Re: Debates & Debating

From: Immortalist (Reanimater_2000_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/13/04 

Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 09:42:15 -0700

"Tim" <abc@abc.abc> wrote in message
news:_7adneH8qbVVP9jcRVn-qg@edaptivity.com...
> Who is Larry?
>

Probably one of the people that are on the bulleton board for the page
http://www.truthtree.com/Debating/index.html

Since Larry is not one of the authors of the four perspectives;
http://www.truthtree.com/emailus.shtml

Can you point to the difference it would make in the text?

> "Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Z_OdnfWBA9z2Xt7cRVn-pg@comcast.com...
> > http://debate.uvm.edu/critadv.html
> > http://debate.uvm.edu/watchdebate.html
> > http://debate.uvm.edu/watchdiscussion.html
> > http://library.trinity.wa.edu.au/subjects/english/drama/debate.htm
> > http://www.schoolsdebate.com/
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/
> > http://www.debates.org/pages/history.html
> > http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/debates/history/
> >
> > http://thesmash.bravepages.com/
> > http://www.debating.net/flynn/anthems.HTM
> >
> > DEBATING IS LIKE SEX BECAUSE.........
> >
> > * If you last longer than five minutes, you're doing it wrong.
> > * About three-fifths of it is unprotected.
> > * You get marked on the quality of your extension.
> > * It works best if there are at least seven other people involved.
> > * With some honourable exceptions, children tend not to be very good
> at it.
> > * Ditto animals.
> > * The best place to do it is a debating chamber.
> > * You tend not to be as good at it if you're drunk.
> > * People who do it a lot with lots of different people tend to get
> quite good
> > at it, but nobody has any respect for them.
> > * Success depends to a great extent on your position on the table.
> > * People spend much longer talking about it than actually doing it.
> > * Most people are reluctant to admit that they aren't any good at it.
> > * If you do it too much, your degree suffers.
> > * Having more points than your partner can cope with is likely to be
> > counter-productive.
> > * Although you'll initially feel nervous about doing it for an
> audience, in
> > time you'll realise you perform all the better with one.
> > * The more you perform with the same partner, the more polished your
> > performance will become.
> > * Although the use of props can make a mediocre position easier to
> work with,
> > it is frowned upon by the purists.
> > * Your own opinion of your performance is generally higher than that
> of the
> > judges, other participants, and your partner.
> > * Always blame your partner for a poor performance.
> > * The Dutch do it differently
> > * Over-preparation can lead to a stilted performance
> > * As a senior practitioner of the art, your most important duty is to
> > instruct Freshers in its finer points.
> > * While a poor performance can undermine you self-esteem, a good
> performance
> > will be an ego-boost for years afterwards
> > * The introduction of a squirrel is generally considered to be a faux
> pas
> > * The Scottish do it a lot when young, and rarely when older
> > * The Americans teach it in schools, and you can take a degree in it
> > * The Australians televise it
> > * The Far East have made an industry out of it
> > * Watching other people do it, whilst sometimes an education, is
> usually
> > mundane
> > * Most people do it the same way for years
> > * Men come miles before women
> > * Dressing up then wining and dining is seen as a sure fire way of
> getting
> > some
> >
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > If we don't want to live in a dictatorship, we must be vigilant to
> preserve our
> > freedoms. If we wish to preserve our freedoms, we must be informed on the
> > issues. Being informed on the issues requires that we become acquainted
> with
> > alternative points of view. The history of the development of
> civilization can
> > be seen as the history of debates on issues. In democratic societies,
> there must
> > be public debating. Newspapers have served this purpose and still do to
> some
> > extent in this country. However, we seem to have lost awareness of the
> > importance of debating since the days of Thomas Paine. The sixty-second
> sound
> > bite has created the illusion that the important issues are all brief and
> > cut-and-dried. The importance of debating issues is fading from the
> public
> > consciousness. One principle aim of The Truth Tree is to increase
> awareness of
> > the importance of rational debating. But constructive debating is an art.
> With
> > all this in mind, the following suggestions are offered.
> >
> > Clarity: Avoid use of terms which can be interpreted differently by
> different
> > readers. When we are talking to people who substantially agree with us we
> can
> > use such terms as "rednecks" or "liberals" and feel reasonably sure that
> we will
> > be understood. But in a debate, we are talking to people who
> substantially
> > disagree with us and they are likely to put a different interpretation on
> such
> > words.
> >
> > Evidence: Quoting an authority is not evidence. Quoting a majority
> opinion is
> > not evidence. Any argument that starts with, "According to Einstein..." is
> not
> > based on objective evidence. Any argument that starts with, "Most
> biologists
> > believe..." is not based on objective evidence. Saying, "The Bible
> says..." is
> > not evidence. Authorities and majorities can be wrong and frequently have
> been.
> >
> > Emotionalism: Avoid emotionally charged words--words that are likely to
> produce
> > more heat than light. Certainly the racial, ethnic, or religious hate
> words have
> > no place in rational debating. Likewise, avoid argumentum ad hominem.
> Personal
> > attacks on your opponent are an admission of intellectual bankruptcy.
> Also, slurs
> > directed at groups with whom your opponent is identified are usually
> > nonproductive. Try to keep attention centered on the objective problem
> itself.
> > There is a special problem when debating social, psychological, political,
> or
> > religious ideas because a person's theories about these matters presumably
> have
> > some effect on his own life style. It is unlikely that in an argument over
> the
> > existence of quarks an opponent's sexual behavior would be brought up and
> it
> > would be easier to keep attention centered on the problem itself than if
> the
> > argument was about the importance of the family or whether a liberal or
> > conservative position was preferrable in a political debate. A suggested
> solution
> > is to make a general statement rather than one referring specifically to
> the
> > opponent. In other words, rather than saying "and that's why you are such
> an
> > undisciplined wreck" say, "a person adopting your position is, I believe,
> likely
> > to become an undisciplined wreck because ..."
> >
> > "The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's
> time."
> > --- Richard Nixon
> >
> > A (Short) List of emotionally charged words and phrases:
> >
> > * Liberal!
> > * Tax and spend!
> > * Fascist!
> > * Politically correct!
> > * (The opponent) is spouting! his (whatever)!
> > * All pejorative names for races, sexual preference, ethnic groups, or
> > religions
> > * Baby killer!
> > * Socialist!
> > * Hippy!
> > * Druggy!
> > * Saying that your opponent "trots out" his argument
> >
> > Causality: Avoid the blunder of asserting a causal relationship with the
> popular
> > fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc which declares that because some
> event A
> > happened and immediately afterward event B happened that event A was the
> cause of
> > event B. (I knew someone whose car stalled on the way to work. She would
> get
> > out and open the hood and slam it and then the car would start. Singing a
> song
> > would have been just as effective to allow time for a vapor lock to
> dissipate!)
> > Also avoid the popular fallacy that correlation proves causation. People
> who own
> > Cadillacs, on average, have higher incomes than people who don't. This
> does not
> > mean that if we provided people with Cadillacs that they would have higher
> > incomes.
> >
> > Innuendo: Innuendo is saying something pejorative about your opponent
> without
> > coming right out and saying it but by making more or less veiled allusions
> to
> > some circumstance, rumor, or popular belief. If you want to see some
> excellent
> > examples of innuendo, watch Rush Limbaugh. Politicians are, unfortunately,
> > frequently guilty of using innuendo. It is an easy way to capitalize on
> popular
> > prejudices without having to make explicit statements which might be
> difficult or
> > impossible to defend against rational attack.
> >
> > Be sure of your facts. What is the source of your information? If it is
> a
> > newspaper or a magazine, are you sure that the information hasn't been
> "slanted"
> > to agree with that publication's political bias? Where crucial facts are
> > concerned, it is best to check with more than one source. Often
> international
> > publications will give you a different perspective than your hometown
> newspaper.
> > Check to see whether the book you are using was published by a regular
> publishing
> > company or whether it was published by some special interest group like
> the John
> > Birch Society or a religious organization. These books cannot be trusted
> to
> > present unbiased evidence since their motivation for publishing is not
> truth but
> > rather the furtherance of some political or religious view.
> > Could there be a bias here?
> >
> > Understand your opponents' arguments. It is good practice to argue with a
> friend
> > and take a position with which you do not agree. In this way you may
> discover
> > some of the assumptions your opponents are making which will help you in
> the
> > debate. Remember that everybody thinks that his position is the right
> one, and
> > everybody has his reasons for thinking so.
> >
> > Do not impute ridiculous or malevolent ideas to your opponent. An example
> of
> > this is the rhetorical statement, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
> This
> > imputes or presupposes that your opponent has beaten his wife. One
> frequently
> > sees references by conservative speakers and writers to the idea that gay
> > activists want "special privileges." This would be ridiculous if it were
> true. It
> > isn't true, but speaking as if it were true and well known to all is
> egregiously
> > unfair to listeners or readers who may not be well informed. It is
