Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 12, 2003, 09:45 pm

Okay, let us first define some terms, basic ones that we should be able to agree on. Then maybe we can see if these are capable of holding a foundation.

First there are the basic forms of argumentative debate, which come in two tactics and three approaches. The tactics, of course, are high road and low road. High road is an attempt to build up your own opinion, and low road is to tear down the opinion of your opponent. The approaches are logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos being appeal to reason, pathos being based on emotional appeal, and ethos being based on the appeal to authority be it tradition, law, or popularity.

Since we are on such seperate courses, I will ask at this point, "Are we on the same path so far, Geoff?"

RebelWithanAK · Sep 12, 2003, 09:48 pm

Somehow the words and the resultant logic have little to do with each other, which leaves me to believe there to be an undercurrent of meaning here. You may be more eloquent about it, but what I think you're saying is "why can't you argue on my terms?"

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 12, 2003, 10:03 pm

No, this is an attempt to establish rules, since I am trying to debate three different people that think I should automatically intuit their rules. This is in reply to Geoff's challenge, but you and Adams are welcome as well. Or anyone else that actually wants to debate rather than mudsling. These definitions are simply the ones used by the English Professor that taught the class I took on argumentative essay.

They are meant simply as a baseline, and I see that you already have a problem? Do you want to point out where, rather than simply offering your opinion? Or are you voting for the paranoid low road approach? I guess we could add paranoid as a tactic, but I do not see it working...

RebelWithanAK · Sep 12, 2003, 10:22 pm

What I think we should do, and this of course is simply an informal understanding, is use arguments that can be backed with commonly accepted sources. Obviously this won't work for "theory," but it might just make heads or tails of the media thread, the jew thread, the many bush threads...

I mean, everyone's got their opinions, and so long as we don't force ourselves into the nitty gritty of it we're just going to spew rhetoric at each other until our fingers fall off. Just as some of us (me included) have a problem with spouting rhetoric that we take for granted as common knowledge ("bush is stupid!" or, "arabs want the jews to die!"), some have the habit of asking for the impossible ("no he's not, prove bush is stupid!" or, "prove the arabs were there first!") which would take far too much time and effort for any one person to tackle. Especially if they're expected to do it for every thread.

So I think we should start small and keep our claims backed. But I'm lazy, so this is unlikely to happen.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 12, 2003, 10:33 pm

Nice way to give the upper hand to the more popular philosophies. I, on the other hand, do not belong to a mainstream philosophy. Can we accept some thought and inference on the part of the poster?

While I agree in essence, let us not get carried away...

RebelWithanAK · Sep 12, 2003, 10:38 pm

when I mean commonly accepted sources I mean stuff we can agree upon, which can be laid out, ie: New York Times is accepted, New York Post isn't; Washington Post is accepted, Washington Times isn't; C-Span is accepted while Fox isn't. Village Voice, Al Jazeera, NPR, CNN and ABC are understood to have biases, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm being hypothetical and the points are debatable, but that's the general sense I was trying to flesh out.

Geoff332 · Sep 12, 2003, 10:51 pm

Several points.

The quality of one opinion has no bearing on the validity of another. Assuming we take certain criteria for assessing opinions (for example, coherence/logical consistency or evidence), then an opposing opinion does not take into account the basic validity of an argument. If you have two views on an issue, making one wrong does not make the other right (if they are genuinely competing views, then making one right does make the other wrong, but this is very rare when dealing with reality). Only when two arguments are valid can they be competition to one another.

Any argument has three basic elements: premises, conclusion and a relationship between the two. A logical critique can address any (or all) of these elements. Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with any alternative explanations or positions. The first thing I notice with people who are not trained in debate (or philosophical writing) is that they struggle to explicate these elements properly, meaning that their argument appears confused and the reader has to guess at elements of it. Experienced writers do this as well.

There are three basic forms of premise: assertion, hypothesis and value (my terms). An assertion is something that is claimed to be true. It is valid if it is a conclusion of a valid argument. A hypothesis is a statement about reality, which can be tested. If it is consistent with reality, then it is valid; if it is not, then it is not. A value is a basic belief that usually cannot be argued (akin to metaphysical statements in philosophy; but generally slightly broader). Most arguments contain all three types of premise in one form or another. Logos, pathos and ethos are techniques usually used to substantiate premises.

Relationships can also be logical or empirical. They come in four forms as well: causal, correlational, incidental, or co-determined (once again, my terms). Causal means that the premises make the conclusion come to happen. Correlational means that the premises and the conclusion happen together, but not causally. Incidental means that any link between the premises and conclusions is a product of chance. Co-determined means that the premises and the conclusion are both products of some other factors not present in the argument.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 12, 2003, 10:52 pm

I imagine I can live with it, but I already see that you put the center a little left of where I would draw it, nothing I cannot correct for...

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 12, 2003, 10:58 pm

I see Geoff has made an appearence. I guess I should not be surprised that he has not only ignored my basic question, but has sought to redefine the entire topic in his words. I see he also dug out a statistics argument as his baseline, I can live with that, even though it may be a bit difficult to seperate the gray areas...

