Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Zodiak · 07-22-2005, 01:20 PM

I completely agree that nothing meaningful can come of this space if boths sides, one side, or any prominent individual in this space confuses debate with rhetoric. I have seen this on every thread in TFP Politics and stayed out of the "terrorism" thread because I knew it would degenerate into a shouting match. The non-freeform threads have enough of that sort of thing.

If one operates under an environment where both sides of political discourse are supposed to mutually respect one another, then the use of rhetoric instead of debate serves only to avoid meaningful discourse and is indicative that the originator of rhetoric is not operating with respect for the other side. Insulting one's intelligence is just as debasing as insulting one's character, personality, family, etc. and, in my opinion, has no place in an environment of mutual respect.

If anyone is unaware what rhetoric versus debate is, then I have compiled a little list of "underhanded" rhetorical methods for enlightenment. This is not to say that eveyone is guilty of this. I am fully-prepared to accept the possibility that not everyone is aware of these things. How many of us were on debate teams? I would wager very few of us.

1) Strawman argument - Rather than confront what an opponent posts as a self-contained entity, the arguer either changes the meaning of the post or sets up a false argument to knock down in order to look correct. In the end, the issue raised in the orginal post is not addressed.

EXAMPLE: Original post: I think that social security has served America well since its inception because less elderly people are below the poverty line than before its inception.
Strawman post: You are advocating for socialism, and socialism is the opposite of what America stands for.

2) Non-sequitur - Literally means "does not follow". The arguer ignores the content of the orginal post and decides to enter into a new argumentative line that has little resemblance to the topic of the original post.

EXAMPLE: Original post: I think that abortion is bad because it kills babies.
Non-sequitur post: Malaria kill babies, but I don't see you arguing to stop that disease.

3) Argument by repetition - Ignoring the result of reasoned debate in the past and repeating an old argument as if the matter wasn't settled before.

4) Argument by caps lock - Including CAPITALIZED text in an argument under the IDEA that the reader's have no SKILL in reading comprehension. This is both insulting to one's intelligence as well as it serves to make the poster look angry.

5) Argument by bias - Quoting an unreliable, biased source as gospel and dismissing all other sources as biased because they do not agree with the quoted source. This came up with the National Review on another thread. Unless common ground can be agreed upon for sources, then all threads where argument by bias is introduced will degenerate into meta-arguments (arguments about arguments) on sources. In the end, no real debate over the original topic can occur.

6) Gloating - Pointing out to the other side that they have lost elections, lost support, lost the agrument, etc. or revelling when the other side isn't happy. In my opinion, this behavior crosses the line of TFP completely and should be a reason to warn a poster of bad behavior.

7) Brinksmanship - Every post of a brinksman will walk the fine edge of the rules, getting away with being as insulting as the rules allow without getting banned. This behavior is indicative of bad faith as the poster does not wish to engage his opponent without wearing warpaint.

8) Argument by bifurcation - also known as the "multiple distraction" argument. The idea behind this method is to throw as much crappola against the wall that some of it sticks. When engaged directly, the perpetrator will bring in all kinds of arguments that are barely germaine to the subject. If one of these arguments is ignored or overlooked by the opponent, then the bifurcator declares vistory. "I put up 20 arguements for you, but you missed #13, so I win"

9) Argument from ignorance - This method can be either ignorance of the topic or ignorance of the debate. The idea here is to post without reading on the topic, without being informed on the topic, or without reading the relevent posts upstream in the thread. If one is too lazy to read what was said, then one is insulting the other posters by interjecting their opinions without reading the opinions of others first. Another example is "I have never read a Potter book, but my church tells me it is bad for kids, so I think Potter should not be sold to children in stores" Another example is "I stopped reading your post when you said X because X is wrong."

10) Stereotyping - Also known as the "broad brush" argument. In this form of argumentation, one takes his own prejudices and pre-conceived notions about the opponent and engages those ideas rather than what he sees in front of him. An egregious example of this was seen earler when a drive-by inflammatory flame-bait post was highlighted by one side and pinned on everyone from the other side. "All you lefties think this way, but at least (insert flammer name here) is honest".

This argumentation is also very bad for TFP because not only does it insult those on a political side that have yet to weigh in, but it also reinforces the stereotype with one's own side. As a matter of fact, painting the other side with a broad brush (and it is always an ugly color) is a form of hate-speech and has no place in an atmosphere of "mutual respect".

Well, that is the first ten I can think of, but there are many more that are possible, and I am not snobby enough to not think that I have used rhetoric in place of debate in the past (and may lapse in the future). Unless everyone comes to TFP Politics with good faith and argues from a position of true respect (rather than walk the tightrope on what is legal), this experiment will fail and all principles involved will be convinced that meaningful debate between both sides is impossible. From there, the gap will widen until eventually there will be nothing between right and left but hate. I don't think anyone wants that.

ON EDIT: JumpinJesus.....that was a very good analogy. Kudos.

