Sigh…
Sorry for the coding error.
Izzy:
Subjective arguments can be objectively evaluated relative to each other if the same criteria is used on both.
For example: If were interested only in pertinent verifiable facts relative to safety, economics, and handling, than the first argument would be objectively superior.
If however, our criteria was simply emotional appeal the second would be superior.
As long as the evaluating criteria are consistent we can have a valid objective comparison and judgement.
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).
Again, I’m not saying that one of the debators is not being objective. I’m saying that once two minds have reached a different conclusion regarding what is the likeliest conclusion, you are left with a difference of opinion.
Dude, if your using it figuratively than it’s not a “fact,” and what exactly constitutes a mangling is not an objective fact, but a matter of opinion, and you didn’t do a very good job of addressing the problem of tense.
No, you can make the assumption. It’s even a reasonable assumption. I wouldn’t disagree with it. But, a reasonable assumption and a fact are not the same thing, are they?
And it only becomes a resonable assumption if you define and support exactly what a “very high percentage” is. Is it more than 90%? More than 50%? More than 10%? What?
Well I think it behooves one to offer an example of a fact which actually is one, don’t you?
Most? That would be something more than 50%, right? No, I don’t think that’s true. I doubt it’s that high. I could be wrong though, but the burden of proof is on you. I’d be glad to concede such if you can support that statement with any reasonable data.
I imagine that’s probably true that he’s percieved that way, and I even imagine that it’s accurate that he is that way.
I imagine it’s even verifiable (probably through a Gallop poll,) but that that just makes it possible or probable. It’s still not a fact until it’s actually verified.
You haven’t shown me anything, so I’m not sure what you expect me to concede?
Nonsense. It’s a ridiculous and laughable error and typical of the rest of the OP which consistently confuses the meaning between fact and opinion and cite while trying to debate them. It’s pretty bad really. It’s not like coming up with an example of a fact is all that difficult a task. I mean you could go with “2 + 2 = 4.”
Or, if you want to go with a little humor you could even use that cite and present one of Bush’s quotes as a supported fact that he said, and derive opinions from that.
The Op was trying to tell us how to produce facts without confusing them with opinions and that’s precisely what she did.
It’s like that fire safety guy Jim Carrey played on in Living Color who kept setting himself on fire during the demonstrations. It’s a joke, and it’d be funny if you weren’t trying to pretend it wasn’t. I doubt most people are gullible enough to buy it.
At any event this whole bit of you playing toady for Stoid’s arguments while she waits to see how they go before she tells us what she really meant is equally, a ludicrous joke. Again, I’m not buying it.
If we’re going to play these kind of games, I think I’ll just go back to being a pirate.
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 07:08 PM]
Izzy:
Sure. Again, I never said this didn’t happen from time to time. Sometimes after all is considered, it is a toss-up even to the most disciplined and objective minds.
All I’ve been suggesting from the beginning is that this eventuality is a relative rarity, and that objective minds can most often look at even subjective data, and discern the best conclusion if they are using the same criteria for evaluation.
Dangerous conclusion, perhaps, unless objective minds themselves are rarities. Otherwise, wouldn’t far more consensus generally exist?
It seems to lead to the mindset of, “If you disagree with my conclusion, you must not be as objective as I am.”
Xeno is doing an exemplary job of understanding and re-stating my OP, but I shall insert these further clarifications:
A) The example used was the first thing that popped into my mind. It was an example to illustrate, I was not trying to get anyone to debate it. However…
B) As others have pointed out, my cite * does * back up my fact: he mangles the language. To a degree sufficiently unusual as to prompt the publication of a book devoted exclusively to his errors. I cited the book to show: yes, he does in fact mangle the language. (I take it as a given, and I assume others do as well, that the book is not filled with lies. I’ve never heard anyone assert that, and it’s hard to imagine such a book getting published. ) It was the first cite I could find from google, and since this was a sample debate, and not the debate itself, I decided that the book would do, rather than coming up with my own compilation just to use in an example.
The point of the example debate was not “does he or doesn’t he?” but rather “What does that tell us about him?”
C) I shall say again what xeno has already rather thoroughly and rightly said already…
Indeed. Except that isn’t what I was saying in my most recent post. The (rather bizarre, really) assertion was that the word “mangles” was being used to mean all sorts of things that it plainly does not and could not mean. 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. “on a fairly regular basis” is where we find possible comparisons or suggestions of unusual frequency. Even then, one must read into it to get very far.
In fact, I suspect that Bush is not very different from the average American in his mangling frequency. But I do think, in fact I am certain, that his MF is much, much higher than other * politicians * at anything near his level. (Governors, Senators, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, the judiciary, etc) That makes it an interesting and perhaps telling point for debate.
But it was never intended to BE the debate in any case, it was simply offered as a breezy example of how debate actually functions here in GD.
