h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I am constantly surprised in on-line debate forums when I see the number of posts that insult and ridicule those with whom they disagree. We debaters need to learn from diplomats. If we expect those with whom we debate to learn anything, we must present our arguments in an acceptable (to them) way.

If we put our point(s) in a way which ridicules and scorns those who disagree, then those who disagree are unlikely to listen. Would *you* in their position? I wouldn't.

Inside our own heads, even the most reasonable of us maintain the belief that we are right, and those who disagree with us are wrong. And I suspect this is just how things ought to be. But in our dealings with others, we achieve much more if we treat their opinions and beliefs with (outward) courtesy and respect.

If you are out to *force* the world to your point of view, go for it. Be as offensive as you like. No-one will listen to you. ... No-one will like you either. You will achieve nothing. Even if you're right, and the rest of the world is wrong. People will prefer being wrong over being publicly humiliated, *every* time.

But if you hope to teach and to learn, give your debating 'partners' a face-saving way to accept what you say. Help them to avoid the humiliation or shame of having to 'back down'. Diplomats understand this, if debaters don't. Courtesy and respect toward your opponents (and their beliefs and opinions) is the Unknown Rule of Debate.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

*applause*

Well said!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

'Ad hominem' -- attacking the arguer instead of the argument

The number one sin in my debating society at uni.

Also number one on the late Carl Sagan's list of common fallacies of logic and rhetoric.

The reasonable proceed as if their assumptions regarding reality are more or less accurate. The unreasonable as if theirs were unimpeachable fact.

Scientific skepticism vs. dogmatism -- It seems in this world there is not enough of the one and far too much of the latter..

I think it's officially one of the Open Debating Society's rules, but it does seem that many people ignore it.

It isn't *only* the ad hominem attacks that I'm talking about. It's the abusive treatment of the subject(s) of discussion as well. As a poor debater, I could attack you, and say offensive things about you, but I can also attack that for which you argue. I can ridicule your chosen religion, football team, political party, and so on.

The reason for my original post is a debater who hated the subject of the argument so much that he/she simply couldn't mention it without taking the opportunity to shower it with ridicule and abuse. Thus a reasoned discussion was next to impossible. When challenged, he/she complained that I was trying to prevent criticism of the subject of our discussion.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Hmm, I wonder which thread this refers to

*innocent, naive and questioning look*

I don't know *what* you mean,



Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

<>

I re-read your posting again, and I have to politely disagree with this paragraph

Actually 'inside my own head' I think am right sometimes, but can be easily led into other avenues that seem more correct ..in other words, I am the car salesman dream In fact sometimes in RL, in verbal conversation...I very often don't have the leisure to think out what I'm going to say and can be distracted by shiney words...Thus forgetting what my point was until way after the event.....

But, that's just me...

In short what I was trying to say via the scenic route, was erm.. those that are talented with words can easily give someone like me the slip in proving their 'right undoubtable point' and miss what I was actually trying to express and therefore missing what could have been valuable (might not have been, but you never know) input....

Did that make sense? *chuckles*

PC:

MV:

OK, it's a fair cop! I should've said something like "Inside our own heads, we *often* believe that we are right..."

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

maniacal vixen:

"... Thus forgetting what my point was until way after the event....."

Oooh, I hate it when that happens. Especially when about 10 minutes after the conversation you think of a really great reply, and you almost want to go find the person and say it to them but you know you shouldn't.

"In short what I was trying to say via the scenic route, was erm.. those that are talented with words can easily give someone like me the slip in proving their 'right undoubtable point' and miss what I was actually trying to express and therefore missing what could have been valuable (might not have been, but you never know) input...."

You shouldn't let people get away with this. Very often using shiny words is a thing people do unconsciously (is that shiny enough?) to hide the fact that they don't really understand what they're talking about. Or they're bookish types, students or academics, who probably don't even realise they're doing it and would prefer to have explained themselves more clearly. In either case, you should ask people (politely of course) to explain themselves more clearly. Either you'll get a clear explanation, which a lot of people who didn't have the courage to speak up will appreciate as well as you, or you'll get bluster, and then you know they don't really understand it themselves.

Equating ridicule of a subject with criticism of it is stupidly childish, is it not?

Abuse of the subject often implies insult to the proponent of that subject

For example, if I say , which you support, is stupid, am I not suggesting you are stupid by association?

PC, Your honoured opponent appears to have equated insult with criticism, thereby straying from topic, thus violating 'non sequiter'

Polite questions based on the very rule(s) of debate violated is an effective technique, and at least may provide entertainment

Using the example: 'Please can you explain exactly how the alleged stupidity of is relevant to the discussion?' -- would be a start. The typical response may consist of additional fallacies, such as appeal to authority, which in turn can be politely questioned...

However

Is it not futile attempting a reasoned discussion with the unreasonable?



Some argue to gratify their egos, to rationalize their acts, and to conceal their fears; a few debate to solve problems, unveil truths and explore the real


~~~~~~~~~~~~

'shiny words'

I watched a brilliant 'performance' by a talented young lady who could spiel nonsense that not only 'sounded' as if it made sense, but was phrased in such a way that those to whom she talked nodded and made other indications of agreement. When asked, they were unable to repeat, or explain, what she had just said, and -ishly admitted they had not understood after all.

But they're the ones who need me most. The reasonable have already considered the matter - whatever it is - and agree with me! More seriously: if it isn't futile, it's certainly frustrating.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

"The reasonable have already considered the matter - whatever it is - and agree with me!"

"The reasonable have already considered the matter - whatever it is - and agree with me!"

I know that was meant as a joke but it does rather get to the heart of the matter. You disagree so therefore by definition you are unreasonable. Consequently I will treat you as unreasonable.

Wanders away to think about this...

F

Sorry, was that a bit obscure?

Since I consider all my beliefs to be logically thought out (if not necessarily by me ) when I come across someone who holds opposing beliefs then my automatic reaction is:
a) they are wrong - because
b) they haven't thought this through - and therefore
c) they are stupid

Which is perhaps a bit Homer Simpson-ish

If that is my reaction then I shouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be someone else's reaction too.

So your joke about reasonable people agreeing with you and its logical converse that people who disagree are by definition unreasonable is an important point. Two genuinely 'reasonable' people who disagree should be able to debate the situation until one, or possibly both, adjusts their viewpoint so they reach agreement. In real life this is hard to achieve, particularly on emotive issues. So much so in fact that it's hard to see how we manage to get along at all. An unreasonable person is simply not going to accept the other person's view and is likely to follow steps a,b and c and conclude (and possibly behave as though) their antagonist is stupid.

Just a thought.

F

I quite agree, I think. Which is why my original note said "Inside our own heads, even the most reasonable of us maintain the belief that we are right, and those who disagree with us are wrong. And I suspect this is just how things ought to be. But in our dealings with others, we achieve much more if we treat their opinions and beliefs with (outward) courtesy and respect."

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Exactly.

And I'm glad we agree because I'd hate to think of you as stupid.

F