Arguments that don't work

[Jazzmail]

THE point of a discussion is to establish truth, not to win.

Really?
Then why is a discussion so useful for getting just the thing you want?

 

[Flying Pig]

Surely it's better that he thread reaches the right conclusion than that it follows your view-point.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Surely it's better that he thread reaches the right conclusion than that it follows your view-point.

I say old chap, how terribly British of you

 

[Nylan]

Sophistry vs Philosophy fight gogogogo!!!!

 

[Mise]

Surely it's better that he thread reaches the right conclusion than that it follows your view-point.

What's the difference

 

[Flying Pig]

If you see that you are wrong, admit so

 

[Phlegmak]

If you see that you are wrong, admit so

I guess you're new to the internet.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'll hold that: I'm not new to life

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Surely it's better that he thread reaches the right conclusion than that it follows your view-point.

Yes, it is.

 

[GoodGame]

Surely it's better that the thread reaches the right conclusion than that it follows your view-point.

Very noble.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

THE point of a discussion is to establish truth, not to win.

That is the point of dialectic, but not of rhetoric. Rhetoric is about winning.

Fallacy literally means trap or deception. Fallacies can be quire useful in rhetoric, although should be avoided in dialectic. A cunning debater uses fallacies carefully without letting himself be deceived by his deceptions.

 

[Flying Pig]

Seeing as we have no politics on the internet, there is not point in using a fallacy. Even in rhetoric, I don't agree with winning by an illogical argument.

 

[LucyDuke]

argumentum ad fallicum idiotum: the fallacy that occurs when a young male thinks he's smarter and/or more logical and/or less prone to commit fallacies by knowing the names of fallacies and pointing out the names of fallacies and other such annoying nonsense.

I don't disagree that the kid prattling AD HOM AD HOM STRAWMAN OMGSOLOGICAL is a twerp. Especially when his accusations are wrong. I do think it's useful to know the names, if only because it gives you a grasp on what's wrong with your own reasoning. Most of us haven't studied much logic formally and it's a lot easier to look at an argument with a checklist of "bad" than it is to make sure every step is perfectly logical. It's the damn kids with their wikipedia and "list of fallacies" that make this stuff annoying. But they make everything annoying.

THE point of a discussion is to establish truth, not to win.

It looks like you didn't get your Welcome to the Tubes kit. I'll have a new one sent out right away.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

It looks like you didn't get your Welcome to the Tubes kit. I'll have a new one sent out right away.

I'll just have to have the Welcome to the Tubes kit intercepted and sent it to be safely destroyed as hazardous waste due to high levels of cynicism, then.

Being cynical is no reason to tear down others' ideals.

 

[LucyDuke]

I'll just have to have the Welcome to the Tubes kit intercepted and sent it to be safely destroyed as hazardous waste due to high levels of cynicism, then.

Being cynical is no reason to tear down others' ideals.

I don't want to tear down ideals. It's easy to find me lamenting the crappy "debate", I much prefer discussion that seeks common ground. But let's be realistic. This is the tubes. Most of the participants in any given discussion are in it to "win". Approaching these threads with the expectation that others are in it to establish truth is just asking for trouble.

 

[Narz]

argumentum ad fallicum idiotum: the fallacy that occurs when a young male thinks he's smarter and/or more logical and/or less prone to commit fallacies by knowing the names of fallacies and pointing out the names of fallacies and other such annoying nonsense.

Yeah, you see that alot on here.

Text blocks are an example of an argument that doesn't work. If no one listens to you, it hasn't worked.

If a thread is 12 pages deep & you and one other poster have been going at it for four of those pages with almost no other posts chances are almost no one is still reading.

 

[Mark Young]

This might fall under the jurisdiction of the "dumb things people say" thread. Also, this probably isn't going to lessen the extent to which bad arguments are used here so much as invite trolls and flamers

Hopefully at least one person will read it and think "Oh yeah, that's really stupid!" and then stop being an idiot.

As good an attempt it is to try an raise the intelligence stakes from the surprising below average standard that the OT currently resides at, I think it wont work the way you've intended it to.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Approaching these threads with the expectation that others are in it to establish truth is just asking for trouble.

Oh, I dunno about that. Most prophecies tend to be at least a little bit self-fulfilling. Treat people as if they're rational, and a few of them will live up to the standard, or at least a little closer to it.

 

[Formaldehyde]

THE point of a discussion is to establish truth, not to win.

You can't really argue facts, only opinions. So truth is rarely established unless one of the people simply didn't know the facts.

 

[Miles Teg]

You can't really argue facts, only opinions. So truth is rarely established unless one of the people simply didn't know the facts.

You say that like it's uncommon or something.