Stoid
Gadarene:
Hokey Smokes, Bullwinkle, I think we’ve located the official Great Debates Motto!
Stoid:
I’ll take that bet, for $100.
I also agree with Scylla that starting a thread, then staying off it for a full page while others debate in your stead, waiting for one of them to interpret your comments positively, then coming in and said, “Yep! That’s exactly what I meant!!” is pretty cowardly. It reeks of deceptiveness, in fact.
Dude, I never called the word a “fact” as that would be, well, stooopid. You objected to the word because you felt it was “a statement of opinion.” Now that’s just wrong, dude. It’s a verb, not a statement.
I’d ask you to explain again just what that “problem of tense” is, but I won’t, as it’s most likely a red herring, and I’m getting tired of addressing irrelevant objections.
Well, being as I can’t establish the total number of speeches GW has given, I can’t support it with reasonable data. I retract the statement and offer the following as a more supportable assertion: George W. Bush, the current POTUS, has made speaking errors in more than one of his public speeches, and is commonly known for his propensity for such errors. This is a statement of fact and bears no essential difference to Stoid’s assertion in the OP.
Frankly, Scylla, I find it a bit ludicrous that you continue to fight this battle. It would be quite easy to believe you do so merely because the OP was offered by Stoid. I won’t assert this, as there are clearly other factors involved (including your distaste for “screwball political threads”), but it could certainly be debated based on the verifiable fact that you vehemently disagree with Stoid on a fairly regular basis.
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.
Maybe this doesn’t matter to you Scylla, but you’re losing my respect rapidly. This is a foolish, petty and flagrantly sleazy ad hominem attack. I’m no more Stoid’s “toady” than you are Zenster’s. Please retract your inane charge.
I would suggest that the situation I describe is present in the overwhelming majority of debates. Otherwise, as Gadarene points out, there would be few debates.
I didn’t (& don’t) intend to expend too much energy arguing about this, which was - as you say - only offered as an example. But I do wish to clarify that I have never made any assertions - bizarre or otherwise - about the word “mangles”, and my statements concerned the meaning of the entire sentence, in context.
Me too. I feel we’ve mangled the mangle debate enough.
Sorry. It’s still not quite a fact. We’re getting close though. There’s still a problem with “commonly.” It remains a generalization and not a fact until you pin it down further.
NO. Neither can be asserted as facts as stated.
Are you asking me why I’m here?
This thread looks like a direct response to my own in the Pit. I’m not sure why we need two threads on the subject, but actually I’m glad she started it as this one’s turned out to be quite constructive, proving Gaudere’s hypothesis in this instance.
If you’re suggesting that I’m holding something personal against Stoid and taking the other side simply because Stoid wrote the OP, please come out and say so.
I’ve also vehemently disagreed with PLD, you, Gaudere, Libertarian, and many others on a fairly regular basis. Such is the nature of debate. I’ve also been in agreement, and usually make a point of saying so.
Well, we are talking about facts. I don’t think my insistance that a fact actually be a fact is disingenuous. Nor have I disputed that Bush has frequently made speaking errors. I’ve just pointed out that Stoid’s fact is actually not one, but an opinion based on fact. Since the proper use of facts, citing, and the opinions built upon them is the very substance of the OP itself, and error in this calls the whole thing into question.
Sorry you think that. It’s not ad hominem, but my observation of your role in this thread. Perhaps you’re right though that it’s not totally accurate, as toadying implies deliberate collusion and a subordinate role, neither of which I think is occuring. Do we call it a proxy? Are you Igor to her Frankenstein OP? an advance guard? A scouting party? An advocate?
What word would you choose to define the relationship between you and Stoid in this debate?
Personally I like “dupe,” but I don’t think you will.
What I did in the other thread I did for my own specific reasons. You can call it what you want or interpret it how you feel without my objections.
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 07:12 PM]
Izzy:
Either that, or more often one or both minds aren’t arguing objectively or from identical criteria.
Do you really think I’m Stoid’s “dupe”, Scylla, or is this another example of rhetorical hyperbole, used not for any slight acquaintance it may have with truth, but for damaging and spiteful effect? Purely for the sake of persuasion?
If you do, in fact, think I’ve somehow been hoodwinked by Stoid, please support the assertion with evidence or induction. If instead you’ve used the word because you think it sounds sufficiently insulting but is innocuous enough to get away with, please specify which meaning of the word you intend, and why you believe it applies to my conduct in this thread. Otherwise, retract your inane fucking charge.
Not nearly good enough, Scylla. I don’t think one person who argued with you in that thread accused you of supporting Zenster for any reason other than your stated belief that his points were being misapprehended. Had anyone accused you of toadying or of being his dupe, you would’ve been quite right to take umbrage.
I agree with this. But the problem is that each participant will think the other is the one who is not being objective. So there’s no way to truly objectively determine this. Anyone who would judge this is no better than the participants themselves.
