Jump to content

Phi for all: What makes a good debator?


ecoli

Recommended Posts

From the Tookie thread.. http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17063

 

Other than his insistance on strawmanning I actually like the POV that syntax252/darth tater/H W Copeland brings to the board. I think he provides a much needed perspective. But it takes so much time correcting him! I can't stand leaving bad information stay unrefuted.

 

You don't provide more fight than I can handle' date=' H W, you just choose not to follow our rules. You take up too much moderation time. Most of us are here to learn, not to win arguments by any means possible.[/quote']

 

Because there are so many different points of view on SFN, we will doubtless run into many debates. However, often times people who I consider excellent debators sometimes be ridiculded by the moderators for not being so... (the situation that comes to mind is phcatlantis and pangloss). It seemed to me that phcatlantis was making strong points, but Pangloss obviously didn't see it that way. Pangloss and I certainly have our differences, but I, nevertheless, respect him and his opinions, so I don't doubt that he had resonable reasons for closing the thread and ending the debate, but unfortunately, I did not see them.

 

Also, there are many techniques that bad debators use that makes their arguments appear stronger then they actually are. Unfortunately I don't know the terminology or how to identify them beyond that "gut feeling" I sometimes get when reading a post. (I'm thinking along the lines of strawmanning, ad hominems, etc.)

 

Anyway, the point of this thread was so people who consider themselves good debators (especially mods or admins) to help less experianced folk, such as myself to become better debators, particularly through the identification and analysis of poor, but convincing, debates.

 

Obviously, much of this skill comes through experiance, so I'm not asking for in depth lessons, or anything, but rather some sort of reference we can use to either avoid using bad techniques or identify the poor techniques of others. And perhaps even some tips on good techniques. This, I think, would be much appreciated by many of us here.

 

I quote again Phi for All

You don't provide more fight than I can handle, H W, you just choose not to follow our rules. You take up too much moderation time. Most of us are here to learn, not to win arguments by any means possible.

 

I'm basically asking, how to provide a good fight without violating any SFN rules and avoiding the need for moderation, and to (not win, but at least provide a good argument for) debates.

 

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to your question is perfectly simple - all one needs to do is quickly capitulate to any opinion that any moderator has.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

That's not true at all... all the moderaters, I'm sure, would rather take part in a good debate, then have everybody acquiesce to their opinions blindly

Annnnnnnd, don't use too many smilies.:D :D :D

that's just annoying. although I wasn't so much referring to the presentation of the argument, even though that certainly plays a role.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't refer to the exact example you are giving but generally a bad debate will have peopple saying "you are right" without evidence... or not giving up when there is solid proof against them... or just being annoying like twisting every word you say... or fail to back up your arguments with anything etc.

 

From the quote of Phi for all seemingly this guy doesn't "provide a fight" ie. doesn't have sufficient evidence backing up his point of view and "takes so much time correcting him" doesn't like to give in when he has been beaten. And finally "Most of us are here to learn, not to win arguments by any means possible." seemingly he doesn't have the right attitude to have a debate in this forum.

 

Like I say, I don't know who you are referring to and haven't seen any of his posts, I'm just looking at the quote you made and your post [your = ecoli's].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't refer to the exact example you are giving but generally a bad debate will have peopple saying "you are right" without evidence... or not giving up when there is solid proof against them... or just being annoying like twisting every word you say... or fail to back up your arguments with anything etc.

 

I see what you're saying 5614, but I suppose my problem is identifying these things when they happen.

 

From the quote of Phi for all seemingly this guy doesn't "provide a fight" ie. doesn't have sufficient evidence backing up his point of view and "takes so much time correcting him" doesn't like to give in when he has been beaten. And finally "Most of us are here to learn, not to win arguments by any means possible." seemingly he doesn't have the right attitude to have a debate in this forum.

 

the provide a fight thing: HW Copeland claimed that Syntax 252 provided too good of a fight, so that he was banned because his ideas were different the moderators and they weren't skilled enough to debate him, or "man" enough to admit their wrong. Because I very much doubt this heppened, I wanted to know why Copeland possibly confused Syntax 252's good debates as merely debating techniques that don't provide real substance, but sound good anyway.

 

And for that matter, what is the right attitude(s) to have in debating on this forum? Or, more specifically, what are the wrong ones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's easier to have the right ones:

 

At the end of the day it's nothing personally nor relevant who won the debate (unless it's a proper competition, but these are general guidelines not specifics).

 

A point of view cannot be wrong or right.

