Re: Debates & Debating

From: Tim (abc_at_abc.abc)
Date: 09/15/04 

Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 07:25:07 -0400

"Immortalist" <Reanimater_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Z-2dnfXf58f8U9jcRVn-vg@comcast.com...
>
> "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?

If and only if you are a dirty cocksucker who takes it up the ass. So yes I
can point to the difference.

>
> > "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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>