change their minds though. There are many positions that have been completely refuted but blind faith and stubborness still prevail.

Well now you are speaking of people who are on a completely different plane. Conspiracy theorists and certain fanatically religious people accept evidence from only a few sources i.e. The Bible or www.whatreallyhappened.com and assert that any evidence to the contrary is fabricated. You cannot proove the world is round to a flat earther. You can reveal the insanity of his beliefs to others.

Which is why religion is problematic on the most basic levels, because believers aren't playing with the full deck that the rest of us are, so to speak. They require that certain things be true, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the logic, rationality or legitimacy of their position. The Flat Earth Society are fanatics, but they are fanatics with a distinctly religious bent. They believe because their interpretation of the Bible tells them this is true. There is absolutely nothing which could ever make them believe, everything that makes the world appear round is a trick, a deception or a lie. The same can be said of creationists and many other groups. They believe, not on fact, but on faith, and ungrounded faith is perhaps the most dangerous thing in the world.

No Cephus, bigotry borne of pride is the most dangerous thing in the world. The pride can be rooted in faith in one's own strength, or looks, or race, or heritage, or sex, or wealth, or talent, or rational intellect....

Such bigotry can be directed at anyone, simply because they are black, or Asian, or Indian, or female, or disabled ...
......

or religious.

Fortunately, AD is no place for such pride and bigotry, right Cephus?

That's why it is hard to debate with people who are self-absorbed into that stuff. They believe it and they figure whatreallyhappened.com is right.

If anyone knows the art of debate, it is best to refrain from name calling. If you are going to make a statement, be prepared to be called onto supporting it.

Pride is worthwhile only if it is well placed. If it is based on a logical and rational preponderance of the evidence, then yes, pride can be a good thing.

Bigotry, I think you're talking about the other folk, sorry. Please try again.

naked Liberal writes:


That's the biggest problem I see in many cases. Support doesn't mean throwing pages of links, it means that you actually understand the case you're making and can explain it in your own words, perhaps with links to objective studies or places to read further.

I see a lot of people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about, but with Google as their guide, they'll stymie people with volume, if not substance.

I think I seen this from enough people (and have probably done it myself) to post it without it being construed as a personal attack (I assure you it is not! )

A lot of times in a debate what one ends up with is what I call "personal definitions". As in: I believe... means...

We have a thing that tells us what words mean, it's called a dictionary.

If we want to argue over different dictionary definitions, fine. But it is not helpful to a debate to begin speaking your own personal language...

That's my favorite

Everytime we talk about terrorists or insurgents or gurreilas, we get into the "what is the definition of ...".