I think in the second Liberal quote what he is saying is that he would only argue one position, and only by asserting it, not by denying a different assertion. So if he were to argue that pi is analytic, that would be the thrust of his argument. if he were to argue that pi is synthetic, that would be the thrust of his argument. It would not be in his nature to argue both postions in the same debate, even if an such argument could be advanced. Hence his remark about not making his oponent’s point for him. DrDeth,
Just can’t let it go, can you. Possession of child pornography should necessarily be a serious felony, unless you dilute the pertinent definitions beyond meaningful use.
Look, I’m not playing gotcha here. I’m simply pointing out that the language you use can cause confusion.
Saying “either stance is justifiable” merely reinforces the idea that it’s an either/or discussion.
And again, saying you’d argue that it is synthetic, (Or analytic) does not say “I’d argue that it’s both synthetic and analytic.”
Perhaps you’re using the logical definition of ‘or’, but that’s not the colloqual definiton. I’m not playing games here, I’m trying to point out that anatomy of miscommunication. Do with that whatever you will.
That’s what he’s saying. He would not argue it both ways, even if it were possible. The form that most arguments take around here is debate. And frankly, the goal of debate is to win. The purpose of debate, I suppose, is to sharpen your reasoning skills. If the topic at hand is Resolved: Pi is synthetic, or Resolved: Pi is analyticlal, it really does not fall into the form of the debate to argue that it is both. I suppose if the question at hand were “What is the nature of pi?” you could advance both arguments, but it would not be dishonest to hold one position or the other, even if you felt that an argument could be made for both. In theory, good arguments drive out bad ones.
I understand that much. But at the same time, he also stated that he thought both were equally valid. I didn’t grok why, then, he’d give as an example defending only one position if both are valid. I honestly think that what’s going on here is a matter of miscommunication. As I see it, there is usually only one correct position in a factual debate. If that position is that both ‘sides’ are equally valid, then I can’t understand arguing for only one. Lib has now explained this via his example of the modal ontological proof, but I trust that you could see how it might be seen differently?
Perhaps Lib was using formal logical speech when he was talking about both positions being valid? (Instead of sound?) If so, I’d again suggest that this can lead to miscommunication, as if you’re using jargon it’s best to inform people that you’re not using the standard denotation.
This is, I think, the heart of the matter of miscommunication. If both positions can be advanced, to me, that means they both should be, as the truth is that both are equally valid. As such, I simply cannot understand advancing only one.
Unless of course Lib is using a strictly logical mode of thought, and is implying that both ‘sides’ are logically coherent but that he believes in one more than the other. Again, can’t this easily cause miscommunication for someone who doesn’t use the rigidly logical definition of some words? I would wager a bunch of people would not think in the same terms, and while they might realize that positions can be defended via sophistry, they’d consider only one being correct.
Oh, yes I do. It really is all in how you look at it. And I think Liberal is adhering to a strict form of debate.
I agree that it is the heart of it. I think you are confusing advancing only one position with refusing to advance the other. If everyone just agreed that both A and B were true, what would we know about the reasons for A and B being true? It is argung A, and arguing B, that establish the validity of the claim. The more narrow the focus, the more tight the reasoning. To use a poor analogy–I am both a carpenter and an artist. Arguing that I am one has nothing to do with arguing that I am the other, even if both are true.
Liberal seems to me to be very good at arguing. It is also pretty clear that he knows it. I suspect how he responds is often a result of how he is approached. If he is challenged he responds in kind. If his logic is questioned he doesn’t hold back.
I agree that looking at the big picture, it is more helpful to attempt to enlighten people with information than to attack their arguments. Such a thing is often easier said than done.
If we are fighting ignorance, then it behoves us to elaborate on the truth. If the truth happens to be both are correct, then it behoves us to elaborate on that.
No offense to you, but fuck that noise. I refuse to be used as a foil for someone trying to ‘win’ a debate, especially without my explicit consent. I view the goal of debate as getting at the truth, unless it’s an exercise in pure rhetoric.
Again, I believe that the purpose of debate is to reach the truth. Sometimes it can be simple training exercises, like a Great Debates club in high school… but I expect most people on the Dope to be arguing for a position, not arguing for the sake of argument.
If you’ve made it clear that it’s a formalized debate for no purpose other than honing skills, then sure. But, personally, if someone doesn’t make that disclaimer I’ll assume that they’re serious, even passionate about the topic. I’ll aproach the topic as if they actually hold a view, and perhaps are even open to being persuaded by a good argument. If I knew that they were just using me as a catspaw and training aid, I’d probably spend my time in another thread.
True enough. Not dishonest, but not honorable in my book (but not dishonorable, just… mediocre.). If, in your heart of hearts, you know that the correct position is that both sides have some truth to them, then it seems that a fight against ignorance would demand that you state exactly that. Debating for the sake of debate seems, in many cases, to be mere mental masturbation with the money shot being a position which you might agree with being ‘defeated’ and you ‘winning’.
In practice, I can construct a great argument for the affirmative or negative position in any lincoln-douglas style debate, especially if I get to set the axioms.
But I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on this. Or, if we’re using some logical (and other) terms: your position is valid, but I grok wrongness.
On preview, (I’m in class and typing this in fits and spurts) I think that the ‘big picture’ goal should be our only goal except for special circumstances where we engage in rhetorical play. It’s worth our time to explain why both A and B are true, even if it’s a bit harder. Our lives, after all, depend on nothing but truth. But again, we’re coming at this from different directions. As for being good at arguing, I see that as having about as much use as being good at streetfighting, and in almost the same character much of the time for some people.
As to the purpose of debate, I disagree with both of you. I’m not out to “win,” nor am I out to reach the “truth.” I only want to learn. (And I can sometimes do that by formulating an argument that I might not believe to be right.)
