How to Debate

Since we are making this foray into serious discussions and even debates, I thought it might be a good idea to go over exactly what constitutes a good debate, and what makes for a bad one. For this, I am going to borrow heavily from H.P.Grice, who is considered somewhat a founder of the principles of modern philosophical debate.

We start with the Cooperative Principle. Simply put, this says that all participants in a discussion are responsible for the direction of the discussion and are responsible to each other for maintaining the discussion. Here it is:

Cooperative Principle (CP): Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.

The conversational maxims are as follows:
(1) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
(2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
(3) Do not say what you believe to be false.
(4) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
(5) Be relevant.
(6) Avoid obscurity of expression.
(7) Avoid ambiguity.
(8) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
(9) Be orderly.

Now, I learned a "Top Ten Ways to Lose a Debate" years ago, but I don't believe all of them are relevant here. We are, after all, not having a win or lose debate here, but are instead looking to have thought-provoking and entertaining discussions. Still, a few of the items from that list are pertinent:

(A) Introducing a Red Herring: This refers to a means of shifting the topic to another topic entirely. This is different from the normal flow of a conversation, which may bend and stretch the original topic. It is your responsibility to ensure you are adhering to the principal topic. If you must go on a tangent, you must say you are doing so.
(B) Being Incoherent: If the other participants, or a sizable portion of the audience, are unable to understand what you have said, the fault is yours. It is your responsibility to speak clearly and to make yourself understood.
(C) Redundancy: Repeating the same argument after it has been made. (We used to note each other doing this by making a circle in the air with our finger, denoting they've circled around to the same points.) This is pointless and hinders progress.
(D) Evasion: When the prior speaker has made a valid point, especially if it contradicts something you state previously, to fail to respond to this is to admit your own fallacy. If you assert something to be true, you need to defend it. If you cannot defend it, you should admit defeat openly.
(E) False Reasoning: Using false logic or inconsistent arguments to try to make a point.

If you have stayed with me this far, :cheer:! I know, it all seems pretty dry, right? But it's actually kind of fun when you put it into practice. I challenge all of you to go through the posts already made in this forum section and grade them for us. We'll make it a 9 point system, shall we?

Choose any post from any conversation here. Quote it in your own post, and be sure to show us who said it. Then, offer a grade. For every one of the Conversation Principles that the writer adheres to, give them 1 point. For every one of the "Ways to Lose a Debate" that they fall prey to, subtract a point. Explain your grades where necessary. I'll start to show you what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dawnseeker

Many animals are inherently destructive to other flora and fawna in their vicinity. Termites in Africa spread and destroy habitats and even human population centers must be evacuated. Similar things can be said of soldier ants, locusts and other insects because their usual numbers can't support enough natural predators to deal with population explosions.

The idea that nature is somehow in harmony and humans upset that balance is inherently untrue. Climate is constantly changing, environments and habitats are constantly changing, and animals have gone extinct for millenia without any human intervention.

Humans are intelligent not because we go against nature, but because we master nature. Human evolution has been a steady progression of increasing mastery over our environment.

We build cities, push back the wilderness, create aqueducts and sewers. We build farms and ranches, breed livestock and grow crops for food and other uses. We convert carbon compounds into usable energy, allowing us to propel ourselves at speeds unfathomed by even the fastest falcon. We have broken our planetary bonds and reached into the vast unknown of space, exploring physically and with the power of observation.

Humans are intelligent because we, and we alone, are capable of observation, introspection and self-control. A lioness on the savanna of Africa may watch a gazelle, but she can't appreciate a sunset. A plant may emit pheromone warnings to its kin, but it can't write poetry. A dolphin may do tricks, but it can't tell you're giving it a dirty look.

If intelligence is the ability to respond and adapt to our environment, then all life is intelligent. If intelligence is the ability to have a discussion on the meaning of intelligence, then we stand alone.

---

This is taken from the "What is Intelligence?" thread.

Positive points:
(1) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
(2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
(3) Do not say what you believe to be false.
(4) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. -see red text in quote
(5) Be relevant.
(6) Avoid obscurity of expression.
(7) Avoid ambiguity.
(8) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
(9) Be orderly.

He hit dead on for 8 of the 9 points.

I see no Red Herrings, Incoherency, Redundancy, or Evasion, but there is evidence of False Reasoning (see above red text again.) I am subtracting a point for that.

I give this post 7 points out of 9.

