Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 101
  1. #1
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    I'm not much on actually debating; though I do enjoy reading and analyzing positions.

    My reasoning is simple: personally I don't find much enjoyment in serious debate; not just internet debate but all debate. This is because no one ever concedes, and positions never change. While I've found more open mindedness here generally we see the same thing.

    As I said I like reading your posts a great deal. I'm curious though; what are your motivations? Victory is sometimes very unenjoyable or never clear. Exchanging ideas?

    This is something I've asked a few people but I enjoy the responses. Some people are very interesting.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Witty puns...

  2. #2
    Banned Indefinitely

    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    351
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Personally, I enjoy learning things. I'm finding that many don't provide that many facts... or they grossly misrepresent the facts they do provide. However, it does give me more reason to research things in greater detail myself. Not just the facts but the logic behind the facts. I was hoping to learn more about debating also. To be honest though, I think all I'm learning are bad habits...lol.

    As for victory... I agree. It's usually obvious though who is "winning". For example, if one person is tossing out challenges like they are candy then usually they don't have a leg to stand on and are just trying to keep the heat on the opponent... instead of actually proving their own point. I think I've done a few challenges... but usually I just say the information is wrong and explain why.

  3. #3
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Lots of reasons

    Highbrow reasons

    I learn a lot, sometimes from my opponent, sometimes from doing research from the debate. The harder I debate, the more I tend to learn. Though you have to be committed to trying to get it right, not just winning for this to work.

    It keeps my mind sharp, basically mental exercise.

    I can share information with others. I feel an innate drive to share what I know with other human beings. Whenever I learn something interesting or seemingly important I want to tell others about it.

    I might, just might change things for the better, enlighten someone, bring a new perspective that changes their life for the better. You don't need to get a concession or win a debate for this. Often you just plan the seed and if it finds fertile ground it grows well after the debate. On rare occasions you can see it happen, but often its pretty subtle. I've seen it happen enough to believe I have sometimes made a difference.

    And now the not so glorious reasons

    I like fighting. I don't like hurting people, debate is a fun way to spar.

    I like feeling smart, and debate tends to make me feel smart.

    I have a big ego, I tend to be better at debate than most people, that strokes my ego for me, keeps it happy.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    The two things I am passionate about - politics and religion - personally affect me in my personal life. If I can argue in both of these fields, not only do I find new arguments (and weaknesses in existing arguments) for me to use in the future, but the strength of argumentation gets stronger the more it is practiced. Sometimes all someone needs is passionate, repetitive facts and logic thrown at them for change to sink in, and my eventual goal is just that - change. I used to argue more of a conservative standpoint, but as "the base" evolved in the 2000s, I find extremism in too many things. Same with liberalism, although they mainstreamed their extremism decades ago. This is how I have evolved with debate, turning from conservative to more libertarian. Likewise, it was a decade+ of strong arguments that moved me from my weakly-Christian stance to a more weak agnostic one, and then onto a weak atheist stance (which is actually strong agnostic).

    Not only do I relish victory and feeling smart like Sig, but I also really want to help people. For realz. I see extreme political viewpoints and religion in general to be harmful, and if I can get someone to move even one iota, I feel accomplished.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Ego stroking is a great thing to do. Do you ever actually feel that you've won though?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Witty puns...

  6. #6
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    To be honest I rarely debate here, or elsewhere to actually convince my opponent.

    I do so for two reasons, primarily to offer up the arguments and counter opposing arguments on a position to the audience. I have found on several occasions that people have said to me "I've never heard it that way" or "I thought I was the only one who felt that wasn't right." By offering up that position I can either give them ammo or better yet, perhaps convince someone on the fence or unfamiliar with the issue.

    The second reason, and this only applies to ODN, is that I think it keeps my skills honed. I do a lot of low level debate on a daily basis for work and ODN keeps me from becoming intellectually lazy and forces me to do a good deal of research that pays dividends in other areas of my life.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Quote Originally Posted by DevilPup John View Post
    Ego stroking is a great thing to do. Do you ever actually feel that you've won though?
    Yes, though not by concession. I can tell when my opponent is peddling backwards or desperately dodging. And I can feel when I'm struggling hard to defend my points. Of course the other side doesn't always see what I see in both cases.

