# 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:** 9
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/161 "2001-11-01T21:00:10Z")
> [@](#):
>
> My intent though was to plant and concede a factually innacurate point (though a smaller and less embarassing one,) though so I am guilty by intent of **whatever it is that you think is wrong with this**.
> (bolding added)
It’s a disingenuous trick designed to prompt a specific disagreement for its own sake (trolling), and to solicit dutiful applause when the point is conceded (with the added benefit that, if no one catches the error you can say “Look, you fools! _This_ is incorrect, too!”). It’s the rhetorical equivalent of pool hustling, and it is not part of honest debate.
> [@](#):
>
> I also let my daughter win when we wrestle, and the Ewe’s Sluts story isn’t literal either. I’m also not really a pirate.
Nor do you appear to be worth my further effort.
☹
---
### Author:  [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/162 "2001-11-01T21:02:30Z")
**Scylla** : Who are you, Serlin? Get outta here with your “I intentionally made a mistake in order to gracefully concede and teach everyone a valuable lesson about debating.” Kee-rist. (Yes, I know the Aristotle thing was an honest mistake. That makes your stated tactics both bizarrely disingenuous and sloppy.)
Anyway, I read something today which reminded me of this thread:
> [@](#):
>
> When I was younger, I used to believe that once something had been discovered, verified, and published, it was then part of Knowledge: definite, accepted, and irrevocable. Only in unusual cases, so I thought, would opposing claims then continue to be published. To my surprise, however, I found that the truth has to fight constantly for its life! That an idea has been discovered and printed in a “reputable” journal does _not_ ensure that it wil become well known and accepted. In fact, usually it will have to be rephrased and reprinted many different times, often by different people, before it has any chance of taking hold. This is upsetting to an idealist like me, someone more disposed to believe in the notion of a monolithic and absolute truth than in the notion of a pluralistic and relative truth (a notion championed by a certain school of anthropologists and sociologists, who un-self-consciously insist “all systems of belief are equally valid,” seemingly without realizing that this dogma of relativism not only is just as narrow-minded as any other dogma, but moreover is unbelievably wishy-washy!). The idea that the truth has to fight for its life is a sad discovery. The idea that the truth will _not_ out, unless it is given a lot of help, is pretty upsetting.
–Douglas Hofstadter
---
### Author:  [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/163 "2001-11-01T21:06:09Z")
You _are_ reading too much Hofstadter.
Someone pass this man some Ayn Rand or some John Stuart Mill
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/164 "2001-11-01T21:16:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith \*
> \*\*Inevitbly, smoke starts coming out of the thing, it starts shaking, and eventually it explodes. \*\*
Unfortunately this rarely happens here.
More commonly what happens is what’s happening with Elucidator. They pretend they just didn’t happen. I think I’ve got him pretty much dead to rights three ways.
1. Hypocrisy (although I was nice when I asked him why he demands an apology for “Diarrhea,” but doesn’t feel compelled to give one for "Silly Ass.) I didn’t say hypocrisy as I thought that might make him defensive, but he didn’t take the opportunity there to make an honest asessment.
2. His unwillingness to back up his claim of dishonesty in my part.
3. His dishonesty in denying he questioned my honesty.
Rather than address these losing propositions, he seems to have decided to ignore them and move on, pretending they didn’t happen. This is the kind of behavior that made me take up piracy. I’m reconsidering the life of a freebooter, as it takes a lot of energy to debate this kind of shit, and I don’t seem to be making any headway.
On the other hand I’ve been considering Xenophon’s charge of "intellectual dishonesty. It is possible that the tactic I am admittedly guilty-by-intent of using is not fundamentally honest.
I’m waiting to see if Xenophon can come up with some reasonable objections to it’s use, or reasons why it is “intellectually dishonest,” to decide whether he’s just taking gratuitous potshots or has a point.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/165 "2001-11-01T21:33:08Z")
Gadarene:
> [@](#):
>
> Scylla: Who are you, Serlin? Get outta here with your “I intentionally made a mistake in order to gracefully concede and teach everyone a valuable lesson about debating.” Kee-rist. (Yes, I know the Aristotle thing was an honest mistake. That makes your stated tactics both bizarrely disingenuous and sloppy
I just thought it was ironic, myself. Sloppy? Well yeah, that’s what makes it so funny.
Can you explain to me why I should be so ashamed at having attempted (and comically failed,) to make a small error, and then use that error as an illustration?
