Maybe. Self analysis is always difficult, but I get my ass-whipped in all sorts of endeavors on a regular basis and usually don’t have too much of a problem with it, so ego may indeed be an issue (who knows,) but defeat doesn’t particularly trouble me.
On the other hand, I do pride myself on tenacity which reminds me that you have yet to address an issue I’ve asked you about on at least 3 seperate occasions.
In case you have forgotten, that would be how you resolve the moral dilemma of being owed an apology for “verbal diarheaa” but do not feel compelled to offer one for “Silly Ass.”
Since you seem to feel free to analyze my motivations, allow me to return the favor. We’ve established that the ability to admit defeat (or at least error, which implies I’d handle defeat,) isn’t an issue for me.
In fact I’ve addressed it several times with you, and you keep bringing it up even though I’ve admitted or conceded things on no fewer than 3 occasions within this thread.
If we combine your fixation on this issue with your clear avoidance of admitting an obvious failing or error i.e. the “Sillyass/diarrhea” conundrum, than it seems a reasonable conclusion that what you are doing is projecting your own personal failings onto me in an attempt to combat them and deny them in yourself.
This is a pretty common psychological defense mechanism. Sometimes it even works!
If you can purge your own failings by projecting them onto me and fighting them in that context, than I’m willing to do my part to help.
I’m sorry; I thought you were insulting him and calling him a hypocrite, partially exculpating yourself by implication. Whatever was I thinking? :rolleyes:
I’m sorry, but that won’t do. You’re reaching. I don’t see where I’m shifting any blame, and you’re misreading my intent if you think I am.
And, it’s best to be specific. The hypocrisy charge isn’t an insult, it’s an accusation. Any guilt implied in that accusation carries its own indpendant blame, and entails no shifting. More of a “Attend to thine own eye, before casting the mote from thine neighbors” kind of thing, see.
You’ll have to do better than that.
On second thought, no.
I hope you won’t hold it against me, but I think in this instance I’m going to draw the line at arguing by proxy, and not argue with proxies of proxies, as it’s getting a little ridiculous.
Xeno is perfectly capable of speaking for himself or not as the case may be.
I too have thought your recent postings resembled the braying of an ass, and I’m gratified to see you’ve acquired the integrity to put your proper face on things.
Opinion is “acceptable” in a message-board debate in a very narrow, limited sense, in so much as they serve to establish precisely where an individual stands on an issue.
However:
Opinions do nothing to establish or support what objective truth about issue X may exit.
Opinions carry far, far less weight than facts when trying to convince others of a given position on issue X.
Opinions cannot be treated as facts in support of a position on issue X.
Dialectic between two strident, intransigent “debaters” is not really debate, IMHO. Put another way, no one can debate dogma. There must be a before-hand professed willingness to budge. Really, debate is better when the parties involved have leanings for or against an issue, but don’t have their minds made up about that same issue.
I once bowed out of a debate with you, Stoid, and I asked you (paraphrasing) “Why continue, as our minds are both made up?” You answered something to the effect: “To understand other viewpoints.”
But to me, that’s not what debate is really about. Ideally, points of view are made understood prior to debating (i.e. in an OP). Debate to me is not just presenting a point of view for it’s own sake – it is seeking to influence opinion via the establishment of objective common truths, IMHO. If common truths cannot be established, than the “debaters” are simply shouting opinion past each other. So then, what’s the point?
Presenting opinion just doesn’t get a debater very far. I’d go so far as to say that dogmatically-held opinion harms a potential debater’s credibility and ability to influence others to there way of thinking. IMHO, if you aren’t aiming to influence others – and aren’t able to accept influence from the opposing side in a debate – you aren’t debating.
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 07:21 PM]
I would disagree in that opinion can have a substantive and warranted place in debates, exceeding that of even facts. The telling point about whether this will be so or not, is how the opinion is presented and accepted. For that we have to characterize what kind of opinion we’re talking about and the OP is referring to.
I’d suggest starting with these:
The simple declaration
Examples: "Coconut ice cream is the best."
"Bush mangles the English language."
It seems that this type of opinion is commonly presented as fact without supporting argument or cite (for purposes of this illustration we’ll leave the can of worms over the offered cite out of the picture.)
As support for an argument, a simple declaration of opinion has no value. However, within the context of a debate, it can have value as a probe for common ground. If upon announcing that Coconut ice cream is the best, I receive hearty agreement from my opponent that he shares the same opinion, then we can both proceed conditionally as if it were a fact. If there is not agreement then it must either be supported to the satisfaction of both parties, until agreement is reached. If an agreement is not reached than that opinion has no value within the context of a debate.
Expert Opinion
Examples: "As a Dr. it is my diagnosis that you have the common cold."
"As your tax-advisor, I recommend that you buy Municipal Bonds."
The Expert Opinion shouldn’t be confused with the fallacious argument from athority. Expertise, as long as it’s granted by the opposing party does convey weight to certain opinions and give them value. When claiming an expert opinion one should be prepared to back up one’s qualifications if asked and explain one’s reasoning for the opinion in laymen terms, if asked. If one has expertise in an area one should rely on it judiciously and fairly and not wield it like a sledgehammer, lest it no longer be accepted.
