It’s come up several times recently (no LinkMaster 5000, sorry) that the nature of debate is X, so why are you doing Y?
The complaint is usually that opinion is not appropriate for Great Debates, take it to IMHO.
To which I reply: “bollocks!” (I’m into “bollocks!” lately. )
Debate is not a science. The topics that we debate here (generally) are not scientifically provable or disprovable (the existance of God, how to save the world from itself, stuff like that). Even the matters which do have some science to them are not pure science, in the sense that we can prove the absolute truth or falsity of a given idea.
So what is Great Debates? ** IMHO with cites. **
We offer our facts, supported by cites, and then we * debate* our * opinion * of what the facts * mean * .
Example fact: George Bush mangles the English language on a fairly regular basis.
Debate ensues, with more arguments, more cites, etc.
It is almost impossible to have a debate without an opinion. Things which are matters of pure, provable fact just aren’t debatable! (unless, of course, you are a creationist. :D)
So let’s stop bashing each other for speaking our opinions in Great Debates, since opinions are what we’re debating, and confine ourselves to bashing folks for the following:
Opinions identified as irrefutable facts.
Opinions offered *without * any kind of cite, backup, proof, or supporting argument. (AKA opinions pulled out of one’s ass.)
I’ve generally thought of our debates in the terms you’ve outlined. But of late, there has been quite a bit of drive-by debating. It goes like this:
God doesn’t exist. Bada bing. Live with it.
How that even remotely approaches being within either the spirit or the letter of debate is beyond me, but then so, I suppose, are many other things. That’s one of the reasons I’ve been spending most of my time these days in other forums. Besides, I have to tend the Melancholy tips thread. It has become my morning ritual.
I agree with your general point. And the fact that, in your example, you’ve confused a link to an Amazon.com blurb about an anti-Bush work with a “cite for the fact” only shows one more reason why there is so much confusion about these matters.
Literally nothing could be further from the truth. Not only is debating a science (and I have a Bahelor of Sience in Literature, Writing, and Rhetoric to prove it.) Debating practically is science. The whole of scientific advancement the days is founded on the concept of peer review and the scientific method, whereing others are invited to rigourously attack your findings and methods in order to see if they have merit.
Aristotle, who’s about as good a candidate for the father of science as you’re likely to find thinks rhetoric is a science, and basically wrote the manual on how to do it scientifically.
What you say is not scientifically provable is not necesarily so. Just because a thing hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean that it cannot be.
As for absolute truth and falsity, the idea that something has to be one or the other in order to be science is ludicrous. Nothing ouside of pure mathematics is “absolutely provable.” What we have are testable hypotheses. After passing testing they may acquire the weight of theory. Several theories may fit the fact, and we again have logical criteria to discern which of several competing theories best fits the facts.
We go with that one until somebody demonstrates something is better. Absolute truth or falsity has nothing to do with debatability. Almost anything is possible, and almost nothing is disprovable. To debate successfully you don’t show that your theory is “absolute truth,” you show that it better fits the circumstances and is thus superior.
If I show you a cite that the world is flat, that doesn’t make it a fact. I can pretty much find a cite supporting just about anything, thanks to google. There are good cites and there are bad cites, but they are not necessarily recquired to win a debate, and a cite also needs to stand or fail on it’s own merits.
Good logic is better than a bad cite every time.
and, you provide me an example:
First off, your confusing facts and opinions. Your “Example fact” isn’t a fact at all. It’s an opinion.
What your cite actually shows is that Bush has made numerous speaking mistakes in the past, which have been compiled humorously. Everybody makes speaking mistakes. When you are in the public eye they are more accessible. “mangling” is an imprecise slangish term which doesn’t lend itself to describing a fact, but I take it to mean that Bush is more prone to errors than average.
The simple fact that Bush’s mistakes have been collected for scrutiny does not in fact prove that he is more prone to making them than anybody else.
