Stupid debates

Andrew4Handel

It seems to me as if a lot of debates in the public arena are stupid. Such as debates on the media (including social media) Youtube debates, television debates and so on.

A lot of these arguments are quite shallow and fall down with many logical fallacies.

For example in a religion versus atheism debate the religious person will make an argument such as about the implausibility of reality, probabilities and so on, or first cause arguments. These arguments can be quite challenging, however, arguments for gods are not the same as arguments for a particular religion.

I don't know what you call this move (syllogism fallacy?) but it is quite common, where someone believes that challenging or defeating someone else's argument strengthens his or her own position. All sides of debates use it.

Possibly all logical fallcies appear in your average debate cross section.

Another problem is the lack of concern about challenging basic premises/axioms/defintions. for example in a conflict like the Arab/Israeli one they don't seem to discuss the validity of concepts such as nations and land ownership or rights, or borders, inheritance and so on.

How can we enforce logic in debates and promote deeper analysis?

noAxioms

The purpose of debate is to start with opposing conclusions and argue from there.
Contrast this with a quest for a better truth which does not have a specific goal that must be met.

Andrew4Handel

↪noAxioms

If something is going to call itself a debate then logical fallacies should be exposed and avoided.

For example it is quite possible that someone could argue that the moon was made of cheese without making a logical fallacy and someone could make a logically fallacious argument defending the contrary position. I agree that debate does not need to concern the truth. The truth of premises can be discovered empirically ot not.

I think a lot of the time logical fallcies are deliberately employed or deliberately neglected because of the force of the argument containing the fallacy.

I don't think cold, hard, clear argument has emotional appeal.

noAxioms

If something is going to call itself a debate then logical fallacies should be exposed and avoided. — Andrew4Handel

Both in debate and in quest for truth, yes. But in the third class (which doesn't particularly belong in the public arena), the goal is neither truth nor to win a debate, but to support whatever beliefs meet one's own goals. In that arena, logical fallacies are an indispensable tool, and the opposing view is eliminated via negative reinforcement of one sort or another.

For example it is quite possible that someone could argue that the moon was made of cheese without making a logical fallacy and someone could make a logically fallacious argument defending the contrary position.

First person: I assert the moon is made of cheese. Second person: I assert that rock moons are greyish. The moon is greyish, therefore it is rock, not cheese.

The former is incredibly weak, but not fallacious. The second is fallacious. Is that what you mean? That wasn't exactly subtle, but yes, debates often proceed on lines like that, with a little salesmanship to make it sound convincing.

I don't think cold, hard, clear argument has emotional appeal.

Sometimes it does, especially if the assumptions are falsifiable.

noAxioms

Don't forget "The moon is made of cheese. I will execute anybody who disagrees". Eventually the human race breeds children with an intuitive belief in a cheese moon.

You'd be amazed at the success of that form of argument.

Andrew4Handel

↪noAxioms

I think a lot hangs on valid arguments. If empirical facts are available they obviously need to inform premises. But also false conclusions should be weeded out.

I do think your scenario seems to reflect reality. It would be interesting to see what a world with minimum logical fallacies and based on strong evidence bases would be like.

VagabondSpectre

↪Andrew4Handel

You've got to join the debates if you want to move them along (and can see how to do so).

I know what you're saying though. I consume a lot of social media almost as a matter of study and I very often see social figures butchering their own positions by mustering primarily frail and fallacious arguments to support them

In the anti-SJW crowd for instance, there is a real issue with sloppy moral reasoning; they primarily use intuitive moral positions (and rejections of moral positions) as end-points and then they haphazardly create moral arguments on the spot in order to justify them. Even while I agree with many of their intuitive assessments, they tend to do such a poor job explaining why that they end up running in circles...

Politicians on the other hand... Their debates have additional rules they must take into account: they try their best to not say anything at all vaguely controversial for fear of negative public reactions. The bigger the politicians, the more they will speak in vagaries and beat around the bushes we want explored. Cannot really blame them though; their success (or failure) is as much a reflection on us as it is them.

Janus

I don't know what you call this move (syllogism fallacy?) — Andrew4Handel

It's called 'sophism'.

Terrapin Station

How can we enforce logic in debates and promote deeper analysis? — Andrew4Handel

Focus on requiring criticial thinking, logic and philosophy courses for high school and university undergraduate students.

mcdoodle

↪Andrew4Handel

Argument and emotional appeal are, together, rhetoric. The judicious combination of each element is what's required. You will need to understand both the logic of any argument, and what emotionally underlies any given position. Political campaigning is a good education. If salutary!

Andrew4Handel

Wikipedia gives a straightforward example of the fallacy of denying the antecedent.

