How to Disagree

Cerevant

I stumbled across an article by Paul Graham that has some great background for intelligent debate. TL;DR check out the following graphic summary:


I think we all could benefit from referring to this as we post, and striving to push our posts into the top half of that framework.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Cerevant

I didn't mean to offer this as a reference for judging other peoples posts, but as a means for self-evaluation of our own posts.

Dee

Incidentally, judging other people's posts vocally based on this pyramid would be a prime example of the bottom tier of the pyramid itself.

Every time I see someone say "That's a strawman argument" or "This is a logical fallacy", it looks like ad hominem; and when you're on the receiving end of it, it feels like name calling.

ajwz

This is only really a useful guide for formal debating
Even then it falls down by putting responding to tone as a relatively poor argument, whereas in reality, criticising/responding to tone can be central to refutation, since tone drives the substance.

Dee

Deleting some spammy comments.

Erg

Dee said:

Every time I see someone say "That's a strawman argument" or "This is a logical fallacy", it looks like ad hominem; and when you're on the receiving end of it, it feels like name calling.

@Dee

I respectfully disagree about the "logical fallacy" part of your argument. Pointing out someone logical fallacy it is not necessarily an attack ad hominem.

IMO it depends on how you do it.

If you say something like "This is a logical fallacy, how can you be such an idiot" then you are right. But, if you politely point it out, I see it more like a "Refutation" or even "Refuting the central point" based on how important to the overall argument the fallacy is.

Refutation is, based on the above graphic, "to find the mistake in someone argument" and that exactly what a logical fallacy is, i.e. a mistake in someone argument. That doesn't imply that someone is stupid, but just that he made a mistake in his reasoning. It can happen to anyone

Dee

Typically, though, when someone points out a logical fallacy, they're doing it in a patronizing manner, as though the Internet were a game that could be "won". Also, more often than not, what one person views as a strawman is actually a thoughtful and rational argument in the mind of the person who made it; pointing out that "this argument isn't valid" by way of a lazy term like "strawman" only serves to upset or antagonize that person, which isn't helpful in an online discussion (or in any discussion in any venue except, perhaps, for Debate Club).

Erg

Dee said:

Typically, though, when someone points out a logical fallacy, they're doing it in a patronizing manner, as though the Internet were a game that could be "won".

Yes, I can imagine that happening a lot and why simply the words "logical fallacy" in a post could trigger your "moderator alarm"

Still I don't see anything wrong with it, if you do it in a polite non-patronising way.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

ajwz

I don't think you even need to disagree respectfully.
You just need to disagree without resorting to personal insults or attacks.

Magnus_Grelich

I think that, most times, if someone is trying to state their case, they might know what they're trying to say in their head, it may even be valid, but they fail to articulate what might otherwise be a genuine point of view. This then causes others to mock them simply for not having the words or the organisation to say what they're thinking adequately. That mockery only serves to make things worse.

I say this, because there have been many times where I'm been in a debate/argument, and I simply cannot get across what I am feeling and thinking, and it's frustrating to point of making you feel sick.

Drugar

Shandyr said:

I'm curious as to where this view comes from that an argument could be a game that you have to win.

I got taught in school how to 'debate' which basicly came down to "Each person speaks their arguments in turn and a third party decides who won the debate based on how much sense they spoke".
Never was a word uttered about the point of debate, compromise, understanding eachother's points or reaching a mutual beneficially conclusion. Just who wins.

Looking at politics, it's depressing to see what that kind of thinking gets you.

alnair

@Drugar Fortunately, that's not the only way.

Mortianna

For this forum, I think engaging in a dialogue is much more worthwhile and productive than having a debate. In a debate, you have "opponents." The goal is to win the argument. In a dialogue, the goal is to try to reach an understanding between participants. The goal is to gain something from the discussion, instead of proving wrong the other party's position.

Since the goal of the debate is to win, many people will resort to ad hominem or name calling, usually because they have no valid counterarguments or strong refutations to offer. Dialogues, on the other hand, obviate the need for personal attacks, since one (hopefully) enters into the dialogue with the intention of transcending barriers instead of fortifying them.

Now abstaining from personalizing the discussion or resorting to personal attacks doesn't mean that one has to agree with or even have respect for the other party's ideas. In fact, as Salman Rushdie learned as a Cambridge student, once a set of ideas is protected from criticism, free thought becomes impossible. In the end, what's more important: protecting those from possibly being offended or building an environment that fosters open and honest dialogue? I don't see a middle ground there.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Corvino

The problem with many internet-based debates is that we're arguing points of opinion rather than fact. One old chestnut is the dual-class vs. multi-class debate. There is no ultimate "right" answer, and any specifics come down to what an individual player chooses and values, yet these things are treated as fact and argued vituperatively.

That said, the last thing I posted on was a "Swashbuckler vs. F/T" thread, and hence am a complete and admitted hypocrite. Meh, C'est la Internet.

Troodon80

One thing that @Dee will probably get a laugh out of is something that I suffer from, and that's something called "six lines is not enough"-syndrome.

As seen below from a debate I once had.


(Diffused due to rules on reposting)

I generally aim for the top three items. Typically, when I disagree with something, I disagree in style detail. I've even hit the BioWare Social Networks' ~11,000 character limit and needed to use two posts to reply in such a way that it wasn't disjointed.

I'm tempted to see if this forum has a character limit (I'm joking)...

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Jalily

It's around 32k characters. I broke it when I tried to post my revision notes for one of the BG:EE manuals (66k).

LadyRhian

And, as I have had cause to know, sometimes, even responding to something politely and on point triggers a flaming "You're a poopie meanyhead" response. Or a single phrase "your argument for x" triggers a flakey "I"M NOT ARGUING!11!! eleventy" response. But generally, keeping it short and to the point works.

FrozenCells

You can only really have any kind of fruitful argument with a person who's intellectually honest, modest enough to not let their ego to take over and cares enough about it to think beyond knee-jerk responses. In other words, most of the time, don't bother.

Kitteh_On_A_Cloud

I try to remain polite in discussions most of the time. But sometimes I'm so passionate about a certain subject, or someone else's behaviour is bothering me so much, that I lose my temper. It's a flaw I unfortunately inherited from my dad.

Corvino

Oooh, no-one's mentioned Godwin's Law yet. "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1". Doesn't actually happen that much on these forums.

It does happen a lot in the British Press, as evidenced today:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/daily-mail-refuses-apologise-ralph-miliband

sunset00

A very nice pyramid concept actually!.. pyramidions always are the best, yes. )) ..let's just stay focussed on the pyramidions, always, yop.. but beware the suns though.. and/or the all seeing eyes that never are very far above too (or sometimes even in the middle too, yes!)..and/but in theory, sounds good and logical, yes... good classical concept.

reedmilfam

Disagreeing is easy; the difficult thing is agreeing. Or deciding that a disagreement isn't important enough to make a big issue out of... I think that's the challenge, no?