All things being otherwise equal, I am inclined to think that in a Debate between an attorney and an advertising executive without legal experience or training, that the attorney’s opinion conditionally is more valuable.
The expert opinion rarely becomes an issue or a point of contention, IMO.
The deduced opinion:
Example: "I believe there are no ghosts, because while inexplicable things do occur, Occam's razor suggests we posit an unknown natural cause before a supernatural one."
This is perhaps the strongest and most valuable opinion in debate because it is self-contained and open for examination. When an opinion of this nature is put forth it must either be refuted or found faulty, or otherwise simply accepted by honest debaters.
While such an opinion does not carry the weight of simple fact, it’s the next best thing as it represents a valid and reasoned stance that should be accepted as fact unless refuted.
As to the rest of what you say, I think you present an ideal world of debating, which would be great. But a public message board is hardly that, and while my OP was referencing debating as a stand-alone activity engaged in by many, it was particularly referencing debating as it is actually played out here on the SDMB, where average (actually, more often slightly to greatly above average) folk come to discuss the issues of the day and the issues that are important to them. We are not professional debaters, we are casual, recreational debaters. As such, we generally feel strongly about what we choose to discuss.
In my own case, for instance, I will usually just * read * the debates of others if I do not have a strong opinion of my own. WIthout a strong * opinion * I am also without a strong * motivation * to take time out or my day and research and compose posts. But I’m always interested in reading when those subjects I have no such strong opinion about come up. One instance that comes to mind were a few recent threads about the Isreali/Palestinian conflict. I had definite opinions about it (mostly formed by reading “Exodus” 25 years ago!) , but they were totally open and ready to shifting. So I read the threads from beginning to end, and came away with a much better and clearer understanding, AND a new opinion! But I don’t think I ever said a word.
I think that we debaters who take the time to get out here and do the research, pull the cites, and compose our posts putting forth our opinions are kinda doing a service, even though it’s rarely the goal. There’s a whole lotta lurking going on, and some learning, too. So even though we often sit rather firmly on the opinion that we came into the debate with, we are still helping others to shape and refine their own opinions, and usually we do so with good arguments, facts, and cites for the facts. Which makes the opinions * informed * opinions, which are really the only kind worth having.
If you consider your role in debating here as like an lawyer in a courtroom arguing for a specific point of view, then it would be your job to defend that point of view even if you later found it to be wrong. This would be balanced on the other side by the person who is the advocate for the opposing view. In such a scenario, even if you were proven false or would like to concede a point or issue, it’s not within your purview to do so. You are arguing for the issue itself, and to try to convert others to the point of view you are arguing, regardless of its objective merits.
If you feel both strongly and inflexibly about something, than you are strongly suited to this type of debate in its behalf.
On the other hand, consider that such behavior bears a close resemblance to what we call “witnessing,” or in politics “knee-jerk.”
It is also frustrating if the other party is not arguing in this manner but preceding in a more flexible/objective manner. He may be unaware and frustrated by the intractibility of the advocate approach.
On a message board devoted to fighting ignorance, his/her expectation that you will debate objectively/flexibly in pursuit of truth is a reasonable one. You may unknowingly be doing a disservice to your opponent if you enter into a debate in such a manner without giving prior warning that this is the case.
As far as educating lurkers, the intractable stance does do a service as long as your stance is actually correct. Personally, I don’t have the courage of my convictions to such a degree that I’m willing to dictate that I have the one true and final solution (unless we’re talking about Margaritas.)
Consider the possibility that you are in fact in error about an issue you feel strongly about. Say you debate this extremely well from the advocate viewpoint against a less capable debater from the objective view, and say you clearly win the debate through both superior technique and your use of the advocacy viewpoint.
Now, remember that in this particular example, you are in fact in error and the other party who lost the debate was actually correct.
In this case, by arguing intractably you have not done a service. You have done a disservice. The lurkers you refer to are now misinformed or holding false beliefs because of your efforts. In this hypothetical you would not have fought ignorance you would have in fact propogated it.
So, in order for this debating stance of intractability to actually be the best one, you have to be able to guarrantee that you are right 100% of the time or your potentially doing harm.
On many issues, this is not such a big deal, though I think promulgating ignorance on any scale is a bad idea.
Since you don’t know how lurkers and other readers will react to whatever viewpoints you convince them of, there is the opportunity to do real harm, even over something seemingly innocuous.
Guarranteeing that you’ll be perfect is a large weight to take upon one’s shoulders. Unless you’re very comfortable with that attendant responsibility, than I’d suggest that the advocate/intractable debating style is not the best one for this board.
Again, I’m not so sure. Consider a creationist arguing from the intractable standpoint who has an informed opinion (for this example we’ll assume Creationism is patently false.) Such a person will actually be dangerous and doing a great disservice if he acquires and informed opinion.