RebelWithanAK · Sep 12, 2003, 11:11 pm

I'm proposing a system to cite sources so as to back up facts on which one's opinions are based. I'm claiming that currently the sources are either not cited, or are biased themselves. One is always entitled to his opinion, which is why you can't debate opinions. You can, however, debate the facts and statistics they're based upon and draw conclusions from that. You just listed the various styles of conclusions, or as you call them hypotheses and relationships. Let us say that, hypothetically, we start with an opinion:

"the media is biased to the left."

which was drawn from one's interpretation of some facts or statistics:

"lexis-nexis shows more references to 'right-wing' than 'left-wing' which places journalists closer in league with the left"

which itself is based on several hypotheses and assumptions:

We assume the politicians would be evenly spread across the political spectrum. (and thus there really aren't more right-wing politicians than left-wing politicians)
We posit that journalists all view themselves as moderate. (and thus others are either referred to as to the left or the right of them)
We assume that there is no bias in the editorial process. (as thus the editors share the same views as the journalists)

Those can be debated, and thus can undermine the conclusion. Or we can debate the bias of the organization that did the study, or put in competing evidence and debate the value of that. I'm sure I'm saying the same thing as you, but in different words, but I'm just saying we can develop and enforce a system where evidence must be given and subsequently weighed.

And how was my list biased? Either you don't view the Washington Times as biased to the right, or you do view the New York Times as biased to the left, or something else...

RebelWithanAK · Sep 12, 2003, 11:13 pm

Oh, wait, Geoff wrote that long one about hypotheses, not you. Whoops.

Geoff332 · Sep 13, 2003, 01:43 am

OK, I give up. You win. Do whatever you want, I really don't care.

Perhaps you might like to engage in reasoned debate one day. If you do, look me up. Until then, I really don't intend to pay any attention to you. I have far better thing to do with my time.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 13, 2003, 07:07 am

That is what this was, an excuse to throw a fit and take your ball home? All I asked for was set rules. Apparently you will not play in a game with consistancy, I suppose it puts you at a disadvantage that way...Well, I have little intention of debating with a child anyway.

Geoff332 · Sep 13, 2003, 08:31 am

As I said, when you want to engage in debate, I will repond. Until then, your name calling is all very interesting, but hardly worth a second thought.

RebelWithanAK · Sep 13, 2003, 11:02 am

Ai yi yi, where did I openly contradict your views on debating style? I don't want to be the one shunned for being the first to get rid of a poster...

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 14, 2003, 10:07 am

Some people debate others wish to appear intellectual without ever getting their hands dirty. I suspect Geoff is of that second catagory. When he wishes to debate I may answer him, but not until then.

Sep 12, 2003, 09:45 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Okay, let us first define some terms, basic ones that we should be able to agree on. Then maybe we can see if these are capable of holding a foundation. First there are the basic forms of argumentative debate, which come in two tactics and three approaches. The tactics, of course, are high road and low road. High road is an attempt to build up your own opinion, and low road is to tear down the opinion of your opponent. The approaches are logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos being appeal to reason, pathos being based on emotional appeal, and ethos being based on the appeal to authority be it tradition, law, or popularity. Since we are on such seperate courses, I will ask at this point, "Are we on the same path so far, Geoff?" Logical Fallicies Link

Sep 12, 2003, 09:48 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Somehow the words and the resultant logic have little to do with each other, which leaves me to believe there to be an undercurrent of meaning here. You may be more eloquent about it, but what I think you're saying is "why can't you argue on my terms?" . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 12, 2003, 10:22 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	What I think we should do, and this of course is simply an informal understanding, is use arguments that can be backed with commonly accepted sources. Obviously this won't work for "theory," but it might just make heads or tails of the media thread, the jew thread, the many bush threads... I mean, everyone's got their opinions, and so long as we don't force ourselves into the nitty gritty of it we're just going to spew rhetoric at each other until our fingers fall off. Just as some of us (me included) have a problem with spouting rhetoric that we take for granted as common knowledge ("bush is stupid!" or, "arabs want the jews to die!"), some have the habit of asking for the impossible ("no he's not, prove bush is stupid!" or, "prove the arabs were there first!") which would take far too much time and effort for any one person to tackle. Especially if they're expected to do it for every thread. So I think we should start small and keep our claims backed. But I'm lazy, so this is unlikely to happen. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 12, 2003, 10:38 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	when I mean commonly accepted sources I mean stuff we can agree upon, which can be laid out, ie: New York Times is accepted, New York Post isn't; Washington Post is accepted, Washington Times isn't; C-Span is accepted while Fox isn't. Village Voice, Al Jazeera, NPR, CNN and ABC are understood to have biases, and thus should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm being hypothetical and the points are debatable, but that's the general sense I was trying to flesh out. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 12, 2003, 11:11 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	I'm proposing a system to cite sources so as to back up facts on which one's opinions are based. I'm claiming that currently the sources are either not cited, or are biased themselves. One is always entitled to his opinion, which is why you can't debate opinions. You can, however, debate the facts and statistics they're based upon and draw conclusions from that. You just listed the various styles of conclusions, or as you call them hypotheses and relationships. Let us say that, hypothetically, we start with an opinion: "the media is biased to the left." which was drawn from one's interpretation of some facts or statistics: "lexis-nexis shows more references to 'right-wing' than 'left-wing' which places journalists closer in league with the left" which itself is based on several hypotheses and assumptions: We assume the politicians would be evenly spread across the political spectrum. (and thus there really aren't more right-wing politicians than left-wing politicians) We posit that journalists all view themselves as moderate. (and thus others are either referred to as to the left or the right of them) We assume that there is no bias in the editorial process. (as thus the editors share the same views as the journalists) Those can be debated, and thus can undermine the conclusion. Or we can debate the bias of the organization that did the study, or put in competing evidence and debate the value of that. I'm sure I'm saying the same thing as you, but in different words, but I'm just saying we can develop and enforce a system where evidence must be given and subsequently weighed. And how was my list biased? Either you don't view the Washington Times as biased to the right, or you do view the New York Times as biased to the left, or something else... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 12, 2003, 10:03 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	No, this is an attempt to establish rules, since I am trying to debate three different people that think I should automatically intuit their rules. This is in reply to Geoff's challenge, but you and Adams are welcome as well. Or anyone else that actually wants to debate rather than mudsling. These definitions are simply the ones used by the English Professor that taught the class I took on argumentative essay. They are meant simply as a baseline, and I see that you already have a problem? Do you want to point out where, rather than simply offering your opinion? Or are you voting for the paranoid low road approach? I guess we could add paranoid as a tactic, but I do not see it working...