 

Backup your point of view with solid evidence.

 

Accept that someone else may be correct.

 

Accept that everyone has a different opinion... don't expect to change that. In the course of a debate someone might change their mind, fair enough, it means you provided a good argument, but don't start the debate with the aim of forcing your opinion onto others, more you want them to understand why you have your opinion.

 

There's probably many others too, but those are a start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best attitude to have is also one of the hardest, namely one containing some level of emotional detachment from the arguement and positions. Without a strong emotional investment in a side or arguement, you're less likely to resort to adhoms, strawmen, accusations, and baseless certainty, and more likely to acknowledge genuine points the other poster makes, acknowledge weaknesses if your own position, and possibly even change your mind or admit you've been wrong. After all, admiting the other side has points is fine, and we've *all* been wrong before; it's how we learn. I've learned more by getting my ideas demolished by my prof than any other method.

 

The problem is that it's human nature to become emotionally attached to the points we argue, especially if it's something deeply important to us like religion or major social issues. This doesn't preclude good debating, but it does mean that sometimes it's best to take a step back, have a breather, and realize it's just an internet debate before things get too heated.

 

The way I think of it is like the difference between a martial arts match and a bar-room brawl. In the latter, you find someone with a different POV or goal that conflicts with yours, get all emotionally worked up about it, and when you begin exchanging blows, there's no level of restraint or honor and it just gets worse as it goes on. In the former, you wind up in a contrary position to someone, but you realize it's just a match and they're not *really* your enemy, so the main emotion is a sort of friendly competitiveness, with restraint (because all I need to do is show I *can* hit him, since it's trivial to simply add force to that) and honor, to the point I actually tend to have a level of freindly banter in my matches, and both sides willingly say "good shot!". The result of these differences in motivation and emotional context show in the result: an ugly chaotic brawl versus a display of skill with it's own particular sense of beauty, style and order.

 

The same can be said for debates. When emotions boil over, you get an ugly chaotic brawl full of ad homs and crappy references as each person is determined not to give an inch, while a good debate without the emotional baggage is much more civil, honorable, informative and entertaining.

 

Of course, the ideal is rarely possible, because of human nature, but we *can* try to keep ourselves in check, and make sure we don't get too wound up or overwrought about the debate.

 

Beyond that, it's mostly points of skill. Know when to let minor details pass in order to address the main point, and learn to figure out what points are main support of the author's POV versus extraneous additions. Not getting bogged down in the details of analogies which are meant to be purely explanative. Making sure you actually understand what the author is trying to convey (there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the caveat of "If I'm reading you correctly, you say *insert short version of what you think they were saying*". Disagree because you have a true problem with the point, not just for the sake of being contrary.

 

Ecoli mentions phcatlantis/revprez, and I think there's a great example there. The individual clearly was intelligent, articulate, and had an interesting POV. But he also had a fundamental attitude towards the debate which tainted it, usually in the form of "I'm right and I will argue every single point to death until you admit it" coupled with a tendency to mis-read other's posts and strawman badly in order to attempt to get his desired victory. These were more subtle than we see in the usual troll who simply hurls insults and claims instant superiority, but fundamentally the same. What made the difference was motivation and the underlying approach to debate, which seeped through all of the skill to fundamentally poison the debate and turn it into a brawl.

 

I think what helps most is the realization that the existence of someone who disagrees with you will not end the world, and they do not necessarily have to be made to see the error of their ways and the grandeur of yours. Furthermore, by keeping things as unemotional, civil and 'honorable' as possible, you actually become more convincing and seem more authoritative; the overall impression of most people is that if you really do have a point that stands up to scrutiny and has merit, you don't need to yell to make it heard.

 

Mokele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best attitude to have is also one of the hardest, namely one containing some level of emotional detachment from the arguement and positions. Without a strong emotional investment in a side or arguement, you're less likely to resort to adhoms, strawmen, accusations, and baseless certainty

 

When someone is resorting to these types of things, what signs could one look for... I'm not entirely sure, but an experianced politcian could perhaps pull 'a fast one' on you, by using one of these techniques but making it appear as if he's actually providing a decent debate.

 

 

and more likely to acknowledge genuine points the other poster makes, acknowledge weaknesses if your own position, and possibly even change your mind or admit you've been wrong. After all, admiting the other side has points is fine, and we've *all* been wrong before; it's how we learn. I've learned more by getting my ideas demolished by my prof than any other method.

 

This is certainly the hardest thing, even in my own experiances, I'll admit. I believe, because it's comes the closest to admiting that your wrong... not that right and wrong truly exist, but people want to believe their ideas are infallibable, and concedeing a point to 'opponent' is, in a way, admiting you are wrong.

 

The way I think of it is like the difference between a martial arts match and a bar-room brawl. In the latter, you find someone with a different POV or goal that conflicts with yours, get all emotionally worked up about it, and when you begin exchanging blows, there's no level of restraint or honor and it just gets worse as it goes on. In the former, you wind up in a contrary position to someone, but you realize it's just a match and they're not *really* your enemy, so the main emotion is a sort of friendly competitiveness, with restraint (because all I need to do is show I *can* hit him, since it's trivial to simply add force to that) and honor, to the point I actually tend to have a level of freindly banter in my matches, and both sides willingly say "good shot!". The result of these differences in motivation and emotional context show in the result: an ugly chaotic brawl versus a display of skill with it's own particular sense of beauty, style and order.

 

Great analogy.

 

Beyond that, it's mostly points of skill. Know when to let minor details pass in order to address the main point, and learn to figure out what points are main support of the author's POV versus extraneous additions. Not getting bogged down in the details of analogies which are meant to be purely explanative. Making sure you actually understand what the author is trying to convey (there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the caveat of "If I'm reading you correctly, you say *insert short version of what you think they were saying*". Disagree because you have a true problem with the point, not just for the sake of being contrary.

 

Again, my problem is that I feel that it's possible for a person to use these things to trick me. For example, using false analogies that appear to prove a point, but actually use the analogy to prove a point in a way that may not actually apply to the situation in debate. Or perhaps using the "If I'm reading you correctly" line to put words in the mouth of their oppent, so that, instead of trying to make their point better, they smear their opponent, by making them say things they didn't really mean, but makes them sound evil/wrong.

 

Ecoli mentions phcatlantis/revprez, and I think there's a great example there. The individual clearly was intelligent, articulate, and had an interesting POV. But he also had a fundamental attitude towards the debate which tainted it, usually in the form of "I'm right and I will argue every single point to death until you admit it" coupled with a tendency to mis-read other's posts and strawman badly in order to attempt to get his desired victory. These were more subtle than we see in the usual troll who simply hurls insults and claims instant superiority, but fundamentally the same. What made the difference was motivation and the underlying approach to debate, which seeped through all of the skill to fundamentally poison the debate and turn it into a brawl.

 

I forgot to put the link for the original thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16834

 

This debate was particularly unfortunate because it had real potential, I feel.

 

 

thanks a lot for the great post, Mokele. You're really helping me out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm basically asking' date=' how to provide a good fight without violating any SFN rules and avoiding the need for moderation, and to (not win, but at least provide a good argument for) debates.

 

Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.[/quote']Okay, first understand the context here. H W Copeland has been banned before under several usernames, including alibabba, darth tater, syntax252 and most recently as Julia25. He starts out very well, expresses his ideas politely and succinctly, and is generally a good guy. But when members start getting into it with him, he brings out all the dirty debate tricks we know as fallacies.

 

He's a nice looking retired guy from Michigan (if the pictures he's posted of himself are real, which I believe they are) and he has a wealth of experience to draw from. It's a shame he views posting in the forums as some sort of contest he must win at any cost.

 

Here's a distillation of his latest straw man:

Phi: I don't believe in the death penalty because killing someone for killing someone just isn't right.

H W: Is it justifiable to kill in self defense?

Phi: I would kill in self defense but that still doesn't mike it right or deserved.

H W: What if your morality kept you from saving yourself or someone else, isn't that worse?

Phi: I've already said I would kill in self defense or to defend others, I just wouldn't try to write it off as justified and feel good about it.

H W: I would have more of a problem excusing myself if I just stood idly by and let someone murder someone else.

Phi: Again, I've already said I would kill in self defense or to defend others. Why do you keep saying I would be standing idly by? That's a straw man argument.

H W: It's just that in my code of ethics, if I have a chance to save someone's life, I would do it without question. If I fail to do so because of some warped sense of equity then that would bother me.

Phi: My ethics would make me agonize over any killing I had to do, it wouldn't stop me from defending myself or others, even in a lethal manner.

H W: If you lack the fortitude to do your duty without agonizing about it, that is, after all, your misfortune, but please don't try to make yourself look superior in the bargain.

 

Do you see how he completely ignores my point, that I would not want to "justify" any killing to make it easier on myself, in favor of the argument he wants to debate, which is that allowing another to be harmed would be worse than killing in their defense?

