Rules for debate?

Discussion in 'Soap Box' started by Chargette, Feb 9, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    I'm settling down but I'm not out of the woods on my reactions to the debate I've been in. After I have settled down, I want to continue to debate. If I need to back off a bit, I will say so.

    My question here is: Are any of you familiar with prescribed rules of debate?

    One of the problems in the debate we were having is I think we were operating on different rules for debate.

    A specific problem that developed for me was multiple questions to be answered were in front of me all at once and I did not focus on one then polled to see what was important to you all as a group to debate next.

    I did a search on "rules for debate" and saw a list of different rules. Ha!

    Which one to choose? That may be a debate in and of itself.

    What do you all think?
  2. Prinnctopher's Belt

    Prinnctopher's Belt Antiquities Friend SF Supporter

    The rules of logic, fairness and courtesy are good enough.
  3. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    I've been in a formal debate club however those rules aren't really applicable here as the media and all makes it impossible to follow the prescribed rules there.

    I go off a simple rule of give points, give rebuttals, etc. as people have points and rebuttals to provide.
  4. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    I've been looking at debate rules and I agree they don't fit our format or purpose but I did find a website that has some general guidelines with examples.

    This may be a written format to refer to in settling debate rule disagreements.

    Perhaps we can form our own and have it in a sticky note post. We would need a format agreement on how to proceed in a debate to stay focused and get away from all the sideline references to one party not responding to something, and back again.
  5. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    Fairness and courtesy is within the realm of many people to practice because many aspects of daily living demand this.

    I think logic is the area that causes the greatest upsets in debate because the rules of logic are not known to many participants.

    The rules of logic is a course of study in and of itself. Logic is taught in colleges as a part of philosophy. I did not encounter formal rules of logic until I was in my 40s when I went to college, on top of the fact that I didn't know there were rules of logic.

    Without a formal study in logic, it is not readily understood in most circles. Additionally, many of the members of SF are teens or in their 20s and have not had the opportunity to experience an extensive study in logic. This puts many at the mercy of someone well versed in logic.

    It is for this reason I suggest a rules for debate.
  6. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    We've all been learning logic all our lives; mathematics is logic incarnate. Most people have a basic grip on logic but I think this is a useful thing as it delineates most of the ways in which an argument will be made that is illogical.

    For example the cosmological argument is an example of the homonculus fallacy.

    The fact is, though, that's it's not an unfair advantage for one better acquainted with logical principles to be pitted against someone without any concept of functional logic; the truth is not contingent upon who has better formal training in logic, it simply is. Even if I may be able to list more fallacies off the top of my head then most or better define logic than another that does not mean I will win any argument against someone that may have less logical abilities.
  7. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    Lawyers love this.
  8. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    :laugh: Another tactic they use sometimes is bullshit baffles brains!
  9. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    It is fallacious of you to imply that's at all relevant. It is a red herring.

    That sentence does not even make sense.
  10. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    Red Herring is a term from the Rules of Logic discipline. I have not gone back to study the matter so I cannot confirm or deny your statement, however, I trust you are correct because you have been on debate teams.

    I will say that my conclusion is based on the premise that lawyers would be aware that many never study formal logic and can/do use this in the court room. My premise is based on they need to know how to debate because a court case in an argument, I had seen it used as an advantage in movies (which I thought no person in their right mind would do), and I personally saw this tactic used in a case I witnessed in a courtroom.

    On a side note: it's a shame the study of logic is not required in high school in the USA. I experienced one foreign professor who assumed we knew it. Does anyone here know if logic is taught in school before college in other countries?.
  11. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Lawyers don't regularly use logic so much as manipulations if we're talking about criminal law.

    Mathematics is, so yes formal logic is taught. Although it's not always as clear when we're talking in English the rules about logic are derived from mathematics.

    Even without using the formal logic of math it's not that hard to learn what makes a logically sound argument and what does not.

    "I like Germany"
    "Then you must be a Hitler loving neo-nazi!"
    You can see why that's flawed; person 2 is implying that the only thing about Germany is the Nazi era. That's not true. IT doesn't take a class to see that.
  12. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    My brain does not see a relation to mathematics and logic at all. Logic is very hard for me. It always has been. I consider myself as having logic capabilities but the study of the rules of logic bog down my brain very quickly. I don't let that stop me, but it will slow me down and at times wipe me out completely. Then I get to start over again.

    For me the logic of arguments are not readily seen.
  13. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Let's look at this: we know that we have as system known as exponents wherein any number n to the exponent x means n multiplied by itself x times.

    Ex: 2^2 = 2 * 2 or 10^5 = 10 * 10 * 10 * 10 * 10

    Through various proofs it was found out that you can multiply and divide exponents of the same base by adding or subtracting the exponents respectively.

    Ex: 2^2 * 2^4 = 2^(2+4) or 40^3/40^2 = 40^(3-2)

    (You should remember this all from grade 7 - 12 when it was used)
    So how about this question: What is any number n to the exponent 0? For example what is 2^0?

    Well as we learned before if we divide two exponents of the same base we can just subtract the exponents so let's do this:

    2^2 / 2^2

    So because of other mathematical rules we know of we can tell that any number over itself (other than zero) equals one. We also have the previous rule of subtracting exponents.

    so 2^2 / 2^2 = 1 = 2^(2-2) = 2^0

    And as we said above any number over itself is one, so therefore we can generalize this: Any non-zero number to the exponent zero is equal to one. We proved this by applying the concepts of logic. Any number divided by itself being equal to one, for example, is also something derived from pure logic. 2 divided into two equal pieces is 1. 5.76 divided into 5.76 pieces is 1.

    Then you're at a severe disadvantage that can only be helped by practice.
  14. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

    I'm not familiar with the meaning of ^ so I cannot consider the equations in that respect. I do understand that a number over itself = 1.

    I am at a severe disadvantage and I will practice. I have learned a lot already. I allowed myself to be backed into a corner by things that go round and round.
  15. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    ^ means to the exponent of. 2 to the power of 3 is 2^3. On paper the exponent is usually made a superscript.
  16. Chargette

    Chargette Well-Known Member

  17. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    So the whole numerological system and all math is simply logic. It's even integrated into the mathematical language; "therefore" is used so often in mathematics it gets its own symbol

    x^2 = 5
    ∴ x = +|- root(5)
  18. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    Haven't got a clue whats you's on about hehe I haven't a clue about maths. :mellow:
  19. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    A deception. To put on such a good show the inspector is so impressed (s)he won't bother with a detailed check or to question anything.

    For example:

    Alan Webber’s book “Rules of Thumb.”

    Mr Webber is co-founder of Fast Company Magazine and has over 30 years experience of interviewing many leading leadership and management gurus, CEO's and authors in his career.

    He says this:

    “Some people think they need to “speak business” to prove they belong in business. They think a compulsive use of consulting buzzwords and MBA jargon makes them sound like they’ve learned the secret code. Unfortunately that kind of acronym-laced talk doesn’t demonstrate a business-smart brand; it comes across as “the brand called insecure.” A far better strategy is to know all the right jargon but to translate it into words and ideas that ordinary people can understand.”
  20. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    I'm on about mathematics because it's the most fundamental application of logic.

    I'm not in business, I'm in a debate. This is a false analogy; it's also a red herring. If you do not know what a 'red herring' or 'false analogy' is you are free to look it up; they are not complex terms. You cannot accuse me of deceptions because you cannot be bothered to get on wikipedia or google the terms. It's far easier for me to say 'red herring' instead of 'an argument that is not relevant to my argument and by that token isn't important to anything'. The entire point of words is to condense ideas into small, easy to use labels.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.