Sep 12, 2003, 10:33 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Nice way to give the upper hand to the more popular philosophies. I, on the other hand, do not belong to a mainstream philosophy. Can we accept some thought and inference on the part of the poster? While I agree in essence, let us not get carried away...

Sep 12, 2003, 10:51 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	Several points. The quality of one opinion has no bearing on the validity of another. Assuming we take certain criteria for assessing opinions (for example, coherence/logical consistency or evidence), then an opposing opinion does not take into account the basic validity of an argument. If you have two views on an issue, making one wrong does not make the other right (if they are genuinely competing views, then making one right does make the other wrong, but this is very rare when dealing with reality). Only when two arguments are valid can they be competition to one another. Any argument has three basic elements: premises, conclusion and a relationship between the two. A logical critique can address any (or all) of these elements. Once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with any alternative explanations or positions. The first thing I notice with people who are not trained in debate (or philosophical writing) is that they struggle to explicate these elements properly, meaning that their argument appears confused and the reader has to guess at elements of it. Experienced writers do this as well. There are three basic forms of premise: assertion, hypothesis and value (my terms). An assertion is something that is claimed to be true. It is valid if it is a conclusion of a valid argument. A hypothesis is a statement about reality, which can be tested. If it is consistent with reality, then it is valid; if it is not, then it is not. A value is a basic belief that usually cannot be argued (akin to metaphysical statements in philosophy; but generally slightly broader). Most arguments contain all three types of premise in one form or another. Logos, pathos and ethos are techniques usually used to substantiate premises. Relationships can also be logical or empirical. They come in four forms as well: causal, correlational, incidental, or co-determined (once again, my terms). Causal means that the premises make the conclusion come to happen. Correlational means that the premises and the conclusion happen together, but not causally. Incidental means that any link between the premises and conclusions is a product of chance. Co-determined means that the premises and the conclusion are both products of some other factors not present in the argument.

Sep 12, 2003, 10:52 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I imagine I can live with it, but I already see that you put the center a little left of where I would draw it, nothing I cannot correct for...

Sep 12, 2003, 10:58 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	I see Geoff has made an appearence. I guess I should not be surprised that he has not only ignored my basic question, but has sought to redefine the entire topic in his words. I see he also dug out a statistics argument as his baseline, I can live with that, even though it may be a bit difficult to seperate the gray areas...

Sep 12, 2003, 11:13 pm	#11 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Oh, wait, Geoff wrote that long one about hypotheses, not you. Whoops. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 13, 2003, 01:43 am	#12 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	OK, I give up. You win. Do whatever you want, I really don't care. Perhaps you might like to engage in reasoned debate one day. If you do, look me up. Until then, I really don't intend to pay any attention to you. I have far better thing to do with my time.

Sep 13, 2003, 07:07 am	#13 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	That is what this was, an excuse to throw a fit and take your ball home? All I asked for was set rules. Apparently you will not play in a game with consistancy, I suppose it puts you at a disadvantage that way...Well, I have little intention of debating with a child anyway.

Sep 13, 2003, 08:31 am	#14 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	As I said, when you want to engage in debate, I will repond. Until then, your name calling is all very interesting, but hardly worth a second thought.

Sep 13, 2003, 11:02 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Ai yi yi, where did I openly contradict your views on debating style? I don't want to be the one shunned for being the first to get rid of a poster... . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Sep 14, 2003, 10:07 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Some people debate others wish to appear intellectual without ever getting their hands dirty. I suspect Geoff is of that second catagory. When he wishes to debate I may answer him, but not until then.