I'm really tempted to just start doing this, even though that's not usually my style. I'm just going to start everything with "For fuck's sake...are you kidding me?" etc.

If they're effective, they're legitimate. Usually they are irrelevant but ultimately it's a matter of taste.

If they're effective, they're legitimate. Usually they are irrelevant but ultimately it's a matter of taste. — Zophie

For fuck's sake...

If done well, I think they can be very effective. But as noted, most of the time they aren't a good idea. There are degrees of insults too.

If done well, I think they can be very effective. But as noted, most of the time they aren't a good idea. There are degrees of insults too. — Manuel

Jesus Christ, this is bad.

Relax. I'm pretty sure anyone who has graduated preschool knows that insults are pointless.

I'm not expert on "debate" and I'm not even sure I really know what it means. I once saw a few seconds of a moderated high school debate on TV, using rules. I was flummoxed. I always thought debate was logical argument. Boy was I wrong.

So, insults may be legitimate debate tactics; I'm not sure. But insults are legitimate logical argument tactic in the the same way that shucking a gun and shooting your opponent in the face is a legitimate logical argument tactic.

'm not expert on "debate" and I'm not even sure I really know what it means. I once saw a few seconds of a moderated high school debate on TV, using rules. I was flummoxed. I always thought debate was logical argument. Boy was I wrong. — James Riley

I don't really know either, but this forum isn't it. I would say having a good faith dialectic with someone is what should be happening (thesis-antithesis-synthesis), considering things that haven't been considered. I don't expect a "winner" but what can happen is that each side finds ways to strengthen their arguments and consider things otherwise not considered. However, often it just ends up with interjections, mean-spirited sarcasm, and insults. And thus, you are correct here:

So, insults may be legitimate debate tactics. But insults are legitimate logical argument tactic in the the same way that shucking a gun and shooting your opponent in the face is a legitimate logical argument tactic. — James Riley

Yep.

For fuck's sake... — schopenhauer1

You sir are as sleezy a hunk of scum as I've ever seen at the water's edge at low tide.

I refrain from ever insulting people during discussion because I find insults unnecessary, but I don't mind if people insult me.

My view would be that insults are fine as long as the person insulting also answers the objections against their position, and doesn't merely insult while ignoring the arguments of the other party.

I'd say one can just ignore the insults.

Is unnecessarily poisoning the well a legitimate argument tactic? — schopenhauer1

It can be successful toward gaining approval of others who view an argument negatively but can never establish the ground for an alternative view.

I struggle with myself over this difference all the time because the spirit of punishment is strong. Disagreement is not only about weighing propositions as propositions. I lose it sometimes. It is very rare when that was appropriate. Never in a dialectic.

I lose it sometimes. It is very rare when that was appropriate. Never in a dialectic. — Valentinus

But people do it as part of their argument style. If one person does it, that seems asymmetrical and unfair because the argument seems to have more weight when smarmy sarcasm is added. It seems a rhetorical trick, and like you said.. it is really a rhetorical ploy to::

gaining approval of others who view an argument negatively — Valentinus

But isn't that sort of cowardly? If both people employ it, it just becomes vitriolic argumentation. So it's either asymmetrical or too personal for calm argumentation.

A drop of wine in a vat of sewage is still sewage. A drop of sewage in a vat of wine is also sewage. An analogy for a perfect world, one which we do not live in. People like being spoken to in their own language and level, for some reason makes the speaker seem as if they were more honest by showing negative or "genuine" human emotion. A folly undubutably but a common one. Humor or even shock can override the minds natural defenses and logical senses. Life and thinking can often be unpleasant and hard, so when something is introduced that can if even for a moment alleviate this burden, it is generally well received. More of a war tactic though. You make more mistakes when you're angry and not in a state of calm levelheadedness. Then again, iron sharpens iron. If there's no truth to the statement what merit does it hold? That said, as a prominent and influential figure one should be hesitant about lowering the social bar as it were even further. Of course, this is precisely what some set out to do.

As someone I admire used to say "sounds like a whole lot of kitsch to me."

Generally I don't like them because they've become the go-to weapon for the ignorant when one is losing a logical or moral argument to save face or perhaps continue their misdeeds and corruption of others. The people like what they like however..

There is a quality Socrates exemplified while he bobbed and weaved with those who assigned malign motives to his process. He never answered in kind. The method looks easy until one holds themselves to the rules. I am not an advanced student of the art.

More of a war tactic though. You make more mistakes when you're angry and not in a state of calm levelheadedness. Then again, iron sharpens iron. If there's no truth to the statement what merit does it hold? That said, as a prominent and influential figure one should be hesitant about lowering the social bar as it were even further. Of course, this is precisely what some set out to do. — Outlander

Right, but how is this "legitimate". If we were to have a fair boxing match and I throw sand in your eye before the match, how is that a legitimate fight?

There is a quality Socrates exemplified while he bobbed and weaved with those who assigned malign motives to his process. He never answered in kind. The method looks easy until one holds themselves to the rules. I am not an advanced student of the art. — Valentinus

Fair enough, so the burden lies in silently taking the insults... is your answer mainly? What does it say about the insulter though? We keep addressing the insulted.

Is this sand available only to you? Have you become resistant to such sand? If either of these are true you have a clear advantage. I wouldn't participate in a setting I don't find inherently legitimate which implies there are rules in place. The difference between a real debate of importance and a boxing match is that the latter is purely for entertainment and ticket sales while the former is what allows/determines/or dictates something far greater. One would hope at least.

Is this sand available only to you? Have you become resistant to such sand? If either of these are true you have a clear advantage. — Outlander

This implies that it would be okay to throw the sand if people can do it.. Shouldn't they both just not throw the sand?

The difference between a real debate of importance and a boxing match is that the latter is purely for entertainment and ticket sales while the former is what allows/determines/or dictates something far greater. One would hope at least. — Outlander

I meant the boxing match as something of importance.. We can make the analogy to whatever suits your sense of important.

This implies that it would be okay to throw the sand if people can do it.. Shouldn't they both just not throw the sand? — schopenhauer1

People should "just not" do lots of things. This is why wars are fought. :grin:

I meant the boxing match as something of importance.. We can make the analogy to whatever suits your sense of important. — schopenhauer1

Humor and a sense of projected strength is favored by many. It's disheartening to acknowledge and think about how genuine logic and morality can be defeated and hold less ground in the minds of many. So they don't. :grin:

I suppose the counterargument would be "if candidate B is so smart, correct, confident, and faithful in how his beliefs would hold in true chaos, yet he mentally and emotionally retreats under controlled scrutiny, what torch or rather for how long would he be able to hold it against the views of candidate A", etc.

I suppose the counterargument would be "if candidate B is so smart, correct, confident, and faithful in how his beliefs would hold in true chaos, yet he mentally and emotionally retreats under controlled scrutiny, what torch or rather for how long would he be able to hold it against the views of candidate A", etc. — Outlander

You'd have to translate that a bit.

People like a guy who can take a punch. Or who don't abandon their beliefs under pressure, especially low pressure.

Shallow as this may be, people view leaders as extensions of themselves subconsciously and without knowing it, so, the stronger your leader is perceived to be, the stronger or perhaps more confident you as a follower or whatever you want to call yourself will be. It's all subconscious. I'd even call it nonsense. Yet that would make me the majority. It's how the world works.

Edit: that would make me the minority, sorry.

People like a guy who can take a punch. Or who don't abandon their beliefs under pressure, especially low pressure. — Outlander

So then for example, you would say if someone was debating policy and leadership quality, but your interlocutor, let's call him "Trump" starts talking about how your a bumbling idiot with kids who take cocaine and are of low character.. this is legitimate argumentation? I don't get your machismo, "who can take a punch". The punch is the argument, the throwing sand in your eyes is the illegitimate part.

Fair enough, so the burden lies in silently taking the insults... is your answer mainly? What does it say about the insulter though? We keep addressing the insulted. — schopenhauer1

I don't recommend "silently taking insults." What Socrates did was turn them into propositions the interlocutor either owned or disowned.

I don't recommend "silently taking insults." What Socrates did was turn them into propositions the interlocutor either owned or disowned. — Valentinus

Fair enough. But it's harder when the insults are more like mock indignation or exasperation..

Things like.. "For fuck's sake", "Jesus Christ", "Crikey", blah blah

If it was easy, everybody would be doing it.

Yeah people like to wrap their arguments in turds. Makes it harder to uncover the bad content inside.

One aspect of DEBATE--at least as I understand it--is that is a contest in front of an audience who may vote on the question at hand, validating one or the other team's position and presentation. Or, judges may rate the debaters (preparation, delivery, content, etc.).

No, TPF is not a debating club. There's no "audience" per se; everybody is a participant. There are no judges. There is no formal structure for a debate. What we have here are discussions--or sometimes multiple monologues.

Insults? Not an acceptable method in debate. Sarcasm? Yes, but not casually sliding into ridicule.

Are insults OK here? They seem to be, as long as they don't trigger moderator action. Ridicule? Sarcasm? Seems to be fairly common here.

What should you do?

You have been presenting an immensely consistent anti-natalist argument with infinite patience for years, and you haven't resorted to ranting, raving, insult, or even (as far as I know) cutting sarcasm.

You could, possibly? Perhaps? Maybe? talk about something else. Granted, reproduction perpetuates suffering, but that does not seem to be a remotely effective reason to cease reproducing. For one thing, reproduction also perpetuates joy. Joy and suffering side by side, and much else.

Anti-natalism is a lost cause. There are almost 8 billion people most of who have or will attempt to reproduce, suffering and all. Given our pathetic collective response to global warming, everything may be a lost cause.

Maybe we should all just shut up and go plant trees.

I've backed lost causes too. Even If they were morally and intellectually superior, they just didn't appeal to most people. C'est la vie.

I am not on board with classifying people in this way.

The abusive type of ad hominem argument can be defined in terms of the concept of insult. Personal integrity, moral character, psychological health, or intellectual ability are classic examples.

I'm wondering how insults that are anything less than this can be taken seriously.

I am not on board with classifying people in this way. — Valentinus

Not sure what you mean.. I'm just saying try not to wrap your content in insult. Just make the argument.