Arguing Online

[WingChunABQ]

Gotta say, MA forums have lots and lots of piddle matches going on in them. I think we all know why:

http://www.thehighdefinite.com/2012/01/arguing-online/

[GeneChing]

Just like in MA practice, sparring is an important part of training. Our forum debates are exactly like sparring, only with words. Sure, a lot of it is 'dirty pool' style flaming as there's minimal rules governing our debates, but it's also training for real world arguments we might encounter. Just as you should spar with your body, you should spar with your philosophy. You should spar with your mind.

Occasionally we do get of an intelligent debate, usually in the subforums when the trolls aren't looking.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Just like in MA practice, sparring is an important part of training. Our forum debates are exactly like sparring, only with words. Sure, a lot of it is 'dirty pool' style flaming as there's minimal rules governing our debates, but it's also training for real world arguments we might encounter. Just as you should spar with your body, you should spar with your philosophy. You should spar with your mind.

Occasionally we do get of an intelligent debate, usually in the subforums when the trolls aren't looking.

Gene has toe kicked the correct in the vital point !
Mental sparring is just as vital to the mind is physical sparring is to the body.

[David Jamieson]

The problem with an online battle of the wits is that so often we must face an unarmed opponent...

[GeneChing]

Argument Clinic

[David Jamieson]

Hey now, I came here to be hit over the head with a mallet.

SR is great to discuss with. I usually have to go fairly deep into my pocket to get the ticket stubs with which to counter.

Unlike some others, who I merely can pick up a gum wrapper off the ground and tell them it's a ticket stub and they get on board. lol

[sanