Clues you are debating well on RIU.

cannabineer said:

I would say that logic is indispensable and the other two optional. After all, debate is not about establishing what is true but what wins the argument.

Click to expand...

I would argue debate is about convincing the opposing argument or audience that your information is more accurate and conceivable. In many cases it is not about winning or losing, but have the opposing, open minded, side concede that your argument is more plausible.

Once one side is only out to win, it no longer becomes a debate, because the person(s) is(are) no longer willing to compromise.

The truth is the truth, and facts are facts, a debate handles the minutia of interpretation of the details.

see4 said:

I would argue debate is about convincing the opposing argument or audience that your information is more accurate and conceivable. In many cases it is not about winning or losing, but have the opposing, open minded, side concede that your argument is more plausible.

Once one side is only out to win, it no longer becomes a debate, because the person(s) is(are) no longer willing to compromise.

The truth is the truth, and facts are facts, a debate handles the minutia of interpretation of the details.

Click to expand...

I suggest you are confusing discussion with debate.
Debate is indeed about convincing, and any rhetorical trick is fair game unless/until the opponent penetrates it and launches an effective counterargument. Whoever controls perception controls the debate.

Discussion otoh is a more benign and useful pursuit imo, assuming honest participants. I would never assume that in a debate - by its nature.

cannabineer said:

I suggest you are confusing discussion with debate.
Debate is indeed about convincing, and any rhetorical trick is fair game unless/until the opponent penetrates it and launches an effective counterargument. Whoever controls perception controls the debate.

Discussion otoh is a more benign and useful pursuit imo, assuming honest participants. I would never assume that in a debate - by its nature.

Click to expand...

I can concede to that.

cannabineer said:

I would say that logic is indispensable and the other two optional. After all, debate is not about establishing what is true but what wins the argument.

Click to expand...

Debate, is persuasion and has little to do with right or wrong. All of these 3 textbook methods are utilized intentionally or are never known but, they are helpful to see when you are the one being convinced. It is academic and something you will notice and/or can use. How it is used can be telling, I just share what I find interesting here.

The philosophical, or issues without a factual precedent you end up in places where these are the only systems left right? Logic by its own determination controls the debate and determines the truth in the end. The control of logic can make the fears real or the truth "customizable." In a very real way linear thought alone makes things like statistics seem releveant when they are not.

I would suggest that the philosophical issues are the ones with incomplete factual support. No factual support leads one into pure abstract cloud cuckoo land. Jmo.

Though that last pair of words might be calling cadence

cannabineer said:

I would suggest that the philosophical issues are the ones with incomplete factual support. No factual support leads one into pure abstract cloud cuckoo land. Jmo.

Though that last pair of words might be calling cadence

Click to expand...

Abstract exists, and the facts don't in ethics and such. Cuckoo land is suggesting that observable truth is simply sane.

burgertime2010 said:

Abstract exists, and the facts don't in ethics and such. Cuckoo land is suggesting that observable truth is simply sane.

Click to expand...

If it's observable, it may qualify as fact, but truth? Doesn't that beg the question?

Can you conceive of an ethical issue with zero factual support? I cannot.

I appreciate your opinion and the hole that always begs for doubt is a rational one. What religion, faith, or divinity we have left we give to logic and science, todays holiest minds with no wisdom,The conversation is alive and well.

cannabineer said:

If it's observable, it may qualify as fact, but truth? Doesn't that beg the question?

Can you conceive of an ethical issue with zero factual support? I cannot.

Click to expand...

The truth in an ethical issue is right or wrong...religion has thousands of them. Truth is an ethic that is widely shared.....it is unique in that way.

burgertime2010 said:

The truth in an ethical issue is right or wrong...religion has thousands of them. Truth is an ethic that is widely shared.....it is unique in that way.

Click to expand...

I consider ethical and moral questions separable from those of religion and faith.
It is a belief of mine that fact is attainable, but truth is always just out of reach ... and the asymptote is steep.

