Come at me bro

[DuffMan]

A wise man once told me, don’t argue with bozos in red hats.
I think that will help you Anna.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Nm

[annasuave]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

A wise man once told me, don’t argue with bozos in red hats.
I think that will help you Anna.

What a strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by jayswin

The trend of shouting out what fallacy people are using is a scourge on online discussion. It's not even used in bad faith by those who shout it out, it just has zero, and I mean zero positive value in a discussion. There's generally two reactions:

a) The person doesn't really know the fallacy or understand what accusation is being laid upon them

b) they get their back up and the discussion degrades even further than it already has.

It generally comes from the educated and irritates the uneducated, causing more friction and anger. I know everyone likes to think online discussion is a battle that they have to "win", but that is absolutely not the case if we have any chance of progressing as a civilization.

When faced with a chance to point out a fallacy it's almost always better to just either a) try to explain your position again, more clearly or simply or b) walk away.

the counterpoint to this is that if your argument contains a logical fallacy, you are not making a sound point and the person is just explaining that so you can re-evaluate your argument

an analogy is that if you were having a discussion about a math problem, and the entire premise of the other person's statement is predicated on 1+1 = 3, theres no basis to continue belaboring anything after that, because any conclusion you can come up with is going to be made on a false pretense

as long as you point out logical fallacies in a non dickish way, it's not so much trying to "win" an argument, it's having an equal ground to base discussions around. if someone makes a strawman or a tu quoque as the basis for their argument, you're correct that if they dont acknowledge what they're doing its best to just walk away

[PepsiFree]

But then, pointing out that someone should re-evaluate their argument structure is not really a compelling argument outside of academia. The human brain is not always logical, it is also highly emotional and often defies logic. The better approach is to show someone why their argument is not logical. Calling it a strawman, or whatever, is simply pointing out the problem, not explaining it or offering a solution.

It’s lazy and pseudo-intellectual imo. Life isn’t a university Philosophy or debate class. You don’t get a degree from how well you can discover logical fallacies on the internet. Nobody is grading your posts but you.

Everyone is better off talking to each other like human beings. More important than sounding smart is knowing your audience and seeking a mutual level of understanding.

And hey, if someone continues to use the same logical fallacy over and over, you can always just let the argument go and move on. It really doesn’t matter in the end, does it?

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

The better approach is to show someone why their argument is not logical. Calling it a strawman, or whatever, is simply pointing out the problem, not explaining it or offering a solution.

it kind of is. if they dont know what a strawman is then then you can explain the concept and why their argument is a strawman. if they still dont get it then there's no point in continuing to discuss whatever with them

fwiw i'm not advocating just saying

HAH, STRAWMAN. OWNED

arguing that logical fallacies are as valid as good faith, logical arguments because its pretentious to point out why people are making illogical statements is a baffling proposition to me

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by stone hands

it kind of is. if they dont know what a strawman is then then you can explain the concept and why their argument is a strawman. if they still dont get it then there's no point in continuing to discuss whatever with them

fwiw i'm not advocating just saying

HAH, STRAWMAN. OWNED

arguing that logical fallacies are as valid as good faith, logical arguments because its pretentious to point out why people are making illogical statements is a baffling proposition to me

Strawman is one thing, hell even the term is descriptive. But you expect most people to know what tu quoque is? That's pretentious. There are loads of logical fallacies, I suspect most people know less than 5 off hand. If you want to drop tu quoque you are better off just explaining why the specific reasoning they are using is wrong with regard to the point they are making.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Strawman is one thing, hell even the term is descriptive. But you expect most people to know what tu quoque is? That's pretentious. There are loads of logical fallacies, I suspect most people know less than 5 off hand. If you want to drop tu quoque you are better off just explaining why the specific reasoning they are using is wrong with regard to the point they are making.

using proper terminology is pretentious? like i said in the comment you quoted, explain what it is, explain why they are making said logical fallacy and move on if they dont budge

i dont think its pretentious to point out what the logical fallacy they are making is called, having more knowledge has never made anyone dumber

[annasuave]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But then, pointing out that someone should re-evaluate their argument structure is not really a compelling argument outside of academia. The human brain is not always logical, it is also highly emotional and often defies logic. The better approach is to show someone why their argument is not logical. Calling it a strawman, or whatever, is simply pointing out the problem, not explaining it or offering a solution.

It’s lazy and pseudo-intellectual imo. Life isn’t a university Philosophy or debate class. You don’t get a degree from how well you can discover logical fallacies on the internet. Nobody is grading your posts but you.

Everyone is better off talking to each other like human beings. More important than sounding smart is knowing your audience and seeking a mutual level of understanding.

And hey, if someone continues to use the same logical fallacy over and over, you can always just let the argument go and move on. It really doesn’t matter in the end, does it?

This.

I know that pointing out a logical fallacy is not a good strategy in an argument. Assuming we mean argument to mean "a discussion involving conflicting viewpoints wherein both parties try to bring the other party around to their way of thinking". I can easily see how that's just shooting myself in my own foot and isn't helping me sway minds and hearts.

Truth is, I'm not skillful in arguments - and especially not in asserting my points against someone who's contentious, less than respectful, or acting bullheaded. That puts me at a disadvantage on the few occasions when I do get into arguments. Sometimes I feel like I can see both sides of an argument, but I'm up against someone who can't. Or more likely can, but just won't admit it - because that doesn't win arguments.

Theory, I understand. Practice and application - I don't got. I'm far more likely to declare the situation a losing proposition and walk away feeling like a loser or a whimp or both.

I was kind of hoping to practice my arguing skills in the safe, warm waters of CP.

I think what I'm hearing here (especially from folks I have disagreed with in the past) is "You're not good at it. So what? Changing minds and swaying opinions through an argument probably isn't a winning strategy for you. Perhaps you have something in your toolkit that works better for you?"

...mulls things over and skulks away to go work on The Long Game.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by stone hands

it kind of is. if they dont know what a strawman is then then you can explain the concept and why their argument is a strawman. if they still dont get it then there's no point in continuing to discuss whatever with them

fwiw i'm not advocating just saying

HAH, STRAWMAN. OWNED

arguing that logical fallacies are as valid as good faith, logical arguments because its pretentious to point out why people are making illogical statements is a baffling proposition to me

It really isn’t. And it’s because almost everytime I’ve ever seen someone point out a fallacy it seems low effort and lazy. It’s not hard to explain a straw man or tu quoque. And yeah most of the time pretty much exactly what I see is “pfft resorting to a straw man, typical” as a dickish way to try and win an argument.

Seriously how lazy and pretend intellectual are people who feel the need to point out ad hominem attacks?

You’re also assuming that people are correctly identifying the fallacy. If you explain why their argument is incorrect, at least you’re forced to address the errors. Simply calling out a fallacy doesn’t provide any evidence that they did use a fallacy.

I also find that people who rely on calling out fallacy’s are often guilty of the fallacy fallacy. Or that they’re hoping they can win the argument via proof by intimidation.

Not to mention that logical fallacies are rarely, if ever, used in daily life. They’re for people who want to pretend the internet is a philosophy 201 class and they’re trying to impress the instructor with how smart they are.

[Knut]

The worst part about Logical Fallacies now is that people that are Anti-vax or believe in Alternative medicine have started using them to degrade the discussion into a fight about logical fallacies. No facts are discussed or they are discounted because you used some obscure logical fallacy when talking about it.

[stone hands]

Someone summarily dismissing a point being made with the only counter argument being the name of the logical fallacy is indeed intellectually lazy and I’ve said as much

Saying: “your argument is ad hominiem because it’s attacking me personally vs addressing any of the points I made and thus not relevant to the discussion” isn’t being pretentious, it’s framing and directing the discussion in a productive way

The point of argument is to come to the truth, not to win. You cannot come to the truth in logic when you start on false pretences or if your argument is based in a fallacy

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by stone hands

Someone summarily dismissing a point being made with the only counter argument being the name of the logical fallacy is indeed intellectually lazy and I’ve said as much

Saying: “your argument is ad hominiem because it’s attacking me personally vs addressing any of the points I made and thus not relevant to the discussion” isn’t being pretentious, it’s framing and directing the discussion in a productive way

The point of argument is to come to the truth, not to win. You cannot come to the truth in logic when you start on false pretences or if your argument is based in a fallacy

Nah, that’s definitely pretentious. The simplest way to say that is “You’re just attacking me and not addressing my point.” Plus then you don’t have to use the phrases “ad hominem” or “thus, not relevant!”

Again, we’re having conversations. This isn’t a classroom. No grades will be rewarded.

[Geraldsh]

But I like it when you all exercise your vocabularies; it forces me to climb another rung on the ladder to mental emolument.

[GGG]

I’m pretty sure grades are awarded with thanks.

I do think eliminating thanks would improve discussion quality.

[annasuave]

Originally Posted by Geraldsh

But I like it when you all exercise your vocabularies; it forces me to climb another rung on the ladder to mental emolument.

Is that when you set yourself on fire as a form of protest?

[Geraldsh]

Setting myself on fire might cause some discomfort. When I become sufficiently educated I will teach fallacies to Greta.

[Knut]

Originally Posted by GGG

I’m pretty sure grades are awarded with thanks.

I do think eliminating thanks would improve discussion quality.

I like the Thanks. In long debates I can scroll past all the non-thanked posts and get to the meat of the argument without all the time reading.

I also think there should be a DISLIKE option too. That way you can quickly find controversial posts.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Hes

I like the Thanks. In long debates I can scroll past all the non-thanked posts and get to the meat of the argument without all the time reading.

I also think there should be a DISLIKE option too. That way you can quickly find controversial posts.

Dislike would be so awesome.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Sliver

Dislike would be so awesome.

Part of me wants to see a full revamp of the board through Sliver's eyes.