07-22-2005, 01:20 PM	#3 (permalink)
Zodiak Upright Location: From Texas, live in Ohio	I completely agree that nothing meaningful can come of this space if boths sides, one side, or any prominent individual in this space confuses debate with rhetoric. I have seen this on every thread in TFP Politics and stayed out of the "terrorism" thread because I knew it would degenerate into a shouting match. The non-freeform threads have enough of that sort of thing. If one operates under an environment where both sides of political discourse are supposed to mutually respect one another, then the use of rhetoric instead of debate serves only to avoid meaningful discourse and is indicative that the originator of rhetoric is not operating with respect for the other side. Insulting one's intelligence is just as debasing as insulting one's character, personality, family, etc. and, in my opinion, has no place in an environment of mutual respect. If anyone is unaware what rhetoric versus debate is, then I have compiled a little list of "underhanded" rhetorical methods for enlightenment. This is not to say that eveyone is guilty of this. I am fully-prepared to accept the possibility that not everyone is aware of these things. How many of us were on debate teams? I would wager very few of us. 1) Strawman argument - Rather than confront what an opponent posts as a self-contained entity, the arguer either changes the meaning of the post or sets up a false argument to knock down in order to look correct. In the end, the issue raised in the orginal post is not addressed. EXAMPLE: Original post: I think that social security has served America well since its inception because less elderly people are below the poverty line than before its inception. Strawman post: You are advocating for socialism, and socialism is the opposite of what America stands for. 2) Non-sequitur - Literally means "does not follow". The arguer ignores the content of the orginal post and decides to enter into a new argumentative line that has little resemblance to the topic of the original post. EXAMPLE: Original post: I think that abortion is bad because it kills babies. Non-sequitur post: Malaria kill babies, but I don't see you arguing to stop that disease. 3) Argument by repetition - Ignoring the result of reasoned debate in the past and repeating an old argument as if the matter wasn't settled before. 4) Argument by caps lock - Including CAPITALIZED text in an argument under the IDEA that the reader's have no SKILL in reading comprehension. This is both insulting to one's intelligence as well as it serves to make the poster look angry. 5) Argument by bias - Quoting an unreliable, biased source as gospel and dismissing all other sources as biased because they do not agree with the quoted source. This came up with the National Review on another thread. Unless common ground can be agreed upon for sources, then all threads where argument by bias is introduced will degenerate into meta-arguments (arguments about arguments) on sources. In the end, no real debate over the original topic can occur. 6) Gloating - Pointing out to the other side that they have lost elections, lost support, lost the agrument, etc. or revelling when the other side isn't happy. In my opinion, this behavior crosses the line of TFP completely and should be a reason to warn a poster of bad behavior. 7) Brinksmanship - Every post of a brinksman will walk the fine edge of the rules, getting away with being as insulting as the rules allow without getting banned. This behavior is indicative of bad faith as the poster does not wish to engage his opponent without wearing warpaint. 8) Argument by bifurcation - also known as the "multiple distraction" argument. The idea behind this method is to throw as much crappola against the wall that some of it sticks. When engaged directly, the perpetrator will bring in all kinds of arguments that are barely germaine to the subject. If one of these arguments is ignored or overlooked by the opponent, then the bifurcator declares vistory. "I put up 20 arguements for you, but you missed #13, so I win" 9) Argument from ignorance - This method can be either ignorance of the topic or ignorance of the debate. The idea here is to post without reading on the topic, without being informed on the topic, or without reading the relevent posts upstream in the thread. If one is too lazy to read what was said, then one is insulting the other posters by interjecting their opinions without reading the opinions of others first. Another example is "I have never read a Potter book, but my church tells me it is bad for kids, so I think Potter should not be sold to children in stores" Another example is "I stopped reading your post when you said X because X is wrong." 10) Stereotyping - Also known as the "broad brush" argument. In this form of argumentation, one takes his own prejudices and pre-conceived notions about the opponent and engages those ideas rather than what he sees in front of him. An egregious example of this was seen earler when a drive-by inflammatory flame-bait post was highlighted by one side and pinned on everyone from the other side. "All you lefties think this way, but at least (insert flammer name here) is honest". This argumentation is also very bad for TFP because not only does it insult those on a political side that have yet to weigh in, but it also reinforces the stereotype with one's own side. As a matter of fact, painting the other side with a broad brush (and it is always an ugly color) is a form of hate-speech and has no place in an atmosphere of "mutual respect". Well, that is the first ten I can think of, but there are many more that are possible, and I am not snobby enough to not think that I have used rhetoric in place of debate in the past (and may lapse in the future). Unless everyone comes to TFP Politics with good faith and argues from a position of true respect (rather than walk the tightrope on what is legal), this experiment will fail and all principles involved will be convinced that meaningful debate between both sides is impossible. From there, the gap will widen until eventually there will be nothing between right and left but hate. I don't think anyone wants that. ON EDIT: JumpinJesus.....that was a very good analogy. Kudos. __________________ They shackle our minds as we're left on the cross. When ignornace reigns, life is lost! Zach de la Rocha Last edited by Zodiak; 07-22-2005 at 03:35 PM..