See what I mean? It ain’t a fact, and if it ain’t a fact than any opinions argued from it are simply opinions based on opinions and might as well be on the Jerry Springer Show.
Yes they are. I seem to recall a debate about something called “cold fusion.” Debate is part of the process of determining what is fact, what is provable, or what is the best answer to a conundrum from a logical and rational perspective.
You mean like the one you used as your “example fact?”
So is it ok to bash you now?
An opinion doesn’t need a cite and is by definition unproveable as it’s only a “favored possibility.” A supporting argument would be redundant.
If I say “I think Coconut ice cream is best!”
What kind of cite is needed?
How am I supposed to prove this?
What kind of supporting argument is needed?
No thanks, I prefer to totally refute it.
(edited to fix UBB coding)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 06:37 PM]
The problem is compounded by the fact that many debaters confuse their beliefs with truths. Unfortunately, many people believe things to be true, and treat them as fact. They act on them accordingly, and find it very difficult to deal with disagreements.
People form opinions, belive them, and act on them. It’s dangerous. In a forum like this, it’ll at worst get you stress, disagreement, misinformation, or plain old entropy. It interferes with logical debate; as they say, “You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach by reason.”
In the real world, do that and you risk starting an argument, a war, a revolution, or (heaven forbid) a religion.
Sorry, no cite on the quote, but I believe it may have been Samuel Clemens.
I think your focus on whether debating is a “science” is misplaced. All that was meant is that on most subjects that are debated it will not be possible to proof one side or another at the level of rigour that a mathematician would require before considering something “proven”.
The point of the OP, as I understand it, is that most debates (and practically all meaningful ones) will turn on an interpretation of facts, or a conclusion drawn from facts. And that these interpretations and conclusions will be subjective and dependent on the judgement of the observer, hence unprovable. Do you disagree with this?
I’m not sure if you meant this seriously. But if you did, you kind of proved the OP (to the extent that proof is possible etc. ).
In this thread, Mary Hart’s Legs gives a perfect example of how not to debate.
Essentially, s/he was pulling WAGs out of his/her nether regions and then asking the people s/he was debating to find evidence in support of his position. Sua agrees with me on this, whatever debating is, it is not what MHL was doing.
If somebody wants to debate, that is all great and wonderful. If they want to make comments about anything, but they don’t want to support their WACs (wild ass claims), that is fine as well, just make sure to post that stuff in IMHO.
Really? Nothing? This implies that Stoid’s assertion is absolutely (in the strict definition of the word) false. I do not think “literally” means what you think it means. But pray, continue:
In the words of another fine SDMB debater, balderdash sir! Tommyrot!
“Debate” is a rhetorical procedure wherein opponents present arguments in support or opposition to stated positions. “A science” is any department of systematized knowledge as a separate discipline. “Science” is broadly used to mean an overall system of knowledge, but has several definitions, none of which appear to mean “the contention of a proposition through words or argument”. (Of course, I don’t have a BS in BS to back me up here, so feel free to shake your sheepskin at the computer screen. That’ll refute me!)
Uh, props of course to Aristotle, but rhetoric is NOT a science. It is quite simply the informed use of available verbal forms of persuasion. It is to science as extortion is to barter. The point of rhetoric is not to establish probabilities, it is to establish credibility for one’s thesis through highly selective presentation of argument.
Hey! Agreement! That’s pretty much what Stoid (and I) just said, except I would say “demonstrate” rather than “show”, to avoid disingenuity. (“Show” implies that you’ve revealed some sort of truth; “demonstrate” says you’ve only revealed what you want your audience to see.)
You’ve failed to support your “take” on what Stoid meant. I “took” it to mean that Bush makes frequent grammatical and syntactical errors when speaking publically. Which “take” is more consistent with the citation? The “simple fact” that Bush’s mistakes have been collected absolutely demonstrates that he makes them, and thus supports Stoid’s “example fact” that W mangles the language.
