Logical Fallacies

[Chris.Roth]

Couple years back, yeah, though I can't claim to be bothered enough to watch it again now to deal with your objections. It's not required. Debate (especially a debate like this one) is a spectator sport, whether it should be or not, whether you agree with it or not, whether anything is gained by it or not.

Publicized debates are games, and games have gamers. I understand what you find dissatisfying about that, I really do, but what you find dissatisfying doesn't, strictly speaking, matter.

I find it more than just dissatisfying, my friend. I find it intellectually offensive. Not to me, I can spot idiocy when I see it. I find it intellectually offensive to the audience. Debate may very well be a "Game", but (if I may reference the most relevent game that would apply to this) Starcraft. If a player in this game does "cheese" (cheap, easy, fast-win strategies with no forethought) they are shamed by the community. Many players will do an occassional "shameful" or "cheese" play, just to catch an opponent off guard, but doing it for ever game would make one an idiot in the publics eye. My point is whether or not it's RIGHT to make this point, whether it's RIGHT to "cheese" if you will. So is it? Is it morally acceptable? It seems quite a few people in here are trying to argue the ends justifies the means. Are you making that point hardline? What IS your point? (I don't mean this disrespectfully or mockingly, I'm genuinely asking.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Trying to temper your dissatisfaction with a dose of reality. SC2 cheese wins games, they may be shamed by fellow players, but it -is- a 1 in the "w" collumn, isn't it. Why do you play? Personally, I play to win. If you have a disagreement, if you want to explore a topic, a publicized debate is most likely not the appropriate forum. That's my point.

You're expressing anger at gamers for gaming a game. Again, I understand, but it is to be expected..now isn't it?

[Chris.Roth]

Trying to temper your dissatisfaction with a dose of reality. SC2 cheese wins games, they may be shamed by fellow players, but it -is- a 1 in the "w" collumn, isn't it. Why do you play? Personally, I play to win. If you have a disagreement, if you want to explore a topic, a publicized debate is most likely not the appropriate forum. That's my point.

You're expressing anger at gamers for gaming a game. Again, I understand, but it is to be expected..now isn't it?

My point is simple. The gamers are shamed. The debator, Galloway, is given defense from the most intelligent forum I can find. (this one.) Are you defending fallacies? Is winning an audience of 500 people more important than expressing the truth? After all, religion has "won" for years, haven't they? And yet, most on this site would agree religion is inherently evil. Do the ends justify the means? does the win justify giving a stupid argument to stupid people? I get your point about "winning". However, it's not as simple as that for me. We have two options. A: allow it to continue and chalk it up to winning, or B: Shame idiots for being idiots. You've watched the debate, I want your honest opinion of whether Galloway genuinely made a good argument? Like I said, he didn't even get a winning vote from this. So what was the point in being a moron? Perhaps we're speaking two differnent languages of reason here, and that's why I'm pushing my point so hard. By all means, enlighten me.

---

Trying to temper your dissatisfaction with a dose of reality. SC2 cheese wins games, they may be shamed by fellow players, but it -is- a 1 in the "w" collumn, isn't it. Why do you play? Personally, I play to win. If you have a disagreement, if you want to explore a topic, a publicized debate is most likely not the appropriate forum. That's my point.

You're expressing anger at gamers for gaming a game. Again, I understand, but it is to be expected..now isn't it?

And second of all, when can we 1v1 in SC2? I know you play, I KNOW it. haha.

[The Grand Nudger]

Hahaha, we can 1v1 as soon as I resurrect my gaming rig from the dead (lord..please help me with this).

I personally think that Hitchens contentions with regards to Iraq are(were) spot on, I don't think it is an area that was even open for debate, but I'm hardly an objective observer..hooah? Now, as to whther or not Galloway made good arguments, I'd have to watch that again and pick through them, but all that sticks with me from that debate (my introduction to hitchens btw, amusingly) was that it had less to do with Iraq and more to do with ideological showmanship. In that arena I'd say that the relative strength of an argument can only be judged by those already on-board with the party lines, know what I mean? After conceding that Iraq is a failed state, there is no counter argument, rgr? I can appreciate that debates don't occur without two sides, and if all that's left to one side are fallacies, well, fuck, do them justice. Did Galloway draw enough attention away from the issue with ad homs and attacks on political ideology, I don't know, I'm not part of the "other side" as it were.

[Chris.Roth]

Hahaha, we can 1v1 as soon as I resurrect my gaming rig from the dead (lord..please help me with this).

I personally think that Hitchens contentions with regards to Iraq are(were) spot on, I don't think it is an area that was even open for debate, but I'm hardly an objective observer..hooah? Now, as to whther or not Galloway made good arguments, I'd have to watch that again and pick through them, but all that sticks with me from that debate (my introduction to hitchens btw, amusingly) was that it had less to do with Iraq and more to do with ideological showmanship. In that arena I'd say that the relative strength of an argument can only be judged by those already on-board with the party lines, know what I mean? After conceding that Iraq is a failed state, there is no counter argument, rgr? I can appreciate that debates don't occur without two sides, and if all that's left to one side are fallacies, well, fuck, do them justice. Did Galloway draw enough attention away from the issue with ad homs and attacks on political ideology, I don't know, I'm not part of the "other side" as it were.

'

I don't think we disagree so much. This is the only debate I've ever seen where I felt the need to bring up fallacy. (there are plenty of times I'll say "that's a fallacy" when hearing an argument from either side, but that's besides the point.) My SC2 add is TGSamael.563. Race?

[Jackalope]

My point is simple. The gamers are shamed. The debator, Galloway, is given defense from the most intelligent forum I can find. (this one.) Are you defending fallacies?

I wouldn't characterize anything that's been said here as defending Galloway. Understanding that his methods work on the credulous =/= defending those methods.

Personally, I find debate to be a poor method for determining what is true.

[Chris.Roth]

My point is simple. The gamers are shamed. The debator, Galloway, is given defense from the most intelligent forum I can find. (this one.) Are you defending fallacies?

I wouldn't characterize anything that's been said here as defending Galloway. Understanding that his methods work on the credulous =/= defending those methods.

Personally, I find debate to be a poor method for determining what is true.

I feel inclined to ask, what do you find to be the most objective way of defining what is "true"? (It's not like the Iraq war is hard to find facts on, by all means, you can find almost anything to defend any position from the internet.)

[Jackalope]

I feel inclined to ask, what do you find to be the most objective way of defining what is "true"? (It's not like the Iraq war is hard to find facts on, by all means, you can find almost anything to defend any position from the internet.)

Chris - I don't have time to answer this adequately at the moment but will try to get back to it when I can. In the short time that I have at the moment, I will say I didn't intend to imply that all debate is poor. Debate targeting audience bias isn't useful, which happens all too often.

[Tempus]

The examples are out there. You just have to find them. I'm guessing, but I probably ran across many reading TalkOrigins.org, and other sites devoted to the evolution / creation debate.

I found what I was looking for at TalkOrigins.org, thank you.

[Angrboda]

I'd say the reason you're pushing the point so hard is because you've got a stick up your ass. How's that for appealing to emotion?



What do I win?