27 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyDid I miss something here 😕?
Spelling and usage again.😏
My father once told me a story. He went to a Catholic high school which was known for the skill and valour of its debating team. On day one of the priests complimented his friend 9who had a strong Irish accent) on his debating performance. The reponse was "Yeah Fawda. I'm the masta debatah". The priest recommended that he go to confession 😉.
28 Aug 03
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickentrying to remember the user... can't but... last week one of the guys stated that "None of them took me up on it because they know that i am a "master debater"... I noted at the time that he had misspelled it and that it should be a single word. 😀 hence... "Spelling and Useage" again....
Did I miss something here 😕?
My father once told me a story. He went to a Catholic high school which was known for the skill and valour of its debating team. On day one of the priests complimented his friend 9who had a strong Iri ...[text shortened]... ta debatah". The priest recommended that he go to confession 😉.
When i was a kid, my bishop once interviewed me to see if i was eligible to go the the temple. When he asked , "do you have a problem with masterbation"? i quickly replied, "No... It's easy."... no temple for me.
28 Aug 03
Originally posted by StarValleyWyVery clever....🙂
trying to remember the user... can't but... last week one of the guys stated that "None of them took me up on it because they know that i am a "master debater"... I noted at the time that he had misspelled it and that it should be a single word. 😀 hence... "Spelling and Useage" again....
When i was a kid, my bishop once interviewed me to see i ...[text shortened]... ave a problem with masterbation"? i quickly replied, "No... It's easy."... no temple for me.
28 Aug 03
Originally posted by royalchickenThe purpose of a debate is not to sway your opponent and his adherants to your side, this can rarely be done. The purpose is to convince an impartial audience of the correnctness of your position relative to your opponents. When I debate religion with Reaper, or Ivanhoe, my purpose is not to sway them, or any other self-proclaimed christians to my position. That would clearly be an exercise in futility. My purpose is to convince any impartial forum readers that should happen along that my position has more credence than theirs.
No, but rather to be correct so that an opponent will stop defending an untenable position and independently arrive at a more defensible one.
A partisan audience will reject any argument contrary to theirs, regardless of its merits. However, an impartial audience (or the impartial members of an audience) will respond to a logical and well crafted argument. Even though you are debating with a specific opponent, your argument is not directed to that opponent, but rather to the impartial members of the audience. They are the ones you are hoping to sway.
28 Aug 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeI know a few - the following are phrased (I hope) to make the fallacy obvious, though in a real debate they might be camouflaged:
A lot of tricks are used in all sorts of debates.
Does anyone have a list ?
That would be very interesting .......
IvanH.
'I am right because a lot of people agree with me.'
'I am right because I am a lawyer/doctor/scientist.' (even if the subject matter is unrelated to law/medicine/science!)
'A happened, then B happened soon after. Therefore B was caused by A.'
'If C is true, then D would happen. Well D does happen, so C must be true.'
'Hitler believed passionately in E. Therefore E is bad.'
'Assume F. F implies G, G implies H, H implies F. Therefore F is true.'
'My opponent says J, and J is clearly rubbish. Therefore all his claims are wrong.'
'My opponent has been known to lie. Therefore his arguments are wrong.'
'My opponent, who is arguing for K, is an L. Ls have a vested interest in K, so he must be biased.'
'I have backed up my argument with 100 points, while my opponent has only opposed it with 3. Therefore my position is superior.'
'My opponent's arguments are drivel/propaganda/naive/etc...' (naive has to be one of the words I least like to have used against me, along with the slang meaning of 'sad' 🙁)
'N would cost M money. We don't like M, so N is good.'
28 Aug 03
Originally posted by rwingettThis is what I was saying to Mike--I don't really think a debate is designed to change anyone's mind. That is not necessarily very important. What's more important is for the debators to try and embrace the most feasible position.
The purpose of a debate is not to sway your opponent and his adherants to your side, this can rarely be done. The purpose is to convince an impartial audience of the correnctness of your position relative to your opponents. When I debate religion with Reaper, or Ivanhoe, my purpose is not to sway them, or any other self-proclaimed christians to my position. ...[text shortened]... but rather to the impartial members of the audience. They are the ones you are hoping to sway.