Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Better Arguments

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 2:50

Hey /pol/, I figured this should be here. What books should I read to strengthen my arguments and become a better debater? I know of 9 fallacies, should I learn more in order to pinpoint and defeat the opposing argument?

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 6:02

There is no guide or manual to logic. Present superior logic and your argument will always be superior.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 11:59

If it's for the sake of this board, you shouldn't bother.  Whatever you say will just be gobbled up in antisemitic non sequitur.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 12:58

>>3
It isn't for this board really, just in general.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 14:04

>>4
I was about to say ...

Logical fallacies are alright, but their usefulness is dependent on the other person being logical, or aware enough, to recognize the problem presented.  Charisma, people skills, and a decent working knowledge of the subject base are probably more effective in practice.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 14:49

>>5
I don't believe charming someone into agreeing with you is a valid replacement for persuading them with logical reasoning. Maybe it's okay if your goal is to make them complicit but as a means to discovering truth it utterly fails.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 22:41

>>6
While my intention was not to make it sound underhanded, it is important to be able to talk to people in a way that appeals to them.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 22:49

ITT JIDFS

Fuck Y'all

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-22 23:48

>>1
Read some geometry proofs books, try proving a few theorems.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-23 3:10

>>9
Politics and logic don't mix well. Politics is all about overriding logic with "feelings" so people vote like idiots.

Intelligent people don't get into politics for this very reason. This is why retarded sociopaths get elected every year and win over and over.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-24 2:19

>>10
To invoke feelings you need to know logic. I.e. divide a target auditory into groups, then process every group accordingly. That is a basic geometry tactics, where a line divides a space.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-24 2:29

>To invoke feelings you need to know logic
No.

Name: Flibble !bXD18eNnl6 2012-07-24 14:21

Those basic logic books in the philosophy section, you will see logical processes you have probably figured out yourself put on paper and defined, this will lay the foundation for you to compose more sophisticated logical arguments and help you to explain your arguments concisely and to the point using legit terms.

>>10
If someone's motivation is to satiate an emotion then their apparent illogical actions can be very logical from their perspective, also logic is only as effective as the information it is based on which is always limited, inaccurate and jumbled up in the human brain. Of course manipulating people's feelings is an important part of politics, you just need to look at how people are psychologically conditioned to get emotional over something and the reasoning process behind their reaction.

For instance an angry anarchist might break a Starbucks™ window while an angry fascist might act in a beastly manner towards minorities. What is going on in their heads? Why don't they just shoot some basketball to get their frustration out?

>>11
Yes, logic is flexible, even an obstacle like emotions can be quantified and approached logically.

There is a problem though. Invoking feelings in others often requires you show the same feelings yourself and it is difficult to fake the involuntary body language and vocalisations needed without having that emotion, unless you can trigger emotions on cue.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-24 14:51

>Yes, logic is flexible,

No. Opinions, politics, feelings and points of view are flexible.

Name: Flibble !bXD18eNnl6 2012-07-24 15:16

>>14
Inductive reasoning is flexible.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-24 16:55

>>15
But with the agenda of demonstrating provable facts and truths that are immutable.  Of course, perhaps, you speak with the idea of philosophy in mind instead of scientific reasoning.

Name: Flibble !bXD18eNnl6 2012-07-25 6:27

>>16
Politicians usually try to warp the truth in their favor while staying within statistical margins of error, so I can see how flexible logic is a problem, however there will always be a margin of error and you need to embrace it if you want to improve accuracy.

Let's say the margin of error for the ideal interest rate lies between 1% and 3% with the most likely ideal rate being 2% and a politician wants 1%, if you say "the facts prove it should be 2%" the politician will say "ah but there is no reason why it couldn't be 1% and my pet economist argues that periodical antoxificated speruduloles plofrasticate stegobanks therefore it should be 1%", however if you say "anywhere between 1 and 3 is fine but 2 is the best bet" the politician will say "ok maybe 1 is pushing it, 1.5% then".

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-25 7:01

>>17
Politicians tend to outright lie rather than bend the truth, for example, "I don't think we could engage in wars abroad" therefore "That politician wants to cut us off from the rest of the world!". The conclusion isn't based on logic, it's a non-sequitur that doesn't reflect objective reality. Logic isn't so much twisted in politics as it is outright broken.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-26 1:01

Read some Plato. Read the Gorgias.

Wanting to learn rhetorical skills will only make you unjust. What you really want to learn is philosophical inquiry.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-26 1:43

>>19
Plato shit. He is probably the most Jewish philosopher ever.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-26 6:40

You people are astride a level of ridiculous stubbornness.  I'm was asking you to learn how to speak correctly, e.g., proper enunciation, etc., and at least try to be interesting while you make your logical points.  I'm not asking you to take a rank in deception.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-26 14:06

>>18
Politicians choose their lies based on what they can get away with and warping the truth enables them to get away with more. In the past rulers could claim to be appointed by god but now they have to be more subtle, like smearing political opponents who oppose interventionism as being kooky isolationists as you say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekCByuXIGr8&t=2m40s

>>21
You will find many patterns and logical fallacies and things that crop up in different arguments, like the false dichotomy and also the gaussian function which can represent the price mechanism but also things like the amount of attention the police pay to petty crime, a police force that ignores petty crime will fail to nip bad behavior in the bud, if they take draconian measures against petty crime then they end up wasting their time arresting law abiding citizens for peeing behind a bush while real criminals run rampant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_function

It's good to develop quick easy ways to convey these concepts to people.

Name: Flibble !bXD18eNnl6 2012-07-26 14:08

>>21
So the gaussian function for the police attitude to petty crime would have their effectiveness at reducing crime on the vertical axis and the amount of time and resources they spend on tackling petty crime on the horizontal axis. Initially as they spend more and more resources tackling petty crime it has a positive effect on crime reduction but eventually it becomes excessive and a waste of resources that could be used elsewhere.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-27 7:31

>>22,23
You'll pardon me if I don't know what you guys are talking about anymore.  We're trying to develop a useful advice on debate skills, supposedly for the benefit of the OP, though still beneficial for all, not extrapolate public safety policy.

Name: Flibble !bXD18eNnl6 2012-07-27 8:20

>>24
That was an example of how the same patterns crop up in different debates. The gaussian function can be used to explain the price mechanism and crime fighting trends.

Name: Anonymous 2012-07-29 20:50

gaussian function? Get the fuck out of here.

Name: Flibble !bXD18eNnl6 2012-07-30 4:39

>>26
You heard me.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List