The art of argument.

[notfred]

Now, I realize that a large percentage of the topics on here are controversial, and people get heated about things, but here are some guidelines to follow when trying to make your point. If you follow these, it'll help keep it civilized in here.

1) Someone being an idiot or a moron does NOT invalidate their argument, attack the idea, not the person.

2) When someone says "many" or "some" it does not mean "all" or "you". For Exambple "a lot of people on this board are bad at arguing" does NOT mean "YOU, reading this post right now - are bad at arguing". Similarly, "I'd post my opinion on christianity, but I don't want to deal with all the flaming I'd get" does NOT mean "All christians are flamers"

3) You CANNOT prove that something does not exist, it's impossible. YOu can brove that it does, but you can't prove that it doesn't. for example: If I don't believe in pencils, you can show me a pencil, and prove that pencils do in fact exist. However, if I search the world over and never find a pencil, it does not preclude the possibility of a pencil on the moon. If I go and search the moon, and still find no pencils, it does not mean there's no pencils on mars, or pluto.
Please, if someone asks for proof that something exists, dont respond with "prove it doesn't".

4) Interjecting phrases and slogans into a disscussion contributes nothing to the discussion, please refrain from it.. (ie. psoting "God save me from your followers" in a thread on Christianity is completely unproductive)

5) Because something only has a 1/1000000 chance of happening, does NOT mean it will take 1000000 tries before it happens, people mess this up all the time.

6) Don't go into an argument if you have no intention of changing your viewpoint if the other side gives a good argument. If you're not going to listen to thier side, why should they lsiten to yours?



Feel free to add any more that you think of.

 

[ZAQ3211]

I find this tenet extremely useful.

Other that facts and some questions, all else is to gain importance or to gain sympathy.

I don't lower myself to attacking the person under any circumstances, even if flammed.

I use more facts to substanciate my case.

ZAQ

 

[isildur]

I've always maintained that Philosophy 150: Logic should be a required course for all high school and college students.

I have another one: the strength of your passion and the reality of your suffering does not bestow discursive legitimacy upon you or your position.

Not even our media has gotten ahold of this one...

"...I was a River Valley High school student and I later was diagnosed with Leukemia. I have suffered immensely from this disease, the treatments are horrible and I may not survive. We need to close this school immediately to prevent other young people from suffering as I have..."

or, better yet, a relative of a violent crime victim testifying in court to the depth of their loss, as if that somehow were relavent or useful in determining whether or not the person accused of the crime actually committed it.

<sigh>

Oh yes, we are quite "enlightened" in this the 21st Century.

 

[ornjblud]

<< 1) Someone being an idiot or a moron does NOT invalidate their argument, attack the person, not the idea. >>



If the point of debate is to prove or disprove a statement, shouldn't you attack the idea and NOT the person. Name calling won't vaildate or invalidate an ideal.

 

[Jzero]

All good points.

I need to add one criticism:



<< 3) You CANNOT prove that something does not exist, it's impossible. YOu can brove that it does, but you can't prove that it doesn't. for example: If I don't believe in pencils, you can show me a pencil, and prove that pencils do in fact exist. However, if I search the world over and never find a pencil, it does not preclude the possibility of a pencil on the moon. If I go and search the moon, and still find no pencils, it does not mean there's no pencils on mars, or pluto.
Please, if someone asks for proof that something exists, dont respond with "prove it doesn't". >>



Your post apparently refers to numerous recent religious threads.
If two theoretical ideas are mutually exclusive, proving one effectively disproves the other.
For instance, if either the universe was created by God or it spontaneously came into being, proof of one is disproof of the other. Show me that the universe was NOT created by God, and because the creation of the universe is a fundamental part of Christianity, you essentially cast doubt on the entire concept.

So I would add:
Don't take everything so literally.

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<For instance, if either the universe was created by God or it spontaneously came into being, proof of one is disproof of the other. Show me that the universe was NOT created by God, and because the creation of the universe is a fundamental part of Christianity, you essentially cast doubt on the entire concept.>>

You make a good point, but the fact remains that notfred's third point is still both valid and sound. Proving that God did not create the universe, even if it is possible, still does not prove that God does not exist, all it would do is prove that a small portion of Christian dogma is incorrect. Your criticism does not have any consequence to the third point.

Zenmervolt

 

[PliotronX]

<< 1) Someone being an idiot or a moron does NOT invalidate their argument, attack the person, not the idea. >>


I thought personal attacks were a bannable offense here at AT. Maybe I read the rules wrong?

 

[Jzero]

<< Your criticism does not have any consequence to the third point. >>



The third point is true--like I said, it was a criticism. I wasn't trying to debunk it. It's more a reference to the last line of his point:


<< Please, if someone asks for proof that something exists, dont respond with "prove it doesn't". >>



When dealing with such metaphysical discussions, asking for proof of the unproveable is nothing more than stonewalling. I offer the response "prove it doesn't" because it is equally ludicrous and impossible.

notfred's points all lead in the direction of intelligent, productive debates. However, in the case of religious debate, asking for proof is counter-productive.

 

[RedRooster]

How would a pencil get on Pluto??

Good points, other than that though.

 

[raz]

<< ) Someone being an idiot or a moron does NOT invalidate their argument, attack the person, not the idea. >>



Obviously, he meant attack the idea, not the person.





<< I thought personal attacks were a bannable offense here at AT. Maybe I read the rules wrong? >>



You've been here a while. You should know by now that it's only a bannable offense if you're neither Elite nor a buddy of the Mods. Sheesh, what an idiotic moron.

 

[notfred]

ornjblud - you're right, it ws a typo. I fixed it now

As far as the burden of proof goes, it may or may not be relavant to a religious discussion, or any other discussion. but it should be noted that asking for disproof of something's existance is a faulty question.

 

[jacklutz]

Great post, NotFred.

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<When dealing with such metaphysical discussions, asking for proof of the unproveable is nothing more than stonewalling. I offer the response "prove it doesn't" because it is equally ludicrous and impossible.>>

Maybe so, but the fact still remains that if you offer the "prove it doesn't" responce you are merely stonewalling as well. Better to just claim that it is unprovable IMO.

Zenmervolt

 

[ggavinmoss]

"Reinforce your argument instead of raising your voice."

While it doesn't exactly work as well online as it does in person, the idea of maintaining composure amidst a discussion is very important. And remember, a calm, organized response makes you look smarter than flipping out and calling someone a dumbfvck.

-geoff

 

[Jzero]

<< Maybe so, but the fact still remains that if you offer the "prove it doesn't" responce you are merely stonewalling as well. Better to just claim that it is unprovable IMO. >>



It is absolutely stonewalling. I guess I feel like if one side wants to stonewall, I'll stonewall back rather than try and break through it....
The lazy guy in me, I guess

I should have held my tongue, anyway...I didn't want to start a debate that would drown out notfred's excellent suggestions, so I'm glad it was just the two of us having a characteristically civil discourse.....others could have easily replied and this could have turned into another holy war thread Good thing it didn't.