Such a person will be constructing his informed opinion not upon the criteria of looking for objective truth, but upon the criteria of what supports his point of view. Again, his goal is not to fight ignorance or help people, but merely to support his viewpoint. He will ignore or seek to derail valid and useful arguments that run counter to his advocacy.
In conclusion, I strongly feel that an inflexible standpoint and unwillingness to change your viewpoint when presented with a better one indicates what I have described as the intractable, or advocacy or witnessing method of debate.
Since such a stance inherently puts truth on the back burner, without infallibility it is literally guarranteed to be a disservice to the community at large and this message board in particular.
Yeah, just what does an informed opinion really mean, anyway? Not all sources of information are created equal, right? So isn’t it a matter of opinion as to what sources of information are “good” sources and which are “bad”?
So is ANY opinion based on secondary sources a truly informed opinion (excepting opinions based on personal experience)? Stoid, in a recent thread, laid out a ground rule in the beginning of a thread that arguments questioning the bias of her sources were to be ignored (this was the Bush-gains-from-war thread). Was that a proper ground rule to make? Shouldn’t “considering the source” be as crucial a part of a debate as considering what the source says?
More agreement! Which is why I think this debate board and the debates here are such a terrific way for people to learn. Because all (or many) of the points of view are presented, the sources are presented, etc. This is a great way to get a centralized repository of all the varieties of sources on a given topic all in one place. And it is only by examining the many sources, many opinions, that one can have a truly informed opinion of one’s own.
For instance, if, rather than hanging out here, I hung out at Democratic Underground’s message board, not only would I be bored silly (no fun only talking to people you agree with), but I wouldn’t be getting all the many sides of the story.
As I posited right up front, there is very little in this world that can be said to be absolute “right” or “wrong” in the same sense that 2+2 = 4 is right, and 2+2=9 is wrong. If that were so, life wouldn’t be nearly so complicated.
Without question, a *part. * But I don’t think it is valid to use considering the source as a means of dismissing the information out of hand, unless the source is proven to be grossly unreliable on anything like a consistent basis. Dismissing an argument or a piece of information * simply because the source is of a particulary ideological bent * is lazy and fundamentally dishonest, because what you are in essence doing is saying that anyone and everyone of that bent is a liar.
Absolutely. I think you’re reading a bit more into Stoid’s argument than is there, but I certainly don’t want to toady or anything, so I’ll just state the argument in my own way and claim it for myself: (NOTE to whoever: this means that the only argument I’m going to defend here is the one I’m about to state. Please don’t quote Stoid’s words back to me. Thank you.)
We’ve all been using the words “opinions” and “facts” in this discussion when, at least if we’re to discuss the original topic, we should be using terms like conditions, phenomena, positions, reason and supporting data. At the outset of this particular thread, a specific (and factually verifiable) phenomenon was offered as an “example fact”. Any particular economic, social, religious or observable physical condition would’ve done just as well. Two opposing (but not directly opposing) viewpoints were offered as positions which could be assumed in any debate over the meaning of the phenomenon. One would expect in an ensuing debate that arguments for various positions would be offered, and that reason and data would be used to support those arguments, or to either discredit or validate the original portrayal of the phenomenon.
Those posters who follow such a dictum, who research and present supporting data and buttress their arguments with rigorous and coherent reasoning do a service not only to themselves but to those opponents who are equally committed to their own positions. This does not mean that their advocacy of a position will or should blind them to flaws in their reasoning or data when those flaws are pointed out by others. A counterargument which effectively refutes faulty reasoning, or which casts doubt upon a cited reference on which a particular position has been founded, is to be welcomed and acknowledged by an honest debater.*****
That is the value of a spirited defense of one’s opinion regarding the meaning of things. And it is why debate, unlike science, is about opinions rather than facts. And it is why the OP is absolutely correct, both in spirit and in content.
[/quote]
*****This is not to imply that “devil’s advocacy” has no place in an honest debate. It most certainly does, whether labelled as such or merely offered without announcement to test a particular position against opposition. But it requires the strongest possible argument, honestly derived and reasonable premises, and a willingness to follow the argument until either it or the opposing position is discredited. Otherwise it is either a strawman by proxy or empty rhetoric.
I agree in principle. In practice it rarely occurs that way. After all, an advocate is by definition nonobjective.
By what reasonable expectation can we conclude that a person who is by definition nonobjective on a given issue, will nonetheless be objective concerning new arguments or data on that issue?
It doesn’t seem a reasonable expectation.
We can neither conclude that total objectivity can be obtained —by anybody— nor reasonably expect abandonment of a position on points. What we can reasonably expect, particularly in an atmosphere of “ignorance fighting,” is acknowledgement from opponents that points have been made and/or some recapitulation of their positions taking into account valid points raised.
[sub]Lordy, I hope I don’t regret the tone of this post. I’m too tired to go back and insert smartass nastiness anywhere. Screw it; I’m going to bed.[/sub]
And yet, after all the confusion about what everyone means by what they say, people still get all huffy about semantics. Jesus-fucking-christ, I will never understand.