    Often what you will see is the ground of a debate shift from the main points to side points, and if you had hammered the main points and your opponent is wrangling the side points, I find that is the best tell you are winning the overall debate (or no one really disagrees with you much).

    But I don't expect my opponents to concede or fold, we come to debate so an argument we will find
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    That's exactly why I gave up; unless I can assure myself that victory is obtainable. This usually means the other person is so blatantly wrong that by the time we actually get to debating the entire room has already knocked them down.

    However if the topic is one that peaks my interest then I'll jump in regardless.


    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Witty puns...

  9. #9
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    My reason.. addiction.
    For a long time i wanted to learn, now I have been here so long I don't find very many new arguments to be had. I do feel I have learned a lot, and I don't think I have learned it all, but I do feel I have the general basics to most of the arguments down. Specifically in the religious threads.



    Quote Originally Posted by LIBRE
    For example, if one person is tossing out challenges like they are candy then usually they don't have a leg to stand on and are just trying to keep the heat on the opponent... instead of actually proving their own point.
    That is a very bad standard to have. Because the challenge function and rules are specific and serve a function.
    So, if you see a person who has been challenged in the official sense, then it means they have made a lot of claims.

    If you see a lot of official challenges unanswered, that is a better standard, for gauging who is winning.. or more who is losing.

    After all by your standard, a person who simply enters a thread and makes a lot of claims ,while offering no support, would appear to be "winning" when his opponent responded with an equally long list of challenges.
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  10. Likes Squatch347 liked this post
  11. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    I have only ever been challenged on a point I have already supported, or on a point that I didn't even make. When the tags start coming out, I take that as a sign that my opponent is frustrated with arguments they can't break so they want to try to hit me with the rule book. I have rarely seen instances of legitimate challenges, and most commonly they are repetitively used to driver "undesirables" such as manc or Lord Infamous away from the site.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  12. #11
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    I disagree with that a bit. I think the majority of times I have used the challenge marker is when someone uses a world view assumption as if it were fact. IE if someone were to say "we all know that X" or imply that I'll often challenge them to support it rather than get drawn into a debate concerning what they assume to be true. This is common in the conspiracy theory threads and a few of the political threads.

    That being said, I have used it in the past in the latter way, but really only as an extension. Manc, for instance, only debated issues wrapped in his own world view, often citing a source that disagreed with him as if it didn't.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  13. #12
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I disagree with that a bit.
    Of course you do. You are one of the worst challenge tag abusers out there. Look, I have mad respect for you and you are truly one of the few people I missed during my year and a half hiatus, but you even started throwing challenge tags at me in our last debate. I did not respond to them with anything I had not already said before, or simply ignored them for challenging me to support arguments I never made. The only purpose they served was to force me to explain why they weren't pertinent, thus adding a burden in the form of work on me in order to continue the debate. I'm sure you disagree wholeheartedly, but this is why we debate, no?

    I wouldn't need two hands to count the challenges thrown at me that were pertinent, and maybe one or two that forced me to back away from a position I was arguing. That was also years ago during one of the ugliest political campaigns I have been alive for. Regardless, this is why I rarely (if ever) use challenge tags. I might use them to flip an argument back on somebody who challenged me fallaciously (and the turn-around is similarly fallacious), but I can't remember any serious uses of the challenge tags on my part. I'm sure there are a couple, but they are the exception to the rule. I just see official Challenge!s as tricks to get people to go through enormous amounts of effort for no reason, and I usually see this (not always, but usually) when people are stuck at a point in their own reasoning where they refuse to look into a fact or concept for themselves which would, in turn, end that line of argumentation.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  14. #13
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Of course you do. You are one of the worst challenge tag abusers out there. Look, I have mad respect for you and you are truly one of the few people I missed during my year and a half hiatus, but you even started throwing challenge tags at me in our last debate.
    But I didn't do it because I was "against the wall" I did it because you were making unwarranted assumptions. I generally try to point out why it is an assumption and resort to the challenge tags later. I did that in your debate and I'm certainly not going to try an call you out here, but if your position has an unwarranted or unsupported assumption in it, that assumption is going to get challenged. That doesn't make my position weak in the slightest as MT pointed out.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrG
    I did not respond to them with anything I had not already said before, or simply ignored them for challenging me to support arguments I never made.
    To the extent that I might have challenged you to some statement that you didn't make, that is more likely a miscommunication than a disingenuous tactic. If the former were true, why not simply copy what you had said before as support?

