I've heard more than enough. I thank all of you, first and foremost, for your input. However, here's my genuine say/opinion:
A: A debate is about winning the audience, not about winning the argument. This is an absurd way to think of a debate. Debate is not something I think of as simply a fun night out on the town, it's a genuine discussion which should invoke thought on both the debators and the audiences part. Just because you know an audience is stupid enough to fall for your fallacies does NOT mean it's acceptable to use them. Treat your audience as an equal, or I have no respect for you.
B: Fallacies are human, they're expected. True, however, those involved in debate must have spent a great deal of time researching their subject matter. I know for a fact that Hitchens put more research into his arguments than most people put into anything. To respond to genuine arguments with fallacy, and then win an audience or even a portion of it does not give you an out. In fact, I find it condescending and manipulative, furthering the stupidity of the spectators.
My argument is not to say that as soon as a single fallacy is made, a debator should be excluded from the discussion. My argument is that anyone who takes on the responsibility of delivering a message in a debate should not get away that easy. Using differing fallacies is one thing--using the same fallacy over and over and over and over on the other hand, is absurd. I'm really curious who in this discussion actually watched the debate I mentioned, because I referenced it for a reason. If you are a debator who uses fallacies in a way such as Galloway did, (which is WHY I referenced the debate) I believe you are truly a disgusting human being, furthering the stupidity of humanity by expressing stupidity yourself. While religion may have difficulties with logic, that's not what I'm discussing--that's why I posted this in the philosophy section. The argumentive fallacies are some of the building blocks of philosophy. This debate wasn't about religion, it was about Iraq and the war. Both sides had the opportunity to present facts, and there are plenty that could have been used against Hitchens. In fact, it's one of the few arguments he's made that I'm not completely sure I agree with him on. However, he still respected the argument, and respected his audience enough to use REAL arguments. Don't try and dismiss those fallacies made by Galloway, and never try to justify them--he had every chance to make his argument a genuine one and took no chances to do so. I hope I'm not being too harsh with my words, but I genuinely mean every single one of them.
Again, thank you for your responses.
A: A debate is about winning the audience, not about winning the argument. This is an absurd way to think of a debate. Debate is not something I think of as simply a fun night out on the town, it's a genuine discussion which should invoke thought on both the debators and the audiences part. Just because you know an audience is stupid enough to fall for your fallacies does NOT mean it's acceptable to use them. Treat your audience as an equal, or I have no respect for you.
B: Fallacies are human, they're expected. True, however, those involved in debate must have spent a great deal of time researching their subject matter. I know for a fact that Hitchens put more research into his arguments than most people put into anything. To respond to genuine arguments with fallacy, and then win an audience or even a portion of it does not give you an out. In fact, I find it condescending and manipulative, furthering the stupidity of the spectators.
My argument is not to say that as soon as a single fallacy is made, a debator should be excluded from the discussion. My argument is that anyone who takes on the responsibility of delivering a message in a debate should not get away that easy. Using differing fallacies is one thing--using the same fallacy over and over and over and over on the other hand, is absurd. I'm really curious who in this discussion actually watched the debate I mentioned, because I referenced it for a reason. If you are a debator who uses fallacies in a way such as Galloway did, (which is WHY I referenced the debate) I believe you are truly a disgusting human being, furthering the stupidity of humanity by expressing stupidity yourself. While religion may have difficulties with logic, that's not what I'm discussing--that's why I posted this in the philosophy section. The argumentive fallacies are some of the building blocks of philosophy. This debate wasn't about religion, it was about Iraq and the war. Both sides had the opportunity to present facts, and there are plenty that could have been used against Hitchens. In fact, it's one of the few arguments he's made that I'm not completely sure I agree with him on. However, he still respected the argument, and respected his audience enough to use REAL arguments. Don't try and dismiss those fallacies made by Galloway, and never try to justify them--he had every chance to make his argument a genuine one and took no chances to do so. I hope I'm not being too harsh with my words, but I genuinely mean every single one of them.
Again, thank you for your responses.
Chris Roth
http://thereligiousfallacy.wordpress.com/
http://thereligiousfallacy.wordpress.com/