Nope, provable facts are debatable because debate isn’t a science. Scientists don’t waste time trying to disprove empirically verified data; science concerns itself with testing hypotheses to explain the data. Debate is, again, a rhetorical process which is only peripherally concerned with establishing fact, but is primarily concerned with persuasive argument.
What??! OK then, here’s my opinion offered for debate:
Bush mangles the English language. What? Supporting arguments? Why, don’t be silly; those would be redundant.
Bah! Bah, Blacksheepsmith. Your attack is unwarranted. The presentation of a thesis, and a discussion of its implications is quite reasonable. Subsitite “Yogi Berra” for “George Bush”, if you like, and then tell me what is so outrageous.
I dunno. Not necessarily. I guess there are circumstances where both sides of a debate are equally meritorious and you cannot meaningfully distinguish which is the “best” answer. I would think these cases would tend to be pretty rare.
More often would occur where one side of the debate is superior logically compared to the other or neither are particularly good.
For example, consider the following example:
It is reasonable to conclude that the Confederate army would have won at Gettysburg had Jeb Stuart and his cavalry been present at day one.
While I cannot prove this, I can offer the following subjective observation.
Without the “eyes” of the Cavalry, General Lee was unaware of Union Troop strength and location as well as the layout of the terrain. had Stuart’s cavalry been reporting instead of off adventuring it is reasonable to conclude that Lee would have known he was not dealing with a mere scouting party and would have pushed on the first day to displace Buford and occupy Seminary Ridge.
With the knowledge of Union movements and the superior ground, it is reasonable to think that Lee would have used this to his advantage and not allowed the time for Union reinforcements to come into play.
In this scenario Lee could have wiped out the outnumbered and badly positioned Union Army and wiped out the reinforcements at his leisure, or simply taken the quick victory, leave the reinforcements alone and head for Washington.
This is a subjective argument, yet one with a lot of reason and logic to back it up. It can be debated (and has been,) but this stance has a lot going for it.
This isn’t to say that it can’t be debated, but in order for this viewpoint to be defeated one needs to come up with a better interpretation of events, not simply an alternate one.
One might attempt to refute this argument by saying that Lee was unwell, and wasn’t thinking straight at Gettysburg and even the added intelligence would not have helped him as he ignored several warnings from Longstreet.
While it’s a good argument, the original premise is still superior as these warnings would not have come into play had Lee had Jeb Stuart present. Lee had a much superior position on day one and would not have needed to be at 100% to take advantage of it.
So, we have a premise and a rebuttal. Both are subjective, yet one has more merit than the other.
You frequently do have subjective debates where one side has the superior argument. In this example (which I’ve taken liberties with,) the original premise would stand to an impartial observer if that was the total substance of the debate.
While one may hold the opinion that Lee was too sick to think straight and win, it really doesn’t stand up to a realistic interpretation of the actual events. You have to stretch things and make a lot more speculative assumptions about what specific mistakes Lee would have made because of his sickness, and given the overwhelming superiority of a day one/seminary ridge/informed position it’s not credible to assume he’d make them.
If you are presenting that as a matter of opinion, then no, you don’t need to support it any more than I need to support that I like Coconut ice cream best.
If you are presenting that as a fact, then you need to demonstrate it as such.
If you accept the given (for purposes of discussion) that “mangles” means “makes more speaking mistakes than average,” than Stoid’s cite does not make that a fact. It makes it a supported opinion at best. All it shows is that Bush has made speaking mistakes and they have been collected. It doesn’t show that he makes more than average.
What it really is, is a poor example. With other interpretations of “mangles” it might indeed be a fact (which is why I qualified my interpretation, you’ll notice.)
Is it your contention that the scientific method and peer review are not rhetorical processes?
And, if you think Aristotelian rhetoric is simply the process of phrasing your arguments to advantage, than you need to go back and read your Aristotle.
