[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.

[DelphiUser]

>>Your father was a wise man.
Yes, I am lucky to be his son; he set such a wonderful example for me.

>>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...

For me debate is as much about education (mine and theirs) as it is about witty repartee.

When I was learning debate, one of the things I would do was practice explaining my opponent’s position until I could debate their point as well or better than they could. When you can fully understand your opponent in a debate you can a) convince them b) defeat them.

Try writing out everything Scripter says as if you were explaining it to him. Then ask him if that’s what he meant. (No one in my experience gets mad at trying to be understood, admittedly not a definitive sample, Grin) Then once he agrees that you understand what he is saying, you can discuss what you see differently.

“Perspective can never be given, only acquired.” – Me

>>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.

Illogical people get frustrated about logic, and logical people can get frustrated by illogic, illogical people can even be frustrated by someone else’s illogic, but a logical person will not get frustrated with another logical person.

An example?

I have pointed out flaws in your arguments and technique that would have gotten an illogical person very frustrated with me. Since we are both students of logic, you accepted my critique without rancor, and even thanked me for it.

“I am a wise man and cannot be insulted, for I recognize truth and Bow to it and ignore lies.” – Attributed to Confucius

So if there is only truth and untruth, all you have to do is be in harmony with truth, and ignore untruth and no one will be able to frustrate you.

>>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
Yes, that was the conclusion. I now understand that you make illogical arguments just to frustrate them for an emotional thrill it gives you.

>>Spoken like a true computer programmer.
Thank you.

>>You can try to use informal logic as if it was formal logic, but it will not work.
Why not? (Grin)

>>For example, in reality, it is not so that people & behavior are either wholly logical or wholly illogical.
True, and sadly people can move from the Logical category to the Illogical with the twist of a conversation, or as a debate progresses.

>>If improperly used, logical people can be very frustrated by logic.
I’m sorry, are you saying Logic can be improperly used? I believe that “Perfect Logic” if we ever attain it cannot be misused, for that would be... Illogical (grin)

>>Logic is a means, like a knife, it can be used for good purposes and for bad purposes.
Logic is indeed amoral; people on the other hand generally are not.

>>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.
So, Logic cannot be improperly used, while this informal, changing unpredictable logic can? Got it.

>>you would be very frustrated when it is.
I would not be frustrated as I would not be affected. I learned long ago that your (in the non specific sense of the word) perception of reality cannot negatively impact my perception of reality (nor indeed reality itself) so I shouldn’t let the inaccuracies of your perception concern me more than as an opportunity to gain more perspectives.

“Perspectives, the currency of intellectuals” – Me

>>>> 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.

A logical person would not be frustrated as I am not frustrated by you but would learn of a new perspective as I am attempting to learn of this “Informal Logic”. Do you have any links to definitions?

There are only two kinds of people in the world, those who divide people into groups and those who don’t. /Humor

Actually dividing information into groups by criteria is one of the bases of modern computing. I will often begin a debate by dividing the topic along line I want to divide it on. Once my opponent has allowed me to set the battle field “as it were” the battle will be easy, and the victory swift.

For example, when debating homosexuality’s relative “Logical” merits, I will commonly state that there are only three kinds of people:
1) Religious
2) Atheists
3) Those that are in denial of the other two positions.

Most people will accept this as it is too hard to find a flaw in this division. I will follow with Most Atheists are Darwinists, which is also usually accepted. Then I start to eliminate positions. (Evil Grin) Religious people believe in a God, “God” created people with gender, gender is how we procreate, so “God” meant for us to be heterosexual in nature. (I do not care what “God” they want to quote as the logic is irrefutable, at this point most people see the trap and start trying to back pedal (grin) too late. I then point out that according to Darwin homosexuals are dead end genetically and we should just help evolution along by killing them off. Now, the only living Homosexuals are in denial, and are using their denial to confuse the issue with either religious and / or scientific arguments meant to engender support from those who do not agree with them, but agree with their arguments with the only conceivable purpose being the prolonging of their denial. At this point in the debate, the usual methods of defense for those supporting Homosexual behavior are not available to them, and often my points are conceded without further argument.

I went through this way too fast, but I hope you get the idea.

This example is so that I can show that by using logic superior to the logic of your opposition, you can reduce argument, actually get agreement by those who were in opposition to you and the opposition actually agrees to the premises that “got them into trouble” so, even illogical people can be soothed with logic. Logic is comforting, predictable, elegant, and admirable to most humans. An appeal to logic will never be belittled unless the person who is belittling it cannot understand the logic. When that happens you must simply reduce the intellectual level required for understanding until you can communicate.

>>>> 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.
I did not mean to imply that a personal attack should go unanswered.

What I meant was that you should elevate your logical arguments and your research and respond less, but with more accuracy. My brother does this quite well, we will be in a debate he on one side, not saying much, then out of the blue, he will nail his opponents to the floor with unassailable logic, and the debate is over.

>> We don't rely on first-hand accounts to make science, we rely on scientists who
>>collect, interpret data from afar.
Scientific discoveries are made in the first person, and then proofs are constructed, validated and reviewed.

>> But you're a semi-professional debater.
No, really stop (while signaling for more with the other hand (Grin)

>> 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.

While calculation and playing the odds are better than just waiting to be lucky, Sun Tzu would agree that you should remove luck as much as possible from your debate technique.

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

Thank you again