I'm trying out a new persona. This following is not sarcastic:

That's a helpful post, long overdue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rasterbee

I'm trying out a new persona. This following is not sarcastic:

That's a helpful post, long overdue.

---

Doesnt fit on you :P

Thank you for expressing support, but let's not discuss the concept. I'd like to see you grade some posts, please. :)

I suppose this kind of links in with my guide too, this one is just more precise whereas mine is for general forum posting. Good guide by the way, when people start making mistakes during a debate it's quite easy to rip them apart which is why I prefer to stick to topics i'm more familiar with.

Quote:

---

(4) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

---

That kinda puts me out of the debate, I use the internet for close to zero percent of what I learn, most of what I learn comes from me skimming random books in the non-fiction section of the Library, a good part from encyclopedias and the rest from Scientific Magazines, newsletters and National Geographic. And I seem to have no skill when it comes to using the search engines to find stuff, might be because I refuse to load up PDFs, but still, my ability to source things is close to nil

I use to just say In my opinion with everything I said or "From what I know", or "Based on various things I know" with whatever I said, but after a month of this I as told that its very annoying and to stop.

If you have solid reason to believe you are providing factual information, that is acceptable. I see no reason to require footnotes and a bibliography for a discussion. :)

P.S. Not one of you has graded a post as I asked. I'm going to ask you to stop posting in this thread if you won't do what I asked.

Because I must rate someone in order to post here is this.

Quote:

---

Humans can run at 20 miles per hour for close to four days and nights without stopping. No Animal in the world can do that. Ants could be dropped from ten-thousand feet and still not get hurt, they are simply too small to get damaged, their inertia is too low. Humans can live 4 to 6 weeks without food and still be able to move, so we outdo the Arctic wolf, though how long you can live without food doesn't really change dramatically from animal to animal. A lot of animals will outdo humans in specific areas, but if you look at every area of endurance and average it out humans outdo them all not counting long distance running, thats where we excel.

http://www.physorg.com/news95954919.html

Thumbs, intelligence and we are on the top of the endurance chart, the deck is stacked in our favor.

And really, if you want a monster, whats scarier then something that never stops, never quits and never tires until well after you do?

---

(1) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).

Didn't even offer possibilities.

(2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
(3) Do not say what you believe to be false.

Obvious Hyperbole.
(4) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

And how, just one source.
(5) Be relevant.

Completely irrelevant to Endurance.

(6) Avoid obscurity of expression.

Who says the Deck is stacked anymore?

(7) Avoid ambiguity.

Not even I could figure out what his point is.

(8) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).

Fails this.
(9) Be orderly.

Not enough paragraphs.

***

All in all, one out of nine isn't bad.

***

Quote:

---

If you have solid reason to believe you are providing factual information, that is acceptable. I see no reason to require footnotes and a bibliography for a discussion.

---

So... what do you mean by evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Humility

So... what do you mean by evidence?

---

Well, keep in mind that I was quoting Grice and he was speaking about debates in particular. In a formal debate, people are expected to have references ready to back up what they assert.

However, I think if are certain of your facts, it's fine to post them. If you are making a guess or estimate, say so. If you are unsure that you remember clearly, say that. Be prepared, though. If you make the claim that a giraffe has a third nostril on the back of his neck, and someone challenges that "fact", you may find yourself scrambling to google to back up your information.

First up, I think this thread should be stickied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Axer NZ

1. From an moral standpoint, yes. A heartless leader who can't put aside his work for a few hours to see his family is not the sort you want running anything. However, in a more practical sense, you wouldn't want him sacrificing the nation to save his family.

2. Without a family. Having dependents causes a person to feel more mortal. They think more about their own safety, that of their family, and most importantly, about their legacy. The number of political decisions that have been made to look good in textbooks rather than do the right thing is astronomical.

---

(1) Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).
(2) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
(3) Do not say what you believe to be false.
(4) Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.
(5) Be relevant.
(6) Avoid obscurity of expression.
(7) Avoid ambiguity.
(8) Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).
(9) Be orderly.

So I rate this post 7/9. I think some statements are made without evidence, and the last sentence seems semi-detached from the rest of the ideas in the post.

Facts are for wimps.
I trust my gut instinct to let me know that the truthiness of my beliefs prove that I'm right in every opinion, despite what your lousy "facts" might say.


Disclaimer: The above statement is not endorsed by Rota. :devil: Facts are the only real currency of any value in any debate.