I am also certain that our science, as it is, is incomplete. However we are constrained to build it within its methods and limitations. It is restricted to observables and facts and theoretical frameworks of pattern deduced therefrom. I don't at this time think that only the rational and material are real. I have some hope however that what we now term "supernatural" can be brought into a unified and internally/externally consistent framework. That might not happen for millennia however; both biologically and philosophically we are an infant species.

I just think that we need to continue out of infancy intellectually. These exercises may seem pointless or arcane but the mind is fertile and understanding is limited.

burgertime2010 said:

I just think that we need to continue out of infancy intellectually. These exercises may seem pointless or arcane but the mind is fertile and understanding is limited.

Click to expand...

I cannot agree with that statement more. The factor that contributes most to this (imo) is the degradation of critical thought in today's youth. Take a look around and see what changes have occurred, some significant, others not so much, when looked at individually. It is truly a perfect example of " the whole is greater than the sum of the parts".

By slowly changing the way the population thinks over time, it becomes more and more effortless to steer the masses in what ever direction that is needed. They are creating a society of people who are incapable of critical thought and/or just a general lack of concern, in which case, either will suffice for the needs of controlling the population.

The average age of a farmer in the US. is 62 and very few if any new farmers coming up through the ranks. The same can be said for the construction industry. I know a lot of union electricians and pipe fitters and they say they are having to go out and beg to get youngsters into the trades.

If it isn't electronic, touch screen and comfortable inside, most of today's and all of tomorrow's youth will be but slaves to the system, totally stripped of the capability to be self reliant. That is when shit is going to go off the deep end, and I hope I am watching from somewhere with all the tokers that have gone on before, saying, damn, glad I am already gone, you gonna hit that or what

All BS aside, sad are the days that lay ahead the next generation. All by design, and there in lies the real definition of terror.

Peace

Asmallvoice

It is not simply the youth as I see it, we have all been stung somehow and as I/we address the need for critical thought we are taking a stand. Merely by breaking down the ways of persuasion I hope the thread is a learning experience and stronger minds make any controlling of them a problem. Part of critical thought is imaginary and illogical, it is of little value claim many and go onward trapped inside the paradigm of groupthink. On the contrary, I am a sculptor. the paradigm I can describe to you is abstraction as the tool. I am to control every aspect of the creative process. The value of solving problems, invention, and hands on spatial working have a very real need IMO. This is part of the shift if we watch it happen and do nothing. Art, philosophy, and music are to keep us limber in thought. It is only relevant when we need ourselves to engineer a solution out.

Flaming Pie said:

I enjoy many of the threads in politics.

I generally continue to enjoy them until I actually post, which kills many a thread. That or when the thread devolves in to a massive key party.

I feel like I have witnessed something unnatural and must slowly back out of the room

Click to expand...

none of these kids knows what a Key Party is.

Down to the canal we had Lock Parties.

I know what a key party, pretty nasty......a lil confused as to what's meant by a thread breaking down into one....maybe as in many off topic offshoots from original topic?

Dr Kynes said:

none of these kids knows what a Key Party is.

Click to expand...

i do, but i also read playboy for the articles.

burgertime2010 said:

1. opponent(s) disappear as a logical argument is asked of them 2. subject changing to vaguely related idea or personal attack to draw focus 3.Impossible standards for proof are set....any emotive or observational reality is discarded. 4. Increase in vocabulary to make a simple point 5. Maintaining order in the thread is your job suddenly. 6. You ask questions a lot. 7. stayin classy.

Click to expand...

8. Buck calls you a racist.
9. Cheezy chimes in with, "yeah, what Buck said"
10 C4 clings to his bulbous erection, and tells you how great he is.

desert dude said:

8. Buck calls you a racist.
9. Cheezy chimes in with, "yeah, what Buck said"
10 C4 clings to his bulbous erection, and tells you how great he is.

Click to expand...

Thanks for putting us back on track....as gross as possible.