Comments on: How to spot weak arguments http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/ Sat, 17 May 2008 00:01:01 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Jonathan Grand http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-178 Jonathan Grand Sat, 17 May 2008 00:01:01 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-178 Upon analysis of the comments, roughly 75% were positive answers, which leads us to conclude that this can be considered a great post. Upon analysis of the comments, roughly 75% were positive answers, which leads us to conclude that this can be considered a great post.

]]> By: Tron http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-177 Tron Fri, 16 May 2008 23:46:03 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-177 The elephant may be able to charge at 25MPH but how fast can he turn? The elephant may be able to charge at 25MPH but how fast can he turn?

]]> By: LHaw http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-176 LHaw Fri, 16 May 2008 23:45:10 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-176 The problem with your little delusion is that you presume the existence of "facts": Unless you are omniscient, as in capable of knowing *ALL* variables & how to correctly interpret &/or apply them, you have to rely on statistics; & as any freshman stat class graduate can tell you, statistics can be made to say anything you want. The sad fact is that even repeatable hard-core science is pretty much entirely comprised of **guesses** (AKA theories) that haven't encountered anomalies that make current *THEORY* fall apart. This all makes the vaguenesses you equate with dubiousness turn out to be *more correct* because they acknowledge the limits of certitude inherent in reasoning without being all-knowing. The problem with your little delusion is that you presume the existence of “facts”: Unless you are omniscient, as in capable of knowing *ALL* variables & how to correctly interpret &/or apply them, you have to rely on statistics; & as any freshman stat class graduate can tell you, statistics can be made to say anything you want. The sad fact is that even repeatable hard-core science is pretty much entirely comprised of **guesses** (AKA theories) that haven’t encountered anomalies that make current *THEORY* fall apart. This all makes the vaguenesses you equate with dubiousness turn out to be *more correct* because they acknowledge the limits of certitude inherent in reasoning without being all-knowing.

]]> By: Aaron http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-175 Aaron Fri, 16 May 2008 23:44:39 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-175 Good luck winning arguements relying on those rules. People tune out when you feed them nothing but facts. They like hearing stories, experiences, things they can imagine or relate to. Oh, and have fun trying to remember all those stats next time you get into a discussion on how more gun ownership means less crime or how many people were left homeless and landless when the US occupied many of the thirdworld countries out there. Good luck winning arguements relying on those rules. People tune out when you feed them nothing but facts. They like hearing stories, experiences, things they can imagine or relate to.

Oh, and have fun trying to remember all those stats next time you get into a discussion on how more gun ownership means less crime or how many people were left homeless and landless when the US occupied many of the thirdworld countries out there.

]]> By: AaronSTL http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-174 AaronSTL Fri, 16 May 2008 23:39:30 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-174 I agree with the first commenter. Learning how to spot logical fallacies is quite useful...and SGU is teh awesome. I agree with the first commenter. Learning how to spot logical fallacies is quite useful…and SGU is teh awesome.

]]> By: The Heretic http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-173 The Heretic Fri, 16 May 2008 23:34:38 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-173 Look for absolute statements and try to use non-absolute assertions in your arguments: use "few", "many" and "most" instead of "all", "none" or "never" (never say never). Absolute assertions in debates are rarely true - assertions with relative amounts are debatable but much harder to disprove without hard numbers - for most issues there are exceptions to the rule. Lookup the facts behind an assertion before making it. Try to understand the difference between someone stating an opinion and someone making an assertion of fact. Be careful about asserting that "I know" something vs. "I believe" something vs. "I think" something - three different statements that are often conflated both by the people making them and the people reading them. Know what words mean and use them properly. Don't attack the person - attack the message. When the opposition makes a point that is valid don't bother trying to dispute it, either acknowledge it or don't address it. My goal is to arrive at the truth, not necessarily to win, so lying or disputing the truth defeats my purpose. Look for absolute statements and try to use non-absolute assertions in your arguments: use “few”, “many” and “most” instead of “all”, “none” or “never” (never say never). Absolute assertions in debates are rarely true – assertions with relative amounts are debatable but much harder to disprove without hard numbers – for most issues there are exceptions to the rule.

Lookup the facts behind an assertion before making it.

Try to understand the difference between someone stating an opinion and someone making an assertion of fact. Be careful about asserting that “I know” something vs. “I believe” something vs. “I think” something – three different statements that are often conflated both by the people making them and the people reading them.

Know what words mean and use them properly.

Don’t attack the person – attack the message.

When the opposition makes a point that is valid don’t bother trying to dispute it, either acknowledge it or don’t address it. My goal is to arrive at the truth, not necessarily to win, so lying or disputing the truth defeats my purpose.

]]> By: Close http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-172 Close Fri, 16 May 2008 23:28:40 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-172 These of course, are contextual rules - as are all rules. If someone uses terminology such as "more" or "many", it may be the case that they actually know the real statistics; or perhaps in a debate between two or more persons in the same field, such words are used because the statistics or information is practically common knowledge. The first and most important rule of thumb is remembering that people only truly know something if they have had direct experience with it. Call them out on what they say - whatever they say. These of course, are contextual rules – as are all rules. If someone uses terminology such as “more” or “many”, it may be the case that they actually know the real statistics; or perhaps in a debate between two or more persons in the same field, such words are used because the statistics or information is practically common knowledge.

The first and most important rule of thumb is remembering that people only truly know something if they have had direct experience with it. Call them out on what they say – whatever they say.

]]> By: KingOfTheBeetlePeople http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-171 KingOfTheBeetlePeople Fri, 16 May 2008 23:26:38 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-171 I don't remember who I got this from but a good way to end an argument is to say, "That sounds like something Stalin [or insert any other undesirable person here] would say... I don’t remember who I got this from but a good way to end an argument is to say, “That sounds like something Stalin [or insert any other undesirable person here] would say…

]]> By: Burketo http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-168 Burketo Fri, 16 May 2008 23:10:27 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-168 “Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run…” That was a terrible example of debating! it completely missed the point. the argument that you could escape an elephant by ducking and weaving is so full of flaws and yet that rebuttle completely misses them and quotes a nigh on irrelevent statistic. “Elephants charge at up to 25mph. Way faster than you can run…”

That was a terrible example of debating! it completely missed the point. the argument that you could escape an elephant by ducking and weaving is so full of flaws and yet that rebuttle completely misses them and quotes a nigh on irrelevent statistic.

]]> By: Scott http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-and-destroy-weak-arguments/#comment-167 Scott Fri, 16 May 2008 23:10:23 +0000 http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/05/14/how-to-spot-weak-arguments/#comment-167 I stll think a man could out-weave an elephant I stll think a man could out-weave an elephant

]]>