---
### Author:  [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/166 "2001-11-01T21:45:17Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*
> Can you explain to me why I should be so ashamed at having attempted (and comically failed,) to make a small error, and then use that error as an illustration?
**xenophon** already has:
> [@](#):
>
> It’s a disingenuous trick designed to prompt a specific disagreement for its own sake (trolling), and to solicit dutiful applause when the point is conceded (with the added benefit that, if no one catches the error you can say “Look, you fools! This is incorrect, too!”). It’s the rhetorical equivalent of pool hustling, and it is not part of honest debate.
'Kay? With the added, _added_ benefit that increases your cachet as someone who humbly concedes an argument if he is found to be wrong, providing–in my opinion–less incentive for you to be intellectually meticulous the first time around in debates, 'cause you know you can just apologize if anyone catches any mistakes.
---
### Author:  [@Blacksheepsmith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blacksheepsmith)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/167 "2001-11-01T21:45:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Scylla \*
> On the other hand I’ve been considering Xenophon’s charge of "intellectual dishonesty. It is possible that the tactic I am admittedly guilty-by-intent of using is not fundamentally honest.
It is dishonest, and you’ve sacrificed some of your _ethos_ to finally drive home a point that was always, always, doomed to fall on deaf ears.
Truly Shakespearean.
Don’t lose any sleep over it.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/168 "2001-11-01T22:05:45Z")
Shakespeare?
I was going for Oedipal.
😉
---
### Author:  [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/169 "2001-11-01T22:22:27Z")
> [@](#):
>
> I was going for Oedipal.
The sheep are bad enough. Must you continue sleeping with your mother?
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/170 "2001-11-01T22:50:43Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _from **Scylla** :_
> I’m waiting to see if Xenophon can come up with some reasonable objections to it’s use, or reasons why it is “intellectually dishonest,” to decide whether he’s just taking gratuitous potshots or has a point.
But as I said, I’m not going to continue debating this thing with you. Maybe I won’t argue with you at all anymore; I really can’t say if I’ll feel like it again. I just think it’s going to be counterproductive and piss both of us off needlessly.
You’ll work out the ethical considerations without my assistance, I’m sure. I wish you well. Whether you change your debating m.o. or not is not my concern. I’ll continue to exchange posts with you, but just not in the manner of a debate, and certainly not to give or receive advice or correction.
I’ll be silly with you anytime you want, **Scylla** , but I won’t be serious with you.
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/171 "2001-11-01T22:55:00Z")
Well, geez, thought you said it was time to move on, act like grownups and stuff. Change your mind?
I have a post at the top of the page, pretty much expressed things up to that point. You want my honest opinion. OK dokey.
I think you’re getting the living snot kicked out of you. I think you heartily deserve it. Further, I think you would love to make _me_ the topic of discussion, rather than yourself, and nobody’s having it.
I think you are a man of considerable intellect and abilities who is hag-ridden by an ego that simply cannot admit defeat. Toss that vampire overboard and be free!
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/172 "2001-11-01T23:02:03Z")
Alas! 'tis as thou sayest.
Ah me! ah me! all brought to pass, all true!
O light, may I behold thee nevermore!
I stand a wretch,
Ah me! ah woe is me!
Ah whither am I borne!
How like a ghost forlorn
My voice flits from me on the air!
On, on the demon goads. The end, ah where?
---
### Author:  [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/173 "2001-11-01T23:28:24Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Blacksheepsmith \*
> \*\*
> “Facts” are just one of the great many tools I can use to try to persuade you that my rhetorical stance is correct. There are many others. \*\*
Of course. But my original question had to do with people who insisted that opinion is not acceptable in debate, only provable facts are.
---
### Author:  [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)
#### Post date: [November 1, 2001, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/174 "2001-11-01T23:37:36Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*
> \*\* make _me_ the topic of discussion and nobody’s having it. \*\*
\*\* Boris \*\* … you are alvays a topik vit me, darlink. Ve discuss nussink else! (PAG is wildly jealous)
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2001, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/175 "2001-11-02T00:40:04Z")
"An end too dread to tell, too dark to see… "
---
### Author:  [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2001, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/176 "2001-11-02T00:46:15Z")
And so the question becomes “Is a quote from _Oedipus_ an adequate performance of the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement?” As it is a a ritual of the Unitarian/Bokononist Church, which is entirely unhindered by any othrodox liturgy, we cannot conclude that it is not. We must therefore conclude that it is.
_Egotist Te Absolvo_
Go forth and sin no more.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2001, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/177 "2001-11-02T01:01:36Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by elucidator \*
> \*\*And so the question becomes “Is a quote from _Oedipus_ an adequate performance of the Ancient Tasmanian Ritual of Self-Abasement?” As it is a a ritual of the Unitarian/Bokononist Church, which is entirely unhindered by any othrodox liturgy, we cannot conclude that it is not. We must therefore conclude that it is.
>
> _Egotist Te Absolvo_
>
> Go forth and sin no more. \*\*
While I appreciate the sentiment of goodwill, that wasn’t at all what I was going for with that quote.
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2001, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/178 "2001-11-02T01:26:18Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by xenophon41 \*
> \*\* I’ll continue to exchange posts with you, but just not in the manner of a debate, and certainly not to give or receive advice or correction.
>
> I’ll be silly with you anytime you want, **Scylla** , but I won’t be serious with you. \*\*
No thanks. At least not not until you give up the sanctimonious airs.
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2001, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/179 "2001-11-02T01:49:52Z")
> [@](#):
>
> No thanks. At least not not until you give up the sanctimonious airs.
Hey. That’s just what the priest said to the Bishop! (Whereupon the Bishop put the niblick back in the bag and chose a mashie, but that’s a different story.)
Have fun being so unsanctimoniously holier-than-me.
:rolleyes:
---
### Author:  [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)
#### Post date: [November 2, 2001, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578/180 "2001-11-02T02:57:55Z")
> [@](#):
>
> Have fun being so unsanctimoniously holier-than-me.
Do you honestly not get it?
Seriously?
Look at the facts.
You wish not to debate with me, because you consider a tactic which I didn’t actually use to be unworthy.
You only know that I attempted the tactic because I mentioned it.
I mentioned it in passing because I thought it was humorous and ironic the way I blundered it.
If I read your attitude correctly (and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong) because of this tactic I am not worthy of debate in your eyes, but your willing to accept limited other contact.
If that is accurate so far, consider my reaction.
While considering the tactic, I thought of it like sacrificing a pawn in chess, or a judo move, or faking down the line in tennis, or hitting cross-court, or feinting in fencing.
Such a move, making a deliberate error to expose a weakness is a valid one in most endeavors, and part of the game.
Part of the reason why I’m in this thread is that I find the tactics being used to openly and blatantly dishonest (though not by you, admittedly. I think you’ve debated well even though you’re dead wrong about what constitutes a fact.)
The extreme umbrage being taken at this admission of mine seems to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
Nevertheless, seeing as I’m arguing about honest debating technique, using a deceptive tactic to do so is probably not the best way to go about it, in hindsight. Cosmically stupid, actually, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.
Later, it seems ironic but not particularly harmful, so I point it out, and get shellacked for it.
Which is all fine.
The thing though, is that there’s really only one person here who’s admitting errors or coming clean when they make them, and that’s sad and frustrating, because there’s more than one person making factual errors and using dishonest tactics, and outright lying.
And I should know better. Those people aren’t going to change because of anything I do or say.
However, when I read from you that apparently so disgusted by my rhetorical judo move which I brought forth and admitted to poke fun at myself, that you no longer wish to debate with me and deign only to have nonsubstantive contact, I ask myself if this is an appropriate gesture within the context of the action.
What I come up with is the belief that no, it really isn’t.
It seems sanctimonious and holier than thou. More, it seems like a rhetorical trick.
If you really felt that way, and you really wished me well, as you say, why would seek to insult and injure me by stating it?
Isn’t more effective if you just do it?
I know if I no longer wished to debate somebody but wished to exchange posts of other natures and maintain goodwill, I wouldn’t tell them that I thought they were a piece of shit. I would just be friendly, but not debate. That way I don’t hurt feelings or make an issue of it.
Seeing though as your reaction doesn’t seem fitting, and you’re making a point of making it, it looks to me like you’re making a rhetorical gesture, and not a true honest reaction.
In fact, it’s rhetorical judo, and as such hypocritical.
So, I said I would prefer you stay away all together if you wish to put on such sanctimonious airs.
If you wish to debate or converse, I’m happy to do so. If you wish to make grand gestures and only deign to converse in certain prescribed circumstances, I’d prefer you spare me your charity, and the reek of your own hypocrisy.
I’m familiar enough with my own reek to recognize it on another, and frankly I think you smell worse.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578.md?page=8)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/debating-debating/90578.md?page=10)