    Quote Originally Posted by DrG
    I wouldn't need two hands to count the challenges thrown at me that were pertinent,
    If that isn't confirmation bias, I'm not sure what is...
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  15. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But I didn't do it because I was "against the wall" I did it because you were making unwarranted assumptions. I generally try to point out why it is an assumption and resort to the challenge tags later. I did that in your debate and I'm certainly not going to try an call you out here, but if your position has an unwarranted or unsupported assumption in it, that assumption is going to get challenged. That doesn't make my position weak in the slightest as MT pointed out.
    In that debate, specifically, you challenged me to prove the non-existence of something (rules that specifically and completely outlaw the birth of wildly different species from their parents). Your claim was that it was possible; I stated that I have seen nothing to suggest it was possible, i.e. that no rules have been provided which allow this. The positive claim was yours, and after I pointed this out you dropped the challenge. We then spun off into statistics and several other arguments relating to statistics.

    To the extent that I might have challenged you to some statement that you didn't make, that is more likely a miscommunication than a disingenuous tactic. If the former were true, why not simply copy what you had said before as support?
    Because that's why Apok timed me out last year. I provided definitions of symbolism, ritual, and cannibalism as my support; I got pages upon pages of obscure biblical doctrine attempting to prove that x is not x; I got challenged; I repeated my definitions; I got infractions; I disagreed with the infractions and repeated the definitions; I got timed out.

    If that isn't confirmation bias, I'm not sure what is...
    Sure it is. But if you want to argue with me that the sun revolves around the Earth and I discount "The Watchtower" as support, that would technically be confirmation bias as well.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  16. #15
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    In that debate, specifically, you challenged me to prove the non-existence of something (rules that specifically and completely outlaw the birth of wildly different species from their parents). Your claim was that it was possible; I stated that I have seen nothing to suggest it was possible, i.e. that no rules have been provided which allow this. The positive claim was yours, and after I pointed this out you dropped the challenge. We then spun off into statistics and several other arguments relating to statistics.
    I see this objection a lot. It doesn't matter if one has a positive or negative claim. The burden of proof is still on the claimant. You had a very simple claim to support as well. All you would need to show is a limiting mechanism within biology. IE some kind of mechanism that prevents a completely random recombination.

    Which is my point, you weren't 100% sure that wasn't possible, you simply believed it wasn't possible and stated it as such. That is what I meant with my original post. I usually challenge those ideas that are more popular belief than scientific fact (PS, I checked with Chad prior to making the analogy, so it wasn't a case of me just being a dick).

    Quote Originally Posted by DrG
    Because that's why Apok timed me out last year. I provided definitions of symbolism, ritual, and cannibalism as my support; I got pages upon pages of obscure biblical doctrine attempting to prove that x is not x; I got challenged; I repeated my definitions; I got infractions; I disagreed with the infractions and repeated the definitions; I got timed out.
    I think we will have to agree to disagree here. I read that as it happened and I kinda agree with Apok. You were attempting to support different subjects than the ones in your original claim and feeling it sufficed. Either that was insufficient support or your original claims were misunderstood.

    Quote Originally Posted by DrG
    Sure it is. But if you want to argue with me that the sun revolves around the Earth and I discount "The Watchtower" as support, that would technically be confirmation bias as well.
    In the sense that it would be a fallacy. Simply because you happen to be right while using a fallacy doesn't mean the fallacy is a good idea. This is the kind of poor reasoning that I think has driven Apok insane. You are free to reject the idea that the sun revolves around the earth, but for a group (atheists) that purportedly values reasoning so much, is it too much to ask that you do so for rational reasons?
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  17. #16
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Disclaimer: The following post may be offensive to some. It is not my intent, and I apologize in advance if it results in seemingly insulting language. I'm attempting to answer the op as best I can...and obviously, that is going to be a subjective response (as all responses in this thread will be). This thread is placed in the Formal Discussion forum, not a debate forum. This means that it is not required to have formal arguments nor is it necessary for one to defend their position. Obviously, people's experiences and reasons why they debate will vary...it is a purely subjective response to a purely subjective question.

