[MLUG - DISCUSSION] Bogus debate tactics

["McNutt, Justin M." <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> > "So what you're saying is <gross exaggeration of what you said>"
> > "That's exactly the kind of thing that a <attack the speaker>"
> > "You obviously don't know what you're talking about"
> > "You're wrong, and furthermore, <insert entirely new topic>"
> 
> My experience is that everyone uses these kinds of tactics, most
likely 
> largely unconsciously.  We tend to notice them in other people only
when 
> we disagree with them.

Not really.  I have plenty of conversations with people that I disagree
with where these tactics are not used.  More below.

> If you are going to sustain conversations with people with whom you 
> fundamentally disagree, you really have to swallow this kind of stuff.

> The only other option is to only speak with people you mostly agree 
> with, but you don't grow very much that way.

No, I surround myself with people who don't feel the need to resort to
these kinds of bullshit debate tactics.  I disagree with them regularly,
sometimes on very fundamental things, but we do seem to each get
something out of the argument.

In fact, in recent times, the discussions have taken an interesting
turn.  I was discussing something with a guy in #stlouis on IRC that
involved science, religion, and politics.  We disagreed, but we were
having a real good time with, "What about this?" and so on.  Then this
other idiot comes in with, "So what you're saying is YOU'D like to
<gross exaggeration>."

BOTH of us attacked him, because he was ruining the discussion.

We wanted to have an intelligent conversation.  It wasn't about
"winning."  It was about *discussing*, and perhaps coming to some
conclusion based on an *intelligent* discussion.  What good is your
conclusion if you used bullshit debate tactics to get there?

I have not found that I need to suffer fools in order to have an
intelligent conversation, and I find the notion that I should suffer
fools only results in the proliferation of fools, rather than
encouraging better behavior.

> Finally, all of these argument tactics can be given a different spin. 
> For example, the first argument could be seen as someone merely trying

> to test the logical consequences of taking your position to its
extreme.

Firstly, taking any argument to its logical extreme is rarely going to
work, so it's almost always a bullshit tactic.  Secondly, even if the
question were meant in a legitimate way, that's not how it's phrased.
Mike doesn't say, "So what if <extreme case>?"  NOOOO.  Mike says, "So
YOU'RE SAYING THAT <extreme case>."  He takes it to the extreme AND
ATTRIBUTES THAT NONSENSE TO YOU.

It's a bullshit tactic meant to discredit rather than present any real
argument.

> (I do happen to know one individual - a faculty member at MU - who 
> doesn't use this kind of polemic.  He is one of the most honorable 
> people I have ever met, but it does come with a bit of a sacrifice -
he 
> tends to see the other person's point of view too easily, even if the 
> other person is being totally disingenuous.)

...and that used to happen to me, until I realized that NOT getting
personal and NOT using bullshit debate tactics doesn't mean that one of
us is going to have to "lose".  I have found that, after a very long,
dignified, cordial, and detailed discussion that two sane, POLITE people
can still draw different conclusions.  You friend needs to learn to
stand his intellectual ground without making it personal.  Capitulating
too easily is the opposite extreme of the same problem.

Keep in mind, I never said that Mike isn't intelligent.  If you choose
to wade through his nonsense, sometimes he makes some good points, and
just because he's an ass doesn't make him wrong.  I have just found that
my life is a lot easier and less stressful if I ignore him.  If that
comes at the price of having to wait a little longer until someone more
polite can make the same point, well I can live with that.  I don't need
the stress of putting up with his crap.  I don't watch Fox News for the
same reason.  I don't care how many gold doubloons are in there.  I'm
not wading through two tons of shit to get them.  It's not worth it.

It's not his point of view, it's his delivery.

--J

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion