<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: How to spot weak arguments</title>
	<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 02:34:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: dieheartfan</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-267</link>
		<dc:creator>dieheartfan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 May 2008 05:43:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-267</guid>
		<description>This is about the craziest thing I have ever heard of!if you don't know the statistical facts yourself, how do you know if the other person isn't accurate or is full of crap? plus, there are numerous situations where actual numbers are not really neccessary to prove a point(police relating criminal activity in a certain area, news reporter talking about the recent upswing in the number of new houses for sale, etc. etc.)  These instances don't call for actual numbers, but we know them to be true.

Same could be said of an informal, unprepared argument(you call it a debate) between two people!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is about the craziest thing I have ever heard of!if you don&#8217;t know the statistical facts yourself, how do you know if the other person isn&#8217;t accurate or is full of crap? plus, there are numerous situations where actual numbers are not really neccessary to prove a point(police relating criminal activity in a certain area, news reporter talking about the recent upswing in the number of new houses for sale, etc. etc.)  These instances don&#8217;t call for actual numbers, but we know them to be true.</p>
<p>Same could be said of an informal, unprepared argument(you call it a debate) between two people!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: links for 2008-05-20 &#171; Simply&#8230; A User</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-224</link>
		<dc:creator>links for 2008-05-20 &#171; Simply&#8230; A User</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 May 2008 00:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-224</guid>
		<description>[...] How to spot weak arguments at The CreateDebate Blog (tags: debate howto communication argument tips language logic words *) [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] How to spot weak arguments at The CreateDebate Blog (tags: debate howto communication argument tips language logic words *) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fast Eddy</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-213</link>
		<dc:creator>Fast Eddy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 06:51:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-213</guid>
		<description>While i respect the motives of these guidelines, they exist in a fantasy world.

Just because someone doesn't have global statistics doesn't mean their point is moot. And this whole thing stinks of wanting to jump to conclusions early. 

There are no shortcuts, whether someone says "many" or gives you a percentage, either way you'll have to check their accuracy. It's counter-productive towards constructive arguments if you're going no nit pick about details that aren't relevant to the main point.

Just out of Curiosity, what percentages would qualify for words like "Many" according to you? Do you expect over 50% or 90%? Or do you do it on a case by case basis?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While i respect the motives of these guidelines, they exist in a fantasy world.</p>
<p>Just because someone doesn&#8217;t have global statistics doesn&#8217;t mean their point is moot. And this whole thing stinks of wanting to jump to conclusions early. </p>
<p>There are no shortcuts, whether someone says &#8220;many&#8221; or gives you a percentage, either way you&#8217;ll have to check their accuracy. It&#8217;s counter-productive towards constructive arguments if you&#8217;re going no nit pick about details that aren&#8217;t relevant to the main point.</p>
<p>Just out of Curiosity, what percentages would qualify for words like &#8220;Many&#8221; according to you? Do you expect over 50% or 90%? Or do you do it on a case by case basis?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stormboy</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-212</link>
		<dc:creator>Stormboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 01:20:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-212</guid>
		<description>Try outrunning an elephant in a field, even if you could out-weave it. Let's assume you are both in the middle of the field, and that your weaving abilities are better.  Try imagine a path to getting out of the field and to safety. When you far enough away, dodging is less an advantage than speed. When you dodge, you change direction.  How will you get to the edge of the field.  Eventually the race will come down to endurance.

On another note, a lot of people are assuming there is a right and wrong side to an argument. Often, (let's say 87%, haha) truth and fallacy is on both sides of a 2-sided debate.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Try outrunning an elephant in a field, even if you could out-weave it. Let&#8217;s assume you are both in the middle of the field, and that your weaving abilities are better.  Try imagine a path to getting out of the field and to safety. When you far enough away, dodging is less an advantage than speed. When you dodge, you change direction.  How will you get to the edge of the field.  Eventually the race will come down to endurance.</p>
<p>On another note, a lot of people are assuming there is a right and wrong side to an argument. Often, (let&#8217;s say 87%, haha) truth and fallacy is on both sides of a 2-sided debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Benny</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-210</link>
		<dc:creator>Benny</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 14:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-210</guid>
		<description>And here I thought this article would at least mention logical fallacies with arguments. Sure, those things above do point to weak arguments but you can have a weak argument and not have any of those things mentioned above. What if your initial assumption for your argument is wrong and you presumed it right. That makes the whole argument wrong too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And here I thought this article would at least mention logical fallacies with arguments. Sure, those things above do point to weak arguments but you can have a weak argument and not have any of those things mentioned above. What if your initial assumption for your argument is wrong and you presumed it right. That makes the whole argument wrong too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-207</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 12:06:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-207</guid>
		<description>The problem is that nobody wants to hear the truth. Atheists, no doubt very well represented here, would point for example to Darwinism. 

Unfortunately : this simple and evident point always gets contested, despite it being the basis of the theory. So atheists merely use the word itself as a retort, and forego it's meaning, it's implications.

Darwinism is eternal, perpetual resource war, only limited by the laws of the jungle. Anyone who fails to participate (going as far as possible without getting caught) will either die violently, due to active violence of others, or die without (or with less) children, who are at a bigger risk of getting killed by those with an "advantage".

That's Darwinism. That's what supposed to replace christian ethics in the minds of atheists. Do you think anyone wants the truth ?

You can't handle the truth.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem is that nobody wants to hear the truth. Atheists, no doubt very well represented here, would point for example to Darwinism. </p>
<p>Unfortunately : this simple and evident point always gets contested, despite it being the basis of the theory. So atheists merely use the word itself as a retort, and forego it&#8217;s meaning, it&#8217;s implications.</p>
<p>Darwinism is eternal, perpetual resource war, only limited by the laws of the jungle. Anyone who fails to participate (going as far as possible without getting caught) will either die violently, due to active violence of others, or die without (or with less) children, who are at a bigger risk of getting killed by those with an &#8220;advantage&#8221;.</p>
<p>That&#8217;s Darwinism. That&#8217;s what supposed to replace christian ethics in the minds of atheists. Do you think anyone wants the truth ?</p>
<p>You can&#8217;t handle the truth.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sanver.info &#187; Blog Archive &#187; How to Spot &#38; Destroy Weak Arguments</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-206</link>
		<dc:creator>sanver.info &#187; Blog Archive &#187; How to Spot &#38; Destroy Weak Arguments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 11:46:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-206</guid>
		<description>[...] read more &#124; digg story [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] read more | digg story [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Memmoo.com</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-205</link>
		<dc:creator>Memmoo.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 10:56:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-205</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;How to Spot &#38; Destroy Weak Arguments&lt;/strong&gt;

Keep these simple rules in the back of your mind so that next time somebody tries to get in your face, you can slice them deep (all the way to the white meat).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>How to Spot &#38; Destroy Weak Arguments</strong></p>
<p>Keep these simple rules in the back of your mind so that next time somebody tries to get in your face, you can slice them deep (all the way to the white meat).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lawsy</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-202</link>
		<dc:creator>Lawsy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 08:46:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-202</guid>
		<description>How about just start a little argument and then if you feel your starting to lose, then just say "I wash my hands of this" or "who cares". A little common sense is fine, in the world of the internet everyone fact checks and can only be defeated on an argument beaten with sound logic. IRL if you shout loud enough people will back down, or laugh depending on your disposition.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How about just start a little argument and then if you feel your starting to lose, then just say &#8220;I wash my hands of this&#8221; or &#8220;who cares&#8221;. A little common sense is fine, in the world of the internet everyone fact checks and can only be defeated on an argument beaten with sound logic. IRL if you shout loud enough people will back down, or laugh depending on your disposition.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Span of the Bow</title>
		<link>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-201</link>
		<dc:creator>Span of the Bow</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 08:22:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-201</guid>
		<description>To clarify, midway through my comment I should have said, "The debater versed in logic simply has to refuse to acknowledge that their less-skilled opponent is right, and keep arguing in an attempt to turn opinion against their opponent."  I've seen this happen many times due to grudges and something akin to missionary zeal.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To clarify, midway through my comment I should have said, &#8220;The debater versed in logic simply has to refuse to acknowledge that their less-skilled opponent is right, and keep arguing in an attempt to turn opinion against their opponent.&#8221;  I&#8217;ve seen this happen many times due to grudges and something akin to missionary zeal.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