    In these type of discussions, we ought not to censor our reasoning, but of course, we ought not explicitly insult others either. I've tried my best to describe my honest position while using language that is the least offensive I know. I acknowledge that there may very well be better ways to convey these thoughts so as they diminish the seemingly harsh impact they may have one some. I'm willing to change wording and phrasing where appropriate, and upon suggestion.

    We are all guilty of bad reasoning on occasion...not one of us is a "master-reasoner." My explanation as to why I no longer debate as frequently as I do is not a call out to all instances of bad reasoning (for that would include all of us) but instead, those of us who seemingly do so more than others, but do so unnecessarily. I do not believe that any sane person with an average intelligence or better, has an excuse not to be able to reason well most of the time. But I believe that there are some who allow their pride to prevent them from developing those skills, and it is this particular group that I refer to in my explanation below, as it is the primary group that has influenced my decision to slow down in my participation in debates lately.


    Quote Originally Posted by op
    I'm not much on actually debating; though I do enjoy reading and analyzing positions.

    My reasoning is simple: personally I don't find much enjoyment in serious debate; not just internet debate but all debate. This is because no one ever concedes, and positions never change. While I've found more open mindedness here generally we see the same thing.
    My view is similar.

    In this particular community at this time, when it comes to religious debates, it is simply the case that there are less educated atheists than theists (in so far as training, knowledge, and experience in critical thinking, logic, and philosophy). Any time there is an imbalance (one group possessing substantially more knowledge than another) there is going to be a breakdown in the discussions concerning ideological issues. Not because of the issues themselves, but because one group simply lacks the ability to evaluate and present sound argumentation more so than the other). So what ends up happening, is we have to instruct, or teach the elements of critical thinking, argument analysis, logic, etc... to others so that they can be on the same page...so that the real issues can be discussed rationally. But when that happens, because there is a fundamental division in the ideological issues being discussed, those who are less learned believe that disparity in positions on the issue bleeds over into the nature of critical thinking (or the explanation/exploration/instruction thereof)...which more often then not...ends up being seen as a insulting, condescending, off-topic, etc... There are few non-theists in this community who are proficient in critical thinking...most are "pop-atheists." And when there is a small crowd of pop-atheists in a discussion, often times we can see the Dunning-Kruger effect at work.

    http://www.holub.com/goodies/incompetence.pdf

    It's this hubris, the confidence that many uneducated and the ignorant* have that results in their inability to realize objective truth which is only obtained through proper reasoning (many pop-atheists refuse to believe that there really is a right way and wrong way to go about the process of reasoning). I wholeheartedly believe that simply taking a formal course in critical thinking dramatically decreases this occurrence as well as the amount of just horribly reasoned threads and posts created by this group. If nothing else, then self-study. Yet...one's ego can be such the obstacle to enlightenment (this is true for all people, but is seen primarily in those who have an inflated, higher opinion of themselves). I can't count how many times I've referred people not just to certain books and web pages on the elementary concepts of critical thinking...but mere passages of text that describe the relevant obstacle in that discussion. Very rare will the atheist have the humility, experience, maturity and frankly, intellectual fortitude to actually pursue the lessons taught in those sources...and instead, hold to the absurd notion that because their opponent is offering the source, it must be false or irrelevant.

    It is one of few reasons I've slowed down in debate (participatory wise). As I study critical thinking, logic, and philosophy (my minor) more, and as I dig deeper, I find that I have less patience with those who commit the most simple of errors yet refuse to humble themselves enough to learn and grow from them. It's one thing to make a mistake then grow from it (after all, that is what learning is...moving from a false belief to a true belief), it's quite another to insist that something is the case and maintain it through improper reasoning (or the ignoring of actual principles of reasoning). It's this latter occurrence that I find I have little to no patience for any longer.

