Debate etiquette

[unbeliever]

C4 Dispatches report on them coming up soon:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/momentum-dispatches-channel-4_uk_57dd4d22e4b0d584f7f148cc

 

 

Now this is a group which needs a lesson in debate etiquette.

 

But we digress... Plenty of threads on Corbyn/Momentum/Labour already.

[Cyclone]

Oh well. I don't really care. If someone shows all the signs of being incapable of rational though I will ask them. It makes it clear I think their argument is irrational

 

You can either make it clear that the argument is irrational, or you can tell them that they are deluded or irrational or stupid. The first is a valid debating tactic, the 2nd is an ad hom attack and there's no need.

 

---------- Post added 19-09-2016 at 12:00 ----------

 

I do think we have to be realistic though. A discussion forum is very likely to be largely made up of opinion based on anecdotal experience. Surely that's to be expected. It's interesting to hear other people's experiences especially when they are so different from our own and they are often quite persuasive. If a person was only interested in objective facts they could subscribe to any number of research journals.

 

I find it frustrating when someone claims that their anecdotal experience outweighs a larger body of objective data.

[unbeliever]

 

I find it frustrating when someone claims that their anecdotal experience outweighs a larger body of objective data.

 

Oh god yes that's a good one. Especially when applied to medicine.

[Cyclone]

I agree. I have posted it on here before but that is why I think Forum Rules 14 is rather strange.

 

It states that 'all opinions must be based on true facts'.

 

As you say, opinion is largely based on anecdotal experience, and I think there can be a place for that in debate.

 

Presumably an anecdote can be considered to be a "true fact" (is a true fact somehow stronger than a mere fact?).

 

The problem is that the poster then assumes that the fact of their experience is representative and forms an opinion based on a true, but none representative fact.

[unbeliever]

There can also be a problem of giving too much weight to scientific studies.

Depending on the subject material, potential sources of bias, analysis methods, and statistical significance, as well as other factors...

It's important to remember that just because something has been published in a peer reviewed journal, doesn't make it unquestionable.

[shims]

Unless we argue properly how are our arguments to help us resolve things.

I've rarely seen a debate on a web forum resolve anything of any importance. At best they provide people with facts (that they may have been able to find using a search engine or a library. Often they are a boring battle of one-upmanship between people who believe themselves to be knowledgeable or between persons pushing an agenda vs those trying to be open-minded and objective.

 

We shall need to be extremely careful not to incur the wrath of the moderators here.

Oh, indeed. When you are not really in charge of anything, or perhaps not taken too seriously in real life, it's good to feel that you rule over a virtual community.

[Cyclone]

People who think that a question directed at them is a statement and then attempt to rebut the "statement" which was never made.

[unbeliever]

People who think that a question directed at them is a statement and then attempt to rebut the "statement" which was never made.

 

Falls under the general category of feigning misunderstanding of what was posted because one can't counter it.

[Cyclone]

Sometimes it's genuine, I've been guilty of reading too quickly and misconstruing something. Still annoying though when it happens.

[unbeliever]

Sometimes it's genuine, I've been guilty of reading too quickly and misconstruing something. Still annoying though when it happens.

 

The test is whether one persists in "misunderstanding" once clarification has been given.