 

Gotta dash for now, I'll post more on this later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, Phi. He seemed to purposefully ignore your points just to make you look stupid... or at least your ideas. Interesting, that I didn't notice it before, but I guess that's why I made this new thread to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When someone is resorting to these types of things, what signs could one look for... I'm not entirely sure, but an experianced politcian could perhaps pull 'a fast one' on you, by using one of these techniques but making it appear as if he's actually providing a decent debate.
I think straw man is the most used, followed by ad hominem. The best recent example of straw man arguments are about the war in Iraq. I'm sure we've all heard:

 

Person #1: I don't think we should have invaded Iraq.

Person #2: How can you not support the soldiers who are fighting to keep you free?

 

Person #1 said NOTHING about the troops, but is forced to argue that he does support the troops because he can't let such erroneous information go unchallenged. Besides being a straw man this is also an Appeal to Emotion, implying that the argument is stronger because it's patriotic.

 

I'm not saying arguing fallaciously is a conscious effort on the part of Person #2. Many people just start dredging up supporting information for their argument as a knee-jerk reaction. Often that information has nothing to do with what you just said. Have you ever had a face-to-face conversation with someone who suddenly went all glassy-eyed and you realize they've stopped listening to what you're saying and have started to formulate their rebuttal? This is the debate version of that.

He seemed to purposefully ignore your points just to make you look stupid... or at least your ideas.
A very subtle ad hominem, one of syntax252's signature moves. He also loves to ask you a loaded question followed by a rolleyes smiliey (You have stopped beating your wife, haven't you, hmmm? :rolleyes:). Enough about him.

 

Here is a list of logical fallacies with their explanations. Remember that some fallacies are always wrong to use (like straw man, which misrepresents and skews the argument causing wasted effort), and some are mostly wrong (Slippery Slope is usually a bad assumption, but not always) while others are often correct (post hoc ergo propter hoc is sometimes absolutely right, e.g., "I took the medicine then I felt better so it must have been the medicine").

 

I do hope everybody realizes that when the staff takes part in posting as members, we are especially careful about abusing our authority. Personally, I care more about my reputation as a good Moderator than I do as a good debater. So many people here have a better science background than I do and I'm grateful for such a place to come and learn every day. I will always be on the lookout for those who would waste your valuable time with their own agendas, vendettas and petty competitions, because most of you are just like me, you read way more than you post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, often times people who I consider excellent debators sometimes be ridiculded by the moderators for not being so... (the situation that comes to mind is phcatlantis and pangloss). It seemed to me that phcatlantis was making strong points, but Pangloss obviously didn't see it that way.
To quote Richard Nixon (rarely a good idea), let me say this about that: revprez/phcatlantis is one of the sharpest guys I've ever seen. He has a really keen grasp of political science and he is extremely well informed. Like syntax252, he brought a great deal to the boards and neither of these guys were your average troll who gets bounced after twenty posts or less. The staff went to great lengths to warn them, publicly and privately, about their behavior, and cut them as much slack as possible while trying to remain fair to everyone else as well.

 

Ultimately, they're like the really smart but disruptive kids we all knew in high school. They may be entertaining for a while, and definitely thought-provoking, but in the end they distract from the real learning and make the whole experience all about themselves. That's just not going to happen here at SFN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Person #1 said NOTHING about the troops, but is forced to argue that he does support the troops because he can't let such erroneous information go unchallenged. Besides being a straw man this is also an Appeal to Emotion, implying that the argument is stronger because it's patriotic.

 

At the same time, it forces the debate to go in a different direction that the initial post wasn't about. (a red herring, possibly?)

 

I'm not saying arguing fallaciously is a conscious effort on the part of Person #2. Many people just start dredging up supporting information for their argument as a knee-jerk reaction.

 

Interesting... you know, I didn't even consider the use of logical fallacies as an unconscious tactic. But, I suppose it makes even more sense that way. Most people don't stir up trouble with the intention of stirring up trouble.

 

Here is a list of logical fallacies with their explanations. Remember that some fallacies are always wrong to use (like straw man, which misrepresents and skews the argument causing wasted effort), and some are mostly wrong (Slippery Slope is usually a bad assumption, but not always) while others are often correct (post hoc ergo propter hoc is sometimes absolutely right, e.g., "I took the medicine then I felt better so it must have been the medicine").

 

Great list phi, thank you *bookmarked*

 

I do hope everybody realizes that when the staff takes part in posting as members, we are especially careful about abusing our authority. Personally, I care more about my reputation as a good Moderator than I do as a good debater. So many people here have a better science background than I do and I'm grateful for such a place to come and learn every day. I will always be on the lookout for those who would waste your valuable time with their own agendas, vendettas and petty competitions, because most of you are just like me, you read way more than you post.

 

That's comforting. That's why I didn't assumed phcatlantis and syntax were the ones using logical fallacies rather the mods, even though I didn't really see why or how.

 

To quote Richard Nixon (rarely a good idea), let me say this about that: revprez/phcatlantis is one of the sharpest guys I've ever seen.

 

Nixon said that about revprez? I didn't know that they knew each other :P

 

The staff went to great lengths to warn them, publicly and privately, about their behavior, and cut them as much slack as possible while trying to remain fair to everyone else as well.

 

Could it possibly be that they didn't know that the logical fallicies that they were implying were wrong? Or were they informed but simple didn't believe/agree with you, or perhaps didn't even care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A person who can lie is a good debator. No offense to anyone but it is the truth. Hypocrite is another word which can be used.
It's too easy to catch someone in a lie on a debate forum where everything is written down. Bad information is not good debate material.

 

I think you're trying to say "politician" here, and they don't usually lie, they "dissemble", or conceal the truth under a false appearance with the intent to deceive. It takes years of speeches and press conferences to learn how to do this. ; ) After the last few political debates I've seen, I don't think debates designed to win votes are necessarily the same as those designed to discuss issues or help people learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's too easy to catch someone in a lie on a debate forum where everything is written down. Bad information is not good debate material.

 

I think you're trying to say "politician" here' date=' and they don't usually lie, they "dissemble", or conceal the truth under a false appearance with the intent to deceive. It takes years of speeches and press conferences to learn how to do this. ; ) After the last few political debates I've seen, I don't think debates designed to win votes are necessarily the same as those designed to discuss issues or help people learn.[/quote']

 

Politicians basically spin the truth from lies by telling people what they want to hear. This doesn't work on SFN, because if you can back something up with a good source (there is an ongoing thread started by cosine addressing this matter). If you're lying, then you shouldn't be able to find a good source to back you up. If you're lying and you have a good source, then you probably aren't really lying, aren't you?

 

I disagree completely with why? because debates aren't about truths a falsehoods. They mostly don't exist anyway... there is just different situations and how one should approach those situaitons.

 

Logical fallacies are just ways people use (or as I've learned so far) to convince people that you're vision of the truth is the correct one by coersion (basically)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya. Well maybe not on the forum it might be not a good idea to lie.. but i sure do a agree that politicians do lie.

Oh.. and hypocrite is a good word as i mentioned earlier.

 

umm, What context are you using the word hypocrite? It may be my fault, but I really don't see how that word applies.

 

Also, politicians lie in a very subtle way, by offering people promises they know they can't keep, or by telling them things that fit they're political agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hypocrite:

1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.

2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.

Source:Merriam Webster's 11th colegiate dictionary.

 

I mean it in the way that even though he believe in something else he can argue for something else.

If i believe in god.. i can still argue as a Atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're trying to say "politician" here, and they don't usually lie, they "dissemble", or conceal the truth under a false appearance with the intent to deceive.
Well maybe not on the forum it might be not a good idea to lie.. [b']but i sure do a agree that politicians do lie.[/b]
* sigh *
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm basically asking, how to provide a good fight without violating any SFN rules and avoiding the need for moderation, and to (not win, but at least provide a good argument for) debates.
The only logical fallacies the staff gives warning points for are excessive strawmanning and ad homs that come off as Flaming. I suppose if anyone were to use any logical fallacy excessively after it has been pointed out they would incur warning and then banning, but it only seems to happen with ad hom and strawman.

 

You should be on the lookout for when an opponent uses some other logical fallacy and politely point it out ("I say old boy, when you say that all environmentalists are hypocrites because your ex-girlfriend was, isn't that a Hasty Generalization?"). Remember that most logical fallacies are wrong because they are faulty if... then statements, where the opponent uses false logic to prop up an argument.

 

Most of the time you just have to point out that someone is trying to use logic in a bad way. Make sure your own conclusions aren't propped up by the use of false logic. If you think in this particular instance your use of logic is valid, say why you think so. I think I can make a pretty good case why burning books is a bad idea using the Slippery Slope fallacy. If I explain my reasons adequately to my audience it's OK, if I blindly make the assumption using fallacious logic it's not OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.