    I have all the respect in the world for an atheist who puts up a strong attack against theism or strong defense for atheism...but little to none for the pop-atheist who, like the fool, believes he is above learning anything new as he already "knows-it-all." This sort of debater is simply a waste of my time (and patience) when it comes to discussing ideological issues. Before they can take up my time and energy in a metaphysical discussion, they must at first understand the tools and playing field that are used to evaluate and present the arguments found in said discussion. It is why I've created a number of essays on the topics of critical thinking (co-authored and/or approved of by 2 professors of philosophy at my university for the purposes of eventually creating a public, online course on the subject) and is why most of my participation regardless of thread topic, is about argument structure.

    In short, I'd rather a) discuss the principles of critical thinking and get others interested in the subject (as I'm a firm believe that it ought to be a mandatory course in all public school systems), and b) participate in a more Socrates Cafe format (of which I've created and facilitated small groups in real life in the SD area). I get much more out of that than I do online debating any more as I'm finding fewer and fewer non-theists who value critical thinking.




    That being said...if after reading the above, you feel that it is simply an arrogant, condescending rant, then chances are, you are "afflicted" by the Dunning-Kruger effect and/or have little to no education/training in the subject of critical thinking (of which is easily rectified...if only that huge hurdle of ego could be overcome). =)

    * in the sense of simply lacking information or knowledge about that which is being discussed or forwarded to be true


    --------------

    Devilpup, I think you'd absolutely love the format of a live Socrates Cafe. I encourage you to check out www.meetup.com and do a search for one in your area (that's how I started my group...and we got all sorts of people from all sorts of backgrounds, including a couple of professors of philosophy interestingly enough). They are a lot of fun, very fulfilling (for those who prefer to explore assumed truths and ideologies vs those who insist on 'being right').
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; May 22nd, 2013 at 11:28 AM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Where ever you tell me, Drill Sergeant!
    Posts
    2,199
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    In this particular community at this time, it is simply the case that there are less educated atheists than theists (in so far as training, knowledge, and experience in critical thinking, logic, and philosophy).
    Have you ever thought about why? Why is it that GP, LP, Dio, and Allo no longer regularly contribute? Would you call any of them ignorant in the ways of critical thinking? I have absolutely no question as to why they left. Two of them even told me in plain English.

    This is why:

    • because one group simply lacks the ability to evaluate and present sound argumentation
    • There are few non-theists in this community who are proficient in critical thinking...most are "pop-atheists."
    • It's this hubris, the confidence that many uneducated and the ignorant* have that results in their inability to realize objective truth which is only obtained through proper reasoning
    • many pop-atheists refuse to believe that there really is a right way and wrong way to go about the process of reasoning
    • Yet...one's ego can be such the obstacle to enlightenment
    • Very rare will the atheist have the humility, experience, maturity and frankly, intellectual fortitude to actually pursue the lessons taught in those sources
    • I find that I have less patience with those who commit the most simple of errors yet refuse to humble themselves
    • but little to no [respect] for the pop-atheist who, like the fool, believes he is above learning anything new as he already "knows-it-all."
    • if after reading the above, you feel that it is simply an arrogant, condescending rant, then chances are, you are "afflicted" by the Dunning-Kruger effect and/or have little to no education/training in the subject of critical thinking (of which is easily rectified...if only that huge hurdle of ego could be overcome).


    You are basically saying here that most people who disagree with you (pop-atheists) are ignorant, stupid, and stubborn. This is why the intelligent arguers flee this site. I stayed away for a year and a half, just long enough to forget the condescension and plain insulting language used. You once accused me of having a lack of charity in argumentation. Do you believe that calling people ignorant, stupid, and stubborn is practicing the principle of charity? You mention ego, arrogance, and ignorance as proof that people are wrong, yet this is all I see from people who use this kind of language regularly. Is it we who are suffering the effects of Dunning-Kruger, or is it you? How can you be sure this isn't a glaring example of confirmation bias on your part? "They disagree with me, they don't reason correctly, they must be stupid." You propose a theory and then make it unfalsifiable by claiming you must be right if we disagree with you! If I feel that text was arrogant or condescending, then clearly I am either ignorant or confident-through-ignorance. How f-ing tidy is that?!? It couldn't be that you use arrogant, condescending language or anything.... no, never that.