"If you are a ski instructor, then you have a job.
You are not a ski instructor
Therefore, you have no job"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

This is the kind of conclusion I see happening in popular debates. The conclusions just don't follow from the premises.

It might be something like "Low taxation encourages inventiveness" "You want Higher taxation" "therefore you oppose inventiveness"... I could do an extensive discourse analysis of a debate but I feel they are intended to be polarising like this.

Andrew4Handel

↪mcdoodle

What I find frustrating is when someone gives the impression of having scored a point or having supported their argument because they have inserted a false premise or hidden premise but the argument has emotional force anyway.

It can be hard work trying to explain how a conclusion doesn't follow from a premise and during that process you have lost peoples interest.

Someone might say "Most terrorists are Muslims so they are bad" He's a Muslim" "Therefore he's bad" and say that within the background of current problems. I Might even succumb to that myself. Then it is hard to overcome the emotions. With such emotive topics the emotion certainly makes cool headed logic hard.

The problem I have with religion is that I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. So that can make for frustrating debates and anger. I suppose both sides of a debate have to abide by the rules and in a lot of debates one or both sides are not being reasonable enought to reason with. I try and reason with Christian extremists in my family but it is like talking to a brick wall.

Noblosh

How can we enforce logic in debates and promote deeper analysis? — Andrew4Handel

Ban those that don't meet the criteria from participating in the debates. But not even this forum does that.
For the so-called realistic solution, popularize proper argumentation in a way people will feel obliged to perform. That is, make logic and deep thoughts cool and trendy.

Terrapin Station

Ban those that don't meet the criteria from participating in the debates. But not even this forum does that.
For the so-called realistic solution, popularize proper argumentation in a way people will feel obliged to perform. That is, make logic and deep thoughts cool. — Noblosh

I didn't think he was talking just about this board . . . oy, the arrogance if he was. Most people on this board have trouble with basic reading comprehension and basic critical thinking skills--regardless of how many words they type or how many intermediate philosophy vocabulary words they're kind of familiar with--and thus decorate their sentences with, and that's all it is.

Noblosh

↪Terrapin Station

I didn't think that either, I was just pointing the very irony of asking how to end stupid debates on a board that doesn't concern itself with promoting proper debates.

Terrapin Station

↪Noblosh

Right. I can agree with that.

Agustino

Ban those that don't meet the criteria from participating in the debates. But not even this forum does that. — Noblosh

Right. I can agree with that. — Terrapin Station

The only moderation I'm in favor of is the prohibition of flooding. <shrugs> — Terrapin Station

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

Never a more apt moment to repeat: "Most people on this board have trouble with basic reading comprehension and basic critical thinking skills" haha

Well, and that one might simply be a case of intellectual dishonesty. What happened to the post I was actually agreeing with?

Agustino

"Most people on this board have trouble with basic reading comprehension and basic critical thinking skills" haha — Terrapin Station

Listen, how about we both take a reading comprehension and critical thinking test, and see who scores better. You might be surprised. I'll let you choose the test. And even in my non-native language I'll take you to school.

Terrapin Station

Listen, how about we both take a reading comprehension and critical thinking test, and see who scores better. You might be surprised. I'll let you choose the test. And even in my non-native language I'll take you to school. — Agustino

Modest, too. How unusual.

Agustino

Modest, too. How unusual. — Terrapin Station

I'm very modest, you seem to have exalted yourself in the position to judge my reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, so let's see if you deserve to be in that position to begin with.

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

How about simply saying what happened to the post that I was actually agreeing to?

Agustino

How about simply saying what happened to the post that I was actually agreeing to? — Terrapin Station

What's the problem mate, you can't see properly or?

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

What's the post above the one where I wrote "Right. I can agree with that"?

Agustino

What's the post above the one where I wrote "Right. I can agree with that." — Terrapin Station

Why are you asking me?! Can't you see for yourself? You require eye glasses or what?

Terrapin Station

Why are you asking me?! — Agustino

Because you thought it was something it wasn't (well, or at least you trolled as if it was)

Agustino

Because you thought it was something it wasn't (well, or at least you trolled as if it was) — Terrapin Station

What makes you think that?

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

Right. So I guess you are just trolling. Really bored or something?

Agustino

Right. So I guess you are just trolling. Really bored or something? — Terrapin Station

:-} That post you're referring was simply a clarification of the previous post, explaining that it isn't as you thought it was. Then after that clarification, you agreed with it. Your attempts at being disingenuous aren't working very well.

Terrapin Station

↪Agustino

So you didn't understand that I was agreeing with the post immediately prior to me typing "Right. I can agree with that"?

Agustino

So you didn't understand that I was agreeing with the post immediately prior to me typing "Right. I can agree with that"? — Terrapin Station

Agreeing with what? That post was a clarification and nothing more. What's there to agree with?! >:O

Stupid debates

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions