Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Stop the Insanity! Let's raise the bar!

0 helpful
9 replies

by road-dog

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I'm not going to pretend to have written this, but it's a great encapsulation of bad tactics in debating.

A List of Bad Debating Tactics, and a Recipe for Reasoned Thought. ALL READ PLEASE!
http://forums.pcper.com/showthread.php?t=324134

At times most of us have fallen back on one or more of these. Because I try to avoid them, it makes me cringe when they are used, particularly in discussions that go absolutely nowhere, again and again...

9 replies

by gate keeper

most of the topics of that nature .. recently were election related .. so hopefully when the high wears off .. things will be a little bit more stable

by nicknielsen

Thanks, road-dog.

BTW, I found this linked at the bottom of your linked discussion. Although it's obviously aimed at political conservatives, I think people of all political persuasions (sometimes including myself :0 ) could stand to follow these guidelines: http://tinyurl.com/5jdm2u

by Member 25348569

Show errors or omissions in your opponent?s facts or errors or omissions in your opponent?s logic. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. Cheating.

Your link was interesting but the OP forgot - along with quite a few others - "Changing the Subject".

:)

by ontheropes

I don't debate. Not interested in changing my viewpoints thru debate so I just listen/read and make up my own mind about everything that I want to. I can change my mind if someone else provides compelling reasons to do so but I've been here at TR for awhile now and can't really recall anyone here changing my mind about a single thing.

by charliespencer

but I'm often interested in trying to understand where the other guy is coming from (WebNinja, ProtiusX, and -Q excepted). I don't see circumstances under which I would own a fire arm, but I'm interested in the motivations of those who do. It's often useful to know the other side of an issue, either to develop an effective compromise or to counterattack it.

by road-dog

I'm interested in these rules because the pursuit of understanding requires some civility and respect for the process.

I hate watching those news shows when two guests are placed side by side and spend the entire time spewing disjointed talking points. Nothing gets settled, there is nothing to be learned because the discourse is absurdly lacking in respect for the process. It's a race to get through the list of talking points even if one has to talk over the other participants.

I like to point out that many folks don't respect an opposing positions' right to exist.

This discussion is closed to new replies.