    Jesus, why did I come back? It's even more of the same, unbelievably. If you can metaphysically or philosophically attempt to redefine words as they exist in this language, supported by this language's dictionary, and think you succeeded.... there isn't even a word to describe that level of hubris. Delusional? Grandiose, maybe? The fact that you label people ignorant, stupid, and stubborn, and then claim this must be true if they took it that way.... I just.... I don't know, man. You repeatedly claim to have this superior education and understanding of reasoning and critical thinking, yet you forward obviously circular arguments that my eight year old niece can suss out for what they are.

    I wish you well in your efforts to create the perfect echo chamber. I don't understand the psychosis that drives you to do so, but I wish you well nonetheless. Just please don't climb a bell tower if true realization ever kicks in.
    The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

  19. #18
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,347
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo View Post
    Have you ever thought about why? Why is it that GP, LP, Dio, and Allo no longer regularly contribute?
    Yes, I know exactly why 2 from that list do not.

    Would you call any of them ignorant in the ways of critical thinking?
    They have their moments, like we all do. However, this is irrelevant (it's called a red herring Gonzo). The reason(s) for why someone may or may not leave ODN (which is an issue in and of itself) has no bearing on the issue that most non-theists here are "pop-atheists" and/or those who simply lack elementary knowledge of critical thinking. You are confusing WHY vs WHAT.

    You are basically saying here that most people who disagree with you (pop-atheists) are ignorant, stupid, and stubborn.
    Nope. But you are demonstrating perfectly what I was talking about. For some reason, you (and many other pop-atheists) are unable to make the distinction between matters of critical thinking (which is the foundation upon which all arguments ought to be placed) and issues of ideology themselves (metaphysical, moral, political, etc... arguments). You seem to believe, fallaciously (and due to extreme ego IMO), that when someone who opposes your position on matters of ideology addresses issues of reasoning, that these 2 issues are either synonymous or that the latter simply cannot be the case (because it is of a genetic concern).

    I could present several questions/challenges regarding issues of critical thinking to you Gonzo, and I am confident that you simply would not do well on the "test." It is not because you are stupid, but because you sincerely believe that there are no rules to reasoning and/or you are above them, hence...the reason why you see absolutely no need to educate yourself or better yourself by submitting to qualified resources or those who are qualified to teach such subjects. Ego prevents reason, and unfortunately, most of our resident atheists, have larger egos than capabilities of reason. That doesn't have to be the case of course...but it is their will...it is what it is.

    You once accused me of having a lack of charity in argumentation.
    And?

    Do you believe that calling people ignorant, stupid, and stubborn is practicing the principle of charity?
    ....this again, is a prime example of what I'm referring to. You misunderstand the nature of the principle of charity as it pertains to argumentation. Your objection (in the form of a question) makes no sense as an objection to me suggesting that you were not being charitable in your response to an argument.

    You mention ego, arrogance, and ignorance as proof that people are wrong, yet this is all I see from people who use this kind of language regularly.
    That's great that you feel that way I guess...but when pressed, you cannot defend it objectively because there is no truth in it. You've demonstrated this time and time again unfortunately. I'm all for starting over, allowing for a clean slate...but I am skeptical that of the average pop-atheist's ego would allow it. For them...there is no such thing as formal reasoning...only mocking and disbelief in anything anyone has to say who does not already agree with them about a particular issue even if what is being discussed, has nothing to do with the first issue. It's saying "Since you are a theist, and I reject theism, anything you have to say must be false." This is glaringly fallacious to most reasonable people, but not to the average pop-atheist for some reason. It's a social (or perhaps psychological) issue that would make for an interesting exploration IMO.

