Debate idiosyncracies

[Left]

Are there any bad or weird debate habits we can point out without attacking our fellow posters? I will mention two:

1. It seems like the more well-versed in philosophy a person becomes, the shorter and simpler their questions become. Pretty soon they are asking "What is truth?" or "What is justice?" or some such.

2. The other thing is that a poster will get on a site with an innocent question, and people will put their debate hats on and go to work. It's like the poster might have well have just covered themselves in honey and thrown themselves to bears. Then when a poster gets on that wants an actual debate... no one responds to them.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

1. Failing to agree with me.
2. Failing even to disagree with me.

 

[Paradoxum]

Are there any bad or weird debate habits we can point out without attacking our fellow posters? I will mention two:

Trying to claim an argument is a logical fallacy when it isn't, and they don't understand what it is.

1. It seems like the more well-versed in philosophy a person becomes, the shorter and simpler their questions become. Pretty soon they are asking "What is truth?" or "What is justice?" or some such.

I don't think that's necessarily true. As someone with a Philosophy degree, etc, the short questions do seem to become more important, but there are plenty of complex too. You can ask, 'What is morality?', "Can morality ever be shown to be required?", or some thought experiment.

And I'm not sure the less philosophical mostly have long questions. Though they are probably less likely to ask the basic questions. 'What is knowledge and goodness?'

2. The other thing is that a poster will get on a site with an innocent question, and people will put their debate hats on and go to work. It's like the poster might have well have just covered themselves in honey and thrown themselves to bears. Then when a poster gets on that wants an actual debate... no one responds to them.

I sometimes slam people for asking questions I think are stupid, or at least I want to. I find it frustrating that people don't seem to believe in what I think is basic liberty or equality, and I know I should be more compassionate.[/QUOTE]

 

[Left]

While we are on this subject, I have a question. There is a special term for someone who gives you a flat hand to the face for repeating the same argument over and over. What is that term I'm looking for? It would be nice to know in case I ever have to use it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

While we are on this subject, I have a question. There is a special term for someone who gives you a flat hand to the face for repeating the same argument over and over. What is that term I'm looking for? It would be nice to know in case I ever have to use it.

It's called, "Whiplash"! Ever see the movie?

 

[zippy2006]

Trying to claim an argument is a logical fallacy when it isn't, and they don't understand what it is.

So true! The deeper problem is that they don't understand why a fallacy is fallacious, they just try to memorize a list of fallacies and then "spring" them on people when they think they've spotted one.

IMO there is little need to cite formal fallacies, as the reasoning behind them can be provided with great brevity.

 

[Larniavc]

While we are on this subject, I have a question. There is a special term for someone who gives you a flat hand to the face for repeating the same argument over and over. What is that term I'm looking for? It would be nice to know in case I ever have to use it.

Face palm ‍♂️

 

[Left]

It's called, "Whiplash"! Ever see the movie?

Face palm ‍♂️

Somehow, I don't think those are it.

Also, I meant a hand to the other person's face.

 

[Larniavc]

Somehow, I don't think those are it.

Also, I meant a hand to the other person's face.

Dunno if this helps but a PRATT is a 'point repeated a thousand times'.

 

[Paradoxum]

So true! The deeper problem is that they don't understand why a fallacy is fallacious, they just try to memorize a list of fallacies and then "spring" them on people when they think they've spotted one.

IMO there is little need to cite formal fallacies, as the reasoning behind them can be provided with great brevity.

I agree... I prefer to jut explain the issue, rather than quote a term.

 

[Left]

Still, when pressed against a better debater than you, the best thing to do is get them talking, and point out the logical fallacies in their argument. No one is above logical fallacies.

 

[Paradoxum]

Still, when pressed against a better debater than you, the best thing to do is get them talking, and point out the logical fallacies in their argument. No one is above logical fallacies.

Well I kind of agree. The easiest way to counter an argument is for someone to explain it, and you to pick at the issues in it.

But it can seem lazy, and an attempt at intellectual superiority to simply name fallacies, rather than explain in more detail the problem.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Somehow, I don't think those are it.

Also, I meant a hand to the other person's face.

No, those aren't it. What I gave you was an attempt at humor, TOF.

 

[Left]

No, those aren't it. What I gave you was an attempt at humor, TOF.

 

[Rebecca12]

Debate is generally (though not always) pointless. It is not a good vehicle for finding truth or finding consensus. So, if you debate I would seriously consider thinking about exactly what you hope to accomplish.

One weird debate habit I have seen on this forum is using stilted language and overly complex sentences (word salad). This serves to cloud the issue. I do not think this is tactical. I think it evidences poorly thought out arguments.

People don't establish the accuracy of their premises.

The ad hominem fallacy is often misunderstood. You can have a non-fallacious argument filled with personal insults. But that doesn't mean people should use insults as a debate tactic. If your goal is to convert people to Christianity insults are not going to paint a desirable picture of your religion.

I think people, including me, would be better served by engaging in conversations where you listen to each other instead of engaging in a debate.