Andros, I’d argue that anything which you can learn (instead of being mistaken in believing) is truth, and that through a debate you can get at truth via sometimes serpentine routes.
None taken. I was incomplete in trying to get my meaning across. I’ll try again–
I did not mean to imply that Liberal, or anyone else for that matter, uses an opponent as a foil for the sole purpose of winning a debate. What I meant to say is that in this particular medium (internet message board) in a forum called Great Debates, that debate is the form that fighting ignorance takes, and therefore strictly following the rules of debate is the best way to go. It isn’t like a conversation between two agreeable people, where ideas can be tossed about and retained or discarded as it seems fit. It is a highly linear form, where sidetracks actually slow down the process, and where anyone can jump in at any time. For the sake of the argument, let’s say I am monitoring an argument in GD, and I feel that I have The Answer to the Question. I pop in and say “Actually all you folks have it wrong, while I have the goods. It’s neither here nor there, but somewhere in between.” Would that be allowed to stand, or would I not have to support my argument through debate? We would be back where we started, only now there would be another topic on the table.
Once again I was unclear. The purpose of a debate is to arrive at an agreed upon conclusion. The form it takes is of a contest. The winner( ostensibly) is the one who convinces his opponent to accept his position. I did not mean to suggeat that debate wes merely a content-free exercise, or that anyone present is engaging in it simply for the sake of the argument.
So would I.
This is where I think we really see things differently, if I read you right. Why is it you think that my claim of knowing “the correct position” wil be met with smiles and handshakes all around? I have simply made another assertion, the value of which will be discovered through debate. In the example we have been using, it isn’t as if Liberal has been withholding some crucial piece of information. He holds a position (pi is analytical and synthetic.) Someone comes along and states “Pi is analytical.” Lib says “Yup.” Someone states “Pi is synthetic.” lib says “Yup.” Someone says "pi is both. Lib says “Yup.” Now if someone says that pi is neither, or is not one but the other, then he has his choice of rersponses. I find it neither dishonorable nor mediocre of someone in a debate to refrain from attacking a position that has not been asserted.
My guess is you believe that it would be his duty to tell the first person that not only is it not neither, but it in fact is both, when all he has to do to refute that assertion is prove it is* one or the other*. I disagree, but respectfully.
I just don’t hink it works that way in GD. If I started an IMHO thread and specifically asked Lib to explain some tricky stuff to me and chose to play me for a fool, well, yeah, he would be a jerk.
We disagree on this as well, at least as far as the character reference goes. Being good at streetfighting and starting a bunch of fights, or using those skills to hurt a weaker opponent is bad. Being good at streetfighting is a survival skill.
Of course you’d have to support it through debate, but at least it’d be the truth.
Naw, it’ll most likely be met by debate and disagreement. And that’s fine. But as I see it, it’s still one’s responsibility to argue for the-most-correct-position that they can find. Perhaps you and I were talking past each other? (that seems to be a theme in this thread). All I’m opposed to is debate for the sake of debate. To the degree that someone’s trying to get at the truth, I think they’re living up to the mission statement of the Dope.
In that case, great. Even better to post, without having to answer 'Yup":
“Pi can be viewed as either analytic or synthetic, and here are the reasons why…” I got the impression that instead of that, only one position would be argued. I’ve already given the textual clues I used to come to that conclusion, and, to be honest, I do think that not all of the problems in my communication lay on my end. But that’s neither here nor there. (Dare I say… it’s a bit of both? ;))
Well, I was quite careful to avoid using the term dishonorable, because I don’t think it is. But I do think it’s mediocre to give a grain of the truth without giving the whole thing. It is exceptional to, as it were, bring the truth to bay. It is mediocre to take potshots at it.
“What is it?”
“It’s not a turtle.”
“Yes, but what is it?”
“It certainly isn’t an orangutan.”
In response to both of your hypotheticals, I’d hope the answers would be “It’s not neither, it’s both.” and “It’s not one or the other, it’s both.” respectively.
Spot on.
And no problem, disagreement is to be expected, but we’ve at least come to a rough level of communion so we can understand where we’re coming from.
Perhaps… I tend to stay out of GD both because in order to post there, I’d want to have an absolutely airtight understanding of a subject and a truckload of cites at my disposal. I also really find the practice of coming a hair’s breadth away from flaming while still making your insults perfectly clear to be… distasteful.
Still, I can’t help but feel that it’d sure be nice if GD worked that way
True enough, every analogy is suspect and that was a bad one on my part. Replace streetfighting with bar brawling, to get a bit closer to my meaning. I think someone who argues just to argue is, if not a jerk, at the very least a schmuck and/or an asshole. I’ve got better things to do with my time, ya know?
Oh I certainly do. And I am jealous of your ability to do more than one at a time well (post here while at school.) It’s all I can do to wrestle any sense at all out of these damn computers. (Old guy, two finger typist, touch of ADD.)
It isn’t hard at all, and it’s exactly what I would do in GQ. I would also do it in GD if few others had argued the position, or arguments for it were weak. Sorry to be so succinct, but I’m reading your posts and typing this while I’m engaged in a kickboxing match, an origami contest, and delivering an oral essay on the behavioral psychology of medieval Japanese eunuchs.
Your guess is as good as mine Contra. I’m guessing that Lib has decided to get annoyed because I post from class, or maybe because you think that’s neat? Or maybe he’s just decided to post as if he’s annoyed and then take us to task for viewing his remarks as most people would read them? Who knows. But I’ll work on being very upset later. After a nap maybe.
Or maybe he just cracked a friendly joke. Finn, I’ve figured out the problem between you and me. You take everything too seriously. You don’t always listen attentively. You parse meaning too deeply. And you project your own biases onto nearly every discussion. In short, we’re a lot alike.