    Is it we who are suffering the effects of Dunning-Kruger, or is it you? How can you be sure this isn't a glaring example of confirmation bias on your part?
    A couple of reasons:

    1) You are confirming it right now. You, once again, are failing to make the distinction between a metaphysical, moral, or political issue and that of critical thinking. That we may disagree on the nature of the universe, whether or not God exists, whether or not X party is guilty of something, etc... has absolutely no bearing on whether one of us is correct in our argument analysis, identifying the strength/weakness of an argument, understanding the issues being presented, fallacious theory, etc...

    2) I was a TA in both a university Epistemology course and Critical thinking course (which means I have to know at least a little about what I'm talking about when it comes to the rules of reasoning)

    3) I have the "sponsorship" and backing of 2 university professors (1 of philosophy, 1 of a critical thinking course - which is done by the philosophy dept, not Eng).

    You continually confuse the idea that because you and I disagree about God...that there is absolutely nothing you can learn from me, even though I'm more than qualified to explain the issues of the principles of reasoning. It isn't that we have to agree about the existence of God...that's not what is being claimed at all...but rather it is in your best interest to agree with me on the nature of reasoning and logic itself...for when you don't, it means you are reasoning incorrectly and your arguments and evaluation of the arguments of others, are most likely going to be flawed.

    "They disagree with me, they don't reason correctly, they must be stupid." You propose a theory and then make it unfalsifiable by claiming you must be right if we disagree with you!
    Nope. Never happened. This is ego blocking your view of reality again.

    If I feel that text was arrogant or condescending, then clearly I am either ignorant or confident-through-ignorance. How f-ing tidy is that?!? It couldn't be that you use arrogant, condescending language or anything.... no, never that.
    In other threads? Sure that's happened. I've admitted it as such. I'm capable of admitting I'm wrong and I've done it more than any member of this community. In my above post? No. And your response is demonstrating exactly what that post is about.

    Jesus, why did I come back? It's even more of the same, unbelievably. If you can metaphysically or philosophically attempt to redefine words as they exist in this language, supported by this language's dictionary, and think you succeeded.... there isn't even a word to describe that level of hubris.
    Except...that's never happened.

    The fact that you label people ignorant, stupid, and stubborn, and then claim this must be true if they took it that way.... I just.... I don't know, man. You repeatedly claim to have this superior education and understanding of reasoning and critical thinking, yet you forward obviously circular arguments that my eight year old niece can suss out for what they are.
    This is an example of a "nuh-uh" response...and obviously...what I'm referring to above in my previous post. The inability to move from a false belief to a true belief, regardless of who it is presenting that true belief...will always be the enemy of objective truth and its discovery.

    I wish you well in your efforts to create the perfect echo chamber. I don't understand the psychosis that drives you to do so, but I wish you well nonetheless. Just please don't climb a bell tower if true realization ever kicks in.
    This is just more bad reasoning. Logically, there is no way to move from what I stated and end up with your conclusion (implicit or otherwise). Again, I cannot recommend it enough...if you do nothing else, just to do yourself a favor and invest in yourself by picking up this little book: http://www.amazon.com/Asking-Right-Q...9195238&sr=1-2

    It's the 9th ed (vs 10th, so it's cheap: $9 used...there should be no excuse not to if you have any interest in developing your reasoning ability and/or debate skills).
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; May 21st, 2013 at 11:21 PM.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  20. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Chicago IL
    Posts
    1,240
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Those of you who are very talented debaters have you ever used any "formula" logic?

    I remember back in college in a logic 101 class they had us learn some formulas. I honestly can't remember any but am curious if any of you have used it or know of it?

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Witty puns...

  21. #20
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,277
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: The Objective and Reasoning for Debating.

    Use of such is nearly guaranteed to get Clive to show up in thread. It is used sometimes, though I personally prefer to structure my argument in formal logic then revise it into an example for clarity.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions.” -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


 

 
Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. What reasoning lead you to Atheism?
    By ReasonPlease in forum Religion
    Replies: 541
    Last Post: June 6th, 2012, 07:51 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: December 13th, 2007, 05:21 PM
  3. What is the philosophical reasoning behind religion?
    By GoldPhoenix in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: May 12th, 2006, 11:00 PM
  4. Today's Liberal reasoning, applied to WWII.
    By KevinBrowning in forum History
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: February 22nd, 2005, 12:35 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •