# Debating debating!
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [October 30, 2001, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578 "2001-10-30T19:32:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 5
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/81 "2001-10-31T15:56:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> **Sure. How about you accept my posts as statements of my honest viewpoint on the postions being debated? I frankly couldn’t care less _who_ posted the OP (except as far as personalities have been made into points of debate by others); I’m arguing positions I believe to be correct.**
Of course. I have never said otherwise, and was quite careful to state that I didn’t think there was any collusion or dishonesty on your part.
> [@](#):
>
> Eh, you’re still confounded by that tense thing, aren’t you? Look, what’s being offered as “fact” in all cases is that a behavior was exhibited on more than one recent occasion. The assertion is not “Person A is somewhere exhibiting behavior X _right this instant_,” it is “Person A has exhibited behavior X ‘on a fairly regular basis.’”
An extrapolation isn’t a fact. Past performance is no guarrantee of future behavior. Just because it’s happened before doesn’t mean it will happen again. And if you state it is or will, that’s not a fact. It’s an opinion based on extrapolation.
> [@](#):
>
> The reason the behavior is assumed to be a habit by the reader is that the historical data suggest it to be a habit; i.e. the behavior was repeated. _That’s how one establishes a habit!_ But this is an assumption the reader can also choose **not to make** , and one which the reader can choose to counter in the ensuing debate, which is the whole friggin’ point (I think; I’ve kinda lost track now) of the OP!
Duuuuuuuuudearhombus. If you’re making assumptions, you’re not stating facts.
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 07:15 PM]
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/82 "2001-10-31T16:07:06Z")
> [@](#):
>
> If you’re making assumptions, you’re not stating facts.
Right. Please note that no assumptions were made in the assertions. Are you saying that we _cannot ever_ establish that Person A behaves (present tense) in a certain way based on documented exhibition by Person A of that behavior? That we can only establish the behavior as a “fact” _while_ the person is exhibiting the behavior, and that immediately upon cessation of the latest incident it’s no longer a “fact”?
[Inigo]You keep using that word…[/Inigo]
Maybe we _should_ just agree to disagree. I don’t think either of us is in imminent danger of changing our mind. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/83 "2001-10-31T16:13:19Z")
Xeno:
AMZN is a stock that went up almost every day for several years. It was commonly and widely known as a “fact” that it is a stock that goes up.
As it turns out, it wasn’t a fact.
A lot of people made the same mistake of extrapolation. It cost them a lot of money though.
---
### Author:  [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/84 "2001-10-31T16:13:40Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Stoid \*
> **The sentence makes sense this way: “George Bush mangles the English language.” And absolutely nothing else is implied. The word “mangles” is a short and snappy way of saying “makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax”. Period. That’s all it means.**
I will not accept that. _Mangle_, in this context, is a heavily loaded word. It certainly means far more than simply “_makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax_”. There is a value judgmement inherent in the word. Otherwise, why not just posit that “George W. Bush often makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax during his speeches”? “Mangling the English language” is a value judgement on just how severe and meaningfull Bush’s errors actually are.
What if I posited the following loaded opinion “George W. Bush sometimes slips up during his speeches”? What could you say back to refute that? That, no – Bush clearly and objectively “mangles the English language” and is not merely “slipping up”?
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon \*
> \*\*Good lord. Stoid showed you a book length collection of Bushisms. You’ve not, I assume, been living in a cave, on Mars, with your fingers in your ears, so I believe it’s more than a bit disingenuous of you to claim that Bush’s verbal ineptitude is an “unverified” opinion. I think you’re setting an inappropriately high standard of verification, given that Stoid’s assertion is, quite literally, common knowledge.
> \*\*
The verifiable fact that a book length collection of Bush’s malapropisms exists is meaningless in and of itself. Why? Because a sufficiently motivated individual could produce just such a book on ANY public figure. As all public figures are human (for the sake of argument), all are prone to making mistakes when speaking publicly. Therefore, a collection of flubs could be published for any public figure.
What’s common knowledge is that Bush has a REPUTATION for “verbal ineptitude”. But whether or not Bush’s public-speaking errors constitute _prima facie_ “verbal ineptitude” IS a matter of unverifiable opinion (absent the findings of a speech therapist, a pathologist, or the like). Your “ineptitude” may be my “folksy talking” or “honest, harmless errors”. Common knowledge is not a standard of objective truth.
---
### Author:  [@Blacksheepsmith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blacksheepsmith)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/85 "2001-10-31T16:26:54Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by bordelond \*
> _Mangle_, in this context, is a heavily loaded word. It certainly means far more than simply “_makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax_”. There is a value judgmement inherent in the word.
You beat me to it, **bordelond**.
Yes, it’s called “connotation.” And in certain situations, it can mean the difference between a punch in the mouth and a pat on the back.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/86 "2001-10-31T16:39:03Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by IzzyR \*
> No. In your theoretical case, you’ve presented all the facts as pointing one way, so it’s hard to say on what basis a debate might take place. But suppose a guy was in agreement that only pertinent facts relative to safety, economics and handling were to be considered, and still believed that the overall conclusion based on these was that Firestone was the better brand, there would be no way to objectively say that he was wrong (unless his arguments were completely moronic and could be disregarded - I’m assuming some sort of case was being made).
There’s something I’d like to see in Great Debates - and from the participants thereof… strong intellectual honesty. This goes beyond the “science” of rhetors that Scylla mentioned earlier. I’ve quoted Feynman in this context before, and I’ll do so again:
> [@](#):
>
> It’s a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty – a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid – not only what you think is right about it. … If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. …the idea is to try to give all of the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.
>
> The easiest way to explain this idea is to contrast it, for example, with advertising. Last night I heard that Wesson oil doesn’t soak through food. Well, that’s true. It’s not dishonest; but the thing I’m talking about is not just a matter of not being dishonest, it’s a matter of scientific integrity, which is another level. The fact that should be added to that advertising statement is that no oil soaks through food, if operated at a certain temperature. If operated at another temperature, they all will – including Wesson oil…
Some posters are more inclined than others towards this goal of integrity, and other posters, frankly, are seemingly so convinced of the overarching _rightness_ of their position that they evidently feel it’s OK to shade the truth in defense of their higher goals.
It would be worthwhile, I think, that when called on an error, to admit it… not to dodge or ignore the issue. And when presenting a cite, acknowledge its weaknesses yourself. That kind of conduct would befit a board whose mission is the fight against ignorance.
That also means, of course, that we eschew meaningless attacks like “Coward-in-Chief,” referring to Clinton, or “Shrub” when referring to George Bush. They add nothing of substantive value, and distract from whatever the _real_ point is.
**Stoid** ’s OP is not, obviously, something with which I agree. While it’s true that, at some point, a rhetor must ask his audience to draw inferences from the data presented in order to reach a conclusion, the data should be, ideally, such that the inferences drawn are obviously reasonable.
It’s true also that there are many things debated here which defy rigor. That’s the nature of the beast - but it ought to sway us from preserving rigor when we can, and accepting its lack only when we must.
- Rick
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/87 "2001-10-31T16:57:53Z")
**Scylla** , are you saying past patterns of personal human behavior are as valueless for prediction of future personal human behavior as stock charts are for prediction of future stock prices? Because I thought you were a cannier student of human behavior than that (as evidenced by more than a few MPSIMS and BBQ Pit OP’s).
> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by **bordelond** :_
> _Mangle_, in this context, is a heavily loaded word. It certainly means far more than simply “_makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax_”. There is a value judgmement inherent in the word. Otherwise, why not just posit that “George W. Bush often makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax during his speeches”?.
Because that’s what “mangles” means in this context. _Of course_ it’s a loaded term! So what? **Stoid** wished to make the assertion using persuasive language. The term, however loaded, is strictly accurate. **Scylla** ’s use of the term “dupe” to describe _me_ is strictly accurate. You can object, as I did, to the _connotations_ of the term, and to the implied slur, but not legitimately to it’s factuality. —Notice that when I objected to **Scylla** he quietly presented the meaning of the word to defend its accuracy, but denied any intended slur and offered to use a less loaded word. I doubt **Stoid** will back away from the insult to Bush, but she certainly has no call to retract her use of the word on the grounds that it’s somehow inaccurate.
> [@](#):
>
> As all public figures are human (for the sake of argument), all are prone to making mistakes when speaking publicly. Therefore, a collection of flubs could be published for any public figure.
Ding ding ding ding! And the assertion that those public figures make speaking mistakes with some regularity would be factual, would it not? What the speaking flubs _mean_ for each public figure is quite debatable, but the fact that they have made those flubs is not.
---
### Author:  [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/88 "2001-10-31T17:08:48Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> Ding ding ding ding! And the assertion that those public figures make speaking mistakes with some regularity would be factual, would it not? What the speaking flubs _mean_ for each public figure is quite debatable, but the fact that they have made those flubs is not.
Wesson oil.
It would be more meaningful - and more honest - to compare the frequency and seriousness of Bush’s errors to those of the average politician, or average President, than merely asserting that he mangles the language.
As in the Wesson oil example, it’s true, technically, to say it doesn’t soak through food. But that’s true of all oils. Wesson doesn’t tell you that.
Stoid should.
- Rick
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/89 "2001-10-31T17:33:02Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _originally posted by **Bricker** :_
> It would be more meaningful - and more honest - to compare the frequency and seriousness of Bush’s errors to those of the average politician, or average President, than merely asserting that he mangles the language.
I totally agree with you. But the contention is _not_ that **Stoid** ’s assertion is not _meaningful_. The contention of **Scylla** (and others) is that her contention is not _factual_.
Since **Stoid** offered up her assertion re: Bush & public speaking as an example of a fact which can spark debate, it is not even necessary to defend the statement’s relevance. Frankly, I’m quite sure I would strongly disagree with her opinions regarding that relevance. But the assertion that Bush has noticeable problems with public speaking is valid.
---
### Author:  [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/90 "2001-10-31T17:35:15Z")
Bricker,
The fact that you used a quote from me to introduce your essay suggests that you were disagreeing with something I said. I don’t see anything in your posts that I disagree with (or have contradicted), nor do I see how you have contradicted the OP (other than the Bush example).
---
### Author:  [@Blacksheepsmith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blacksheepsmith)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/91 "2001-10-31T17:42:44Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> Because that’s what “mangles” means in this context. _Of course_ it’s a loaded term! So what? **Stoid** wished to make the assertion using persuasive language. The term, however loaded, is strictly accurate.
You’re quite right. It is a persuasive term.
Stoid had earlier said:
> [@](#):
>
> The sentence makes sense this way: “George Bush mangles the English language.” And absolutely nothing else is implied. The word “mangles” is a short and snappy way of saying “makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax”. Period. That’s all it means.
This about to get very slippery.
But if it’s a persuasive term–if it has _some_ kind of connotation–then **something** is most definitely being implied by its use. Isn’t that how connotation works, with certain words carrying certain implications?
I agree the word “mangle” means what it means, though, and I don’t doubt Stoid knows what she meant. The assertion that it is a absolutely neutral way of describing the situation is false, however.
Or rather, I disagree with it.
But it’s all so much nit-picking, anyway. As somebody who once wrote, “everybody in Washington gets attacked by the press” and who was then immediately challenged to produce absolutely reliable statistical evidence that _everybody_ in Washington gets attacked by the press, I’d go along with the spirit of Bricker’s post.
---
### Author:  [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/92 "2001-10-31T17:43:40Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> \*\*
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > _originally posted by **bordelond** :_
> > _Mangle_, in this context, is a heavily loaded word. It certainly means far more than simply “_makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax_”. There is a value judgmement inherent in the word. Otherwise, why not just posit that “George W. Bush often makes errors of pronounciation, usage, grammar and syntax during his speeches”?.
>
> Because that’s what “mangles” means in this context. _Of course_ it’s a loaded term! So what? **Stoid** wished to make the assertion using persuasive language.\*\*
In the quote I pulled from **Stoid** above, she implicitly states that “mangled” is not a loaded word. I think she is wrong about that.
And actually, no, **xenophon** , Stoid’s definition is NOT what “mangled” means in this context – _viz._ applying the verb to oral use of the English language by a public figure). Stoid’s use of “mangled” means TO ME something more like “very seriously erred, and thus displayed indisputable stupidity and incompetence”.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> **The term, however loaded, is strictly accurate … I doubt Stoid will back away from the insult to Bush, but she certainly has no call to retract her use of the word on the grounds that it’s somehow inaccurate.**
I disagree. It can be easily be argued that “mangled” is not factually accurate. Suppose I posit that Bush “slips up” in his speeches, but he does not so severely enough to qualify as “mangling the English language”. As far as that counter-argument goes, “slipping up” would be factually accurate, “mangling” would not be.
Whether “mangled” is factually accurate is therefore a matter of opinion. What is the objective criteria for establishing a “mangling”, as opposed to a “flub” or “slip-up”? Without such criteria, no fact can be established.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> \*\*Ding ding ding ding! And the assertion that those public figures make speaking mistakes with some regularity would be factual, would it not? What the speaking flubs _mean_ for each public figure is quite debatable, but the fact that they have made those flubs is not. \*\*
Not “those” public figures … ALL public figures.
The fact that anyone has made those flubs (i.e. Bush) was never in doubt (is that where you thought I was going?) – the relevancy and meaning of the existance of a book of Bush flubs is what’s in doubt.
Stoid pointed out the existance of the book as though the mere existance of the book proved out something objective about George W. Bush. What does the existance of that book truly establish about George W. Bush beyond the fact that he misspeaks on occasion? I say “nothing at all”. YMMV.
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/93 "2001-10-31T17:55:16Z")
**bordelond** , please see my post to **Bricker** [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=1773905#post1773905). Please don’t confuse the implications, relevance or severity of Bush’s speaking disability with the factuality of its existence.
---
### Author:  [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/94 "2001-10-31T17:58:56Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> \*\*But the assertion that Bush has noticeable problems with public speaking is valid. \*\*
I can go with that assertion.
But to me, that’s not what Stoid asserted – she went further. She asserted that he “mangled the English language,” which I consider a more serious and separate charge. Do Bush’s “noticeable problems with public speaking” constitute “mangling the English language”? That’s a matter of opinion.
---
### Author:  [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/95 "2001-10-31T18:03:57Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> \*\*Please don’t confuse the implications, relevance or severity of Bush’s speaking disability with the factuality of its existence. \*\*
Muhammad Ali has a Parkinson’s-induced “speaking disability.” Bush’s errors do not constitute a disability (again, absent the findings of a learned authority on speech and/or cognition). An inability to orate perfectly is not a disability. It is a trait all people share at varying levels.
Bush makes speaking errors – I will grant that. Please quote me where I wrote that Bush does not make errors while speaking publicly.
---
### Author:  [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/96 "2001-10-31T18:10:18Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> \*\*The contention of **Scylla** (and others) is that her contention is not _factual_ … But the assertion that Bush has noticeable problems with public speaking is valid. \*\*
As Stoid put it, it was not factually accurate.
As you recast it above (noticeable problems …), in a more general form, it is factually accurate.
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/97 "2001-10-31T18:11:34Z")
I agree that the severity of Bush’s gaffes is a matter of opinion. The relevance of those gaffes to his performance as Chief Executive of the nation is also a matter of opinion. Were we to actually debate the meaning and relevance of the topic, I would contend that merely because Bush seems to be “hard of speaking” (so to speak) doesn’t mean he’s “hard of thinking” or that his effectiveness is necessarily impaired.
But I don’t want to have that debate.
---
### Author:  [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/98 "2001-10-31T18:23:23Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith \*
> \*\* I still think the example is pretty darn silly, though, particularly in light of what’s come before. \*\*
Of course it’s silly! That was kinda the point. It was a topic I pulled outta my bush-hasslin’ hat simply to illustrate. It was never, ever supposed to be the debate itself. I figured a few people would roll their eyes at me and move past it into what I was using it to illustrate.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith \*
> \*\*
> Truly effective debating is about a helluva lot more than putting forth an opinion and backing it up with “facts.” \*\*
I’ll agree with you there, absolutely. But my OP was not really “What’s the \*\* best \*\* way to debate?” It was actually much simpler \*“Is opinion appropriate in a debate forum?” \* It was prompted by several instances of people accusing others of inappropriately dragging opinion into a debate. One of the instances that springs immediately to mind was Monster104 chastising themoon. That was the first occasion on which I put forth a version of my OP, and Monster104 agreed with my basic premise, which is: “What the hell is the point of a debate forum without opinion?” I decided form there to expand the topic into a thread of its very own.
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith \*
> \*\* Practically speaking (and this is “just my opinion,” an ugly phrase I’ll take issue with in a moment), this means people here often tend to ignore or skim citations and posted links. They do this because they’re looking for the real meat–truly compelling or moving evidence, artfully arranged. Evidence like logic. Emotion. Reputation. \*\*
Well, I don’t know that I’d agree with that. I think people skim the cites and posted links because they’re lazy. But yes, they are looking for something to respond to because it’s hard to respond to a link.
On the other hand,
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> And if you find that meat, and you happen to disagree with it, one thing you can do to try to defeat it is to dismiss it as something other than fact.
>
> “Where’s your proof? Cite?”
>
> That’s the lazy person’s solution, and it happens here a lot. It’s a good strategy, though, because it doesn’t require any energy, and you place the onus on the other person, demanding that they re-cast their evidence, and make it serve a purpose it was never intended to serve.
> \*\*
Is too true, and it happens constantly. Which gets back to my OP, plainly stated: “we \*\* debate \*\* our \*\* opinion \*\* of what the facts\*\* mean \*\*”
> [@](#):
>
> \*\*
> Which takes us to “that’s just your opinion.” Again, that’s often the lazy person’s way out of a debate they find uncomfortable.
> \*\*
Yep.
Stoid
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 08:18 PM]
---
### Author:  [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/99 "2001-10-31T18:27:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> \*\*I agree that the severity of Bush’s gaffes is a matter of opinion. The relevance of those gaffes to his performance as Chief Executive of the nation is also a matter of opinion. Were we to actually debate the meaning and relevance of the topic, I would contend that merely because Bush seems to be “hard of speaking” (so to speak) doesn’t mean he’s “hard of thinking” or that his effectiveness is necessarily impaired.
>
> But I don’t want to have that debate. \*\*
No need to debate – we have reached common ground.
::offers hand to shake::
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [October 31, 2001, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/100 "2001-10-31T18:37:39Z")
::_shakes **bordelond** ’s hand, smiling_::
::_fakes a high five to **Stoid** , then winks at her instead, elbow nudges **Scylla** and guffaws annoyingly_::
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578.md?page=4)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578.md?page=6)