(BTW, I’m a bit surprised at your suggetion that this thread is in response to your Pit thread. This may explain your emphasis on differentiating between pure opinion (e.g. “I just hate George Bush”) and “assesment” opinion (e.g. “I think the following facts suggest that George Bush is an idiot”). That was not my understanding of the OP, and as I understand it, Stoid was differentiating between “assesment” opinion and absolute fact (e.g. George Bush was the governor of Texas).
Oh, and just to help you distinguish between scientifically established facts and factual assertions, here are some more examples of the latter:
[/quote]
Example fact: Al Gore makes exaggerated and self-aggrandizing claims on a fairly regular basis.
Cite for the fact.
Opinions of what the fact means:
- Gore is an essentially dishonest man.
- Gore is a facile exploiter of political spin.
Now, the opinions can be debated (I favor #2), but the initial assertion is entirely factual.
[/quote]
Example fact: Scylla transposes the possessive form of the personal pronoun “you” and the contraction for “you are” on a fairly regular basis.
Opinions of what the fact means:
- Scylla doesn’t know the difference between the two.
- Scylla is often more concerned with making a persuasive point than with spending time on niggling typos and grammatical mistakes.
Now, the opinions can be debated (I favor #2), but the initial assertion is entirely factual.
[/quote]
Example fact: xenophon41 makes unsupportable rhetorical points on a fairly regular basis.
Cite (see fourth quoted excerpt) and cite for the fact.
Opinions of what the fact means:
- xeno doesn’t understand logic or rhetoric.
- xeno is often more concerned with making a persuasive point than with using precisely verifiable language.
Now, the opinions can be debated (I favor #2), but the initial assertion is entirely factual.
[/quote]
Now, please note that the first assertion contains the characterization of Gore as a dishonest self-promoter, which you would require us to “prove” through empirical data, but which actually need be supported only by giving examples of inaccurate statements he’s made regarding his accomplishments (examples of which provided in the cite). The second and third assertions, like the first, contain language indicating that the personal flaw occurs with some regularity, a claim which only need be supported by demonstration of more than one occasion on which the flaw was exhibited (occasions provided in the cites).
Xeno:
I like “dupe,” because this is not the first time that Stoid has argued by proxy through another, and chimed in only to revise previous statements as benefits her side of the debate.
While I don’t think you’re colluding or playing this role deliberately, that is how your arguments are being used to my eye.
Nobody accused me of being a dupe in the Zenster thread (though I took some deserved guff) because Zenster wasn’t chiming in saying “Yeah! That’s what I really meant.” and “Go team!”
Had he done that I probably would have gotten embarassed and left.
At any rate, you seem to be getting all het up about this, and I don’t wish to disturb you.
If you have a better word or description or preference for the phenomenom, let me know, and I’ll go with that.
I’d be glad to substitute Yogi Berra for George W. Bush. Yogi’s a stand-up guy, and would make a damn fine president.
Seriously, though. My point was only that, given the entire universe of “facts” to choose from, what do we happen to end up with?
We end up with how Bush mangles the language and what that means.
That doesn’t strike you as just a teensiest bit absurd, given some of the previous debates? You don’t think that it’s more than a little, well, tired and, well, just a bit small?
But I had a real bad day yesterday, so I’ll agree that I was hasty in my blanket condemnation, particularly since I couldn’t be around later to argue or expand on it. I apologize for that.
I still think the example is pretty darn silly, though, particularly in light of what’s come before.
In regard to the OP:
Truly effective debating is about a helluva lot more than putting forth an opinion and backing it up with “facts.”
Indeed, I’d say facts and citations are pretty much the least effective form of evidence you can offer in a debate. (I’m hardly alone and very far from original in this point of view. Flip through the ancient rhetoric textbook of your choice and you’ll find a lot of the old farts going with this idea.) Today, we rely on facts mostly because facts are easy, and because modern society equates science–the leading purveyor of “fact”–with truth.
Nowadays we can conjure just about any “fact” to counter another. So a curious phenomenon is that we actually tend to pay less attention to facts in a debate, even as we continue to spit them out because that’s what we think people will respond to.
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.
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.
It also means you don’t have to consider the idea that you could be wrong (or less right).
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. The person who uses it is probably not worth arguing with, because they’ve never yet found a reason to change their mind, about anything. You can’t have a productive discussion with someone who won’t admit they could be wrong – or rather, that another opinion could be better than the one they currently hold. And it’s probably not worth debating such a person.
You’d have better luck trying to convince a crazy man not to be crazy.
Xeno:
::Bangs Head::
Your facts still aren’t facts, as they’re extrapolating past behavior and assuming it’s a habit, or ongoing thing.
It may very well be, be as stated, it’s not a fact. It’s an opinion based on an extrapolation or a generalization.
We’re going around in circles here. How about we let the “facts” speak for themselves and move on?
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.
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.’”
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!