> probably
> > always wise to treat your opponent with respect, even if he doesn't
> deserve it.
> > If he doesn't deserve respect, this will probably soon become obvious
> enough.
> > There are all sorts of subtle ways to express hostility toward your
> opponent and
> > it is almost always unwise to give in to them. That doesn't mean that you
> can't
> > vividly and saliently present your criticisms of your opponent's beliefs
> or
> > behavior. But beware of phraseology which simply makes him look
> ridiculous. An
> > example of this came up recently. I was criticizing Pat Robertson's
> apparent
> > belief that God punishes people who do not behave as he wants them to by
> sending
> > storms or natural disasters of various kinds or even terrorists. I do
> think this
> > is a childish and obviously invalid belief. Saying so is not a violation
> of any
> > of the principles enumerated here. But I found myself saying that Pat
> Robertson's
> > "Big Friend in the Sky" would do such and so. This is objectionable
> because it
> > ridicules. It isn't as straightforward as simply saying that in my opinion
> Pat
> > Robertson's belief is ridiculous. Another example is to say that nudists
> "prance
> > around" in the nude. Of course it's inaccurate, but it ridicules and
> denigrates
> > as well and shouldn't be allowed in a rational debate.
> >
> > Regression to the mean: Another source of error which occurs very
> frequently is
> > the failure to take into account regression to the mean. This is a bit
> technical,
> > but it is very important, especially in any kind of social or
> psychological
> > research which depends upon statistical surveys or even experiments which
> involve
> > statistical sampling. Rather than a general statement of the principle
> (which
> > becomes more and more unintelligible as the statement becomes more and
> more
> > rigorous) an example will be used. Let's consider intelligence testing.
> Perhaps
> > we have a drug that is supposed to raise the IQ of mentally retarded kids.
> So we
> > give a thousand intelligence tests and select the 30 lowest scoring
> individuals.
> > We then give these low scoring kids our drug and test them again. We find
> that
> > there has been an increase in the average of their IQ scores. Is this
> evidence
> > that the drug increased the IQ? Not necessarily! Suppose we want to show
> that
> > smoking marijuana lowers the IQ. Well, we take the 30 highest scoring kids
> in our
> > sample and give them THC and test them again. We find a lower average IQ.
> Is this
> > evidence that marijuana lowers the IQ? Not necessarily! Any statistician
> knows
> > that if you make some kind of a measurement of some attribute of a large
> sample
> > of people and then select the highest and lowest scoring individuals and
> make the
> > same measurement again, the high scoring group will have a lower average
> score
> > and the low scoring group will have a higher average score than they did
> the
> > first time. This is called "regression to the mean" and it is a perfectly
> > universal statistical principle. It has nothing to do with what is being
> > measured. It works with molecules and atoms just as it does with juvenile
> > delinquents and schizophrenics. What is going on here? The whole thing is
> based
> > on the fact that when we measure something there is always a bit of luck
> > involved. Sometimes this is called "chance". Statisticians call it
> "error". There
> > are two kinds of luck: good and bad. Let's say you take an IQ test and
> score 130.
> > That's pretty good, considering that the average IQ is 100. What part of
> your
> > score is luck? Well, there's no way of knowing this, but we know that some
> luck
> > was involved. Is it more likely that your true IQ is 129 but that you had
> enough
> > good luck to make it 130, or that your true IQ is 131 and that you had
> enough bad
> > luck to make it 130? Well, there are a lot more people whose true IQ is
> 129 than
> > there are people whose true IQ is 131, so there are more ways to get 130
> because
> > of good luck than there are ways to make 130 because of bad luck. If you
> have
> > understood this, go to the head of the class! But even if you haven't
> understood
> > it completely, remember it. Failure to understand it has probably cost us
> > billions of dollars. Another important fact about regression to the mean
> is that
> > the less reliable the measurement is the more regression will occur.
> >
> > There are undoubtedly more points to be made here. Suggestions will be
> > gratefully received. Larry has made the following suggestions:
> >
> > * Apply the scientific method.
> > * Cite relevant personal experience.
> > * Be polite.
> > * Organize your response. (Beginning, middle, end.)
> > * Treat people as individuals. (Not everyone who is pro-choice is also
> > anti-gun.)
> > * Cite sources for statistics and studies used.
> > * Literacy works. Break posts into sentences and paragraphs.
> > * Read the post you are responding to.
> > * Stay open to learning.
> >
> > And DWA has reminded us that Carl Sagan had a "baloney detection kit."
> Here it
> > is:
> >
> > * Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the
> facts
> > * Encourage substantive debate on the evidence by knowledgeable
> proponents of
> > all points of view.
> > * Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are
> no
> > "authorities").
> > * Spin more than one hypothesis - don't simply run with the first idea
> that
> > caught your fancy.
> > * Try not to get overly attached to a hypothesis just because it's
> yours.
> > * Quantify, wherever possible.
> > * If there is a chain of argument every link in the chain must work.
> > * "Occam's razor" - if there are two hypotheses that explain the data
> equally
> > well choose the simpler.
> > * Ask whether the hypothesis can, at least in principle, be falsified
> (shown
> > to be false by some unambiguous test). In other words, is it testable? Can
> others
> > duplicate the experiment and get the same result?
> >
> > Additional issues are :
> >
> > * Conduct control experiments - especially "double blind" experiments
> where
> > the person taking measurements is not aware of the test and control
> subjects.
> > * Check for confounding factors - separate the variables.
> >
> > Common fallacies of logic and rhetoric:
> >
> > * Ad hominem - attacking the arguer and not the argument.
> > * Argument from "authority".
> > * Argument from adverse consequences (putting pressure on the decision
> maker
> > by pointing out dire consequences of an "unfavourable" decision).
> > * Appeal to ignorance (absence of evidence is not evidence of
> absence).
> > * Special pleading (typically referring to god's will).
> > * Begging the question (assuming an answer in the way the question is
> > phrased).
> > * Observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the
> misses).
> > * Statistics of small numbers (such as drawing conclusions from
> inadequate
> > sample sizes).
> > * Misunderstanding the nature of statistics (President Eisenhower
> expressing
> > astonishment and alarm on discovering that fully half of all Americans
> have below
> > average intelligence!)
> > * Inconsistency (e.g. military expenditures based on worst case
> scenarios but
> > scientific projections on environmental dangers thriftily ignored because
> they
> > are not "proved").
> > * Non sequitur - "it does not follow" - the logic falls down.
> > * Post hoc, ergo propter hoc - "it happened after so it was caused
> by" -
> > confusion of cause and effect.
> > * Meaningless question ("what happens when an irresistible force meets
> an
> > immovable object?).
> > * Excluded middle -considering only the two extremes in a range of
> > possibilities (making the "other side" look worse than it really is).
> > * Short-term v. long-term - a subset of excluded middle ("why pursue
> > fundamental science when we have so huge a budget deficit?").
> > * Slippery slope - a subset of excluded middle -unwarranted
> extrapolation of
> > the effects (give an inch and they will take a mile).
> > * Confusion of correlation and causation.
> > * Straw man - caricaturing (or stereotyping) a position to make it
> easier to
> > attack.
> > * Suppressed evidence or half-truths.
> > * Weasel words - for example, use of euphemisms for war such as
> "police
> > action" to get around limitations on Presidential powers. "An important
> art of
> > politicians is to find new names for institutions which under old names
> have
> > become odious to the public" .
> >
> > It has been pointed out by various participants that following these
> > recommendations to the letter might make for dull reading. The idea is
> that a
> > little invective is a good thing because it adds spice. An interesting
> example of
> > this occurred in a nationally televised debate between Dan Quayle and
> Lloyd
> > Benson. Quayle had just remarked on some similarities between himself and
> Jack
> > Kennedy. Benson said, "I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of
> mine.
> > But I can tell you one thing, Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy!" This was
> of
> > course an argumentum ad hominem of the first water. But I would like to
> point out
> > that a political debate and a scientific debate are two quite different
> things.
> > But to concede the point somewhat I have a suggestion. Perhaps we could
> agree to
> > divide our debating messages into two parts. In the first part it would be
> > illegal to mention the opponent at all. The word "you" would be forbidden.
> Then
> > the second part would allow judicious use of personal remarks. Writing a
> debate
> > without using "you" is a very interesting exercise. I urge everyone to
> give it a
> > try!
> >
> > (Incidentally, the fugue you have been listening to if you clicked on the
> icon at
> > the top of the page was chosen because a fugue can be thought of as a
> debate. In
> > this particular fugue there are three combatants represented by the three
> voices.
> > There are notable discords sprinkled thoughout the fugue, but all is
> harmony at
> > the end!)
> >
> > Should you be interested in learning more about the classical art of
> Argument,
> > beyond what is contained here, following are links that will be of
> interest:
> >
> > * The web site of Asst. Professor James Pryor, Harvard University :
> > Philosophical Terms and Methods.
> > * DWA brought to our attention this excellent resource: The Colorado
> > University List of Fallacious Arguments.
> >
> > http://www.truthtree.com/debates.shtml
> >
> >
> >
>
>