[DelphiUser]

>>But why did I make that remark? … I made it because it's always nice to rub someone's (apparant) frustration in his face.

Making a comment designed to “Get the Goat” of an opponent in a debate while a useful tactic at times is ill advised when it opens your points up to rebuttal.

>>Now you might think that this isn't entirely fair.
“All is fair…” but not all is effective.

>>Sometimes, the dispute is not rooted in some ultimate agreement, and in such cases,
>>argument is essentially pointless (if you don't believe that a debate is an end in itself,
>>like I do), because the two sides aren't going to agree anyway. In such cases, I debate
>>only for the fun of it. And, since no resolution is forthcoming anyway, I try to enjoy
>>the debate as much as possible.

Debate can indeed be enjoyable, and instructive. I personally however have limits on the tactics I will employ when debating both publicly, and privately so those I debate may also enjoy the debate (I get more repeat debaters that way.)

My Father taught me “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” so I will agree to disagree with someone when they stubbornly cling to a position that has become untenable because I value their continued friendship more than a cheap victory, but that’s me.

>>I disagree with this interpretation. This statement rests upon the following assumptions and fallacies:
>>1. Assumption: The frustration of those people had something to do with logic.
Logic was already brought up in your posts as a point about which people got frustrated. I neglected to go back to prior posts and include them, do you want me to?

>>2. Assumption: The people I've debated are a representative sample of the population.
The only representation I was talking about were the people who were frustrated with you. “a reaction people often have when they try engage me.” You provided the sample, not me.

>>3. Assumption: The frustration of people about alleged illogical behavior on the other side proves that the behavior is indeed illogical.
1. Behavior is either logical, or illogical.
2. Logical people will understand and concur with logical behavior or speech.
3. Logical people cannot be frustrated by logic.

1. You frustrated the people in this sample (regardless of what this sample represents).
2. You were making arguments and having a debate.
3. Your Debate technique frustrated the people you were debating with.

1. Logical people cannot be frustrated by Logic.
2. A group of people were Frustrated by these arguments.
3. Either your Logic was not understood by these people, or your arguments were illogical.

This is Logical.

>>If I'm debating someone who is well-informed or intelligent, like you,
>>I'll be more careful. Otherwise, not so much. Many people will let you get away
>>with sloppy reasoning without even noticing.

Flattery will get you … Thanked (Grin) but I would advise you not to “Play down” to your audience, limit what you respond to instead that you might have impact when you speak rather than much speaking.

>>I'll concede the general point to you that talking in absolutes is potentially dangerous
>>to the health of one's argument.
Thank you.

>>I may well argue that your therapist might be a bi-sexual, or that he had a strange
>>period of confusion while his sexual orientation did not change (most therapists need
>>therapy themselves, so it seems).

But since you do not know the person in question, any such arguments would be dismissed a sheer supposition on your part. (Assuming facts which are not in evidence…) As for this man, nope, he was hetero before, and after. A six year long confusion? Good luck proving that one, and if you can what happens to temporary insanity as a plea? (Your Honor, I was temporarily insane for the six years I planned this murder.) As for the therapy for therapists, I agree completely.

>>But as Sun Tzu (or whoever it was) said: "Know thy enemy".
Sun Tzu – The art of War (http://www.chinapage.com/sunzi-e.html )
There are five points in which victory may be predicted:
1. He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.
2. He who understands how to fight in accordance with the strength of antagonistic forces will be victorious.
3. He whose ranks are united in purpose will be victorious.
4. He who is well prepared and lies in wait for an enemy who is not well prepared will be victorious.
5. He whose generals are able and not interfered with by the sovereign will be victorious.
It is in these five matters that the way to victory is known.

Therefore, I say: Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are sure to be defeated in every battle.

Sun Tzu, brilliant man.

>>I find it extremely unlikely that any one of the participants in that discussion would admit to such a thing.

I would have and I have never wondered about my orientation. The point of debate is to win. “The enemy’s gate is down” – Ender Wiggins

>>They aren't particularly fond of homosexuality, so such an admission would be strange.
Neither am I and I would have not even paused before answering.

>>And indeed, nothing happened. You have to evaluate such arguments on a case-by-case basis.
Well, you were lucky (Grin) and I’d rather be lucky than good, except you cannot chose to be lucky…


>>Political topics? Right now? Very well.
Thank you.

War on Terror: support
Individual rights: support
Free market: support
Government services/health care: oppose
War on Drugs: oppose
Guns: support
Government regulation: oppose
Right to die: support
Tougher crime laws: support

Dang we agree. Well, I suppose I might play devils advocate some time.

Thank you again and enjoy the thread.

[LtdGovt]

Making a comment designed to “Get the Goat” of an opponent in a debate while a useful tactic at times is ill advised when it opens your points up to rebuttal.

It really depends on the skill of the other debater. Sometimes, you can afford to act in this manner, and sometimes you cannot.

My Father taught me “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” so I will agree to disagree with someone when they stubbornly cling to a position that has become untenable because I value their continued friendship more than a cheap victory, but that’s me.

Your father was a wise man. However, most of the time I keep the debate going, because I just don't understand why someone would have such a position. Of course, when the debate ends, I still don't understand the position...

Logic was already brought up in your posts as a point about which people got frustrated. I neglected to go back to prior posts and include them, do you want me to?

I haven't the slightest clue what I wrote, but here's the deal: people can get frustrated about logic, about the fact that they're weak debaters, the fact that the other person is insane, etc. It can be logic, but it's not necessarily logic.

The only representation I was talking about were the people who were frustrated with you. “a reaction people often have when they try engage me.” You provided the sample, not me.

Certainly. But you interpreted the fact that these people have this reaction as a sign that either people in general are illogical, or that I am. However, it could well be that I go to an insane asylum to argue with people (not true, though). In that case, the fact that they are illogical would not necessarily mean that the population at large is illogical.

1. Behavior is either logical, or illogical. 2. Logical people will understand and concur with logical behavior or speech. 3. Logical people cannot be frustrated by logic.

Spoken like a true computer programmer. You can try to use informal logic as if it was formal logic, but it will not work. There is a host of unstated assumptions in these assertions. For example, in reality, it is not so that people & behavior are either wholly logical or wholly illogical. Most people are somewhere in between. The possible frustration will increase (if the participants are frustrated by illogical arguments) as the debate goes on, because people are bound to show they illogical side.

1. Logical people cannot be frustrated by Logic.

If improperly used, logical people can be very frustrated by logic. Logic is a means, like a knife, it can be used for good purposes and for bad purposes. That isn't the case when it comes to formal logic (its reach is so limited as to prevent such abuse), but informal logic can be abused. And you would be very frustreated when it is.

3. Either your Logic was not understood by these people, or your arguments were illogical.

Or those people were illogical. Or those people really didn't know what they were talking about, even though they were logical people, and were frustrated as a result. There are a host of reasons out there.

Flattery will get you … Thanked (Grin) but I would advise you not to “Play down” to your audience, limit what you respond to instead that you might have impact when you speak rather than much speaking.

Usually, a personal attack should not be unanswered. What better way is there to respond to such an attack, than to respond while refusing to lower yourself to the level of the other person?

But since you do not know the person in question, any such arguments would be dismissed a sheer supposition on your part. (Assuming facts which are not in evidence…) As for this man, nope, he was hetero before, and after. A six year long confusion? Good luck proving that one, and if you can what happens to temporary insanity as a plea? (Your Honor, I was temporarily insane for the six years I planned this murder

I don't deny that I would be in a weaker position once that argument has been advanced. However, I do believe that there are means to respond to such an argument. On the basis of the information that is given to you, you might come up with an explanation for the strange behavior. And while the person himself might be closer to the matter, that does not necessary mean that he is better suited to judge the matte r(though an audience will view it as such). We don't rely on first-hand accounts to make science, we rely on scientists who collect, interpret data from afar.

Sun Tzu, brilliant man.

Absolutely.

I would have and I have never wondered about my orientation. The point of debate is to win. “The enemy’s gate is down” – Ender Wiggins

But you're a semi-professional debater. Most people would not do that. I don't think I would.

Well, you were lucky (Grin) and I’d rather be lucky than good, except you cannot chose to be lucky…

You could make a calculation, take into account how likely it is that a person would use it to destroy your argument, and take the risk if it's worth it.

Thank you again and enjoy the thread.

My pleasure. I never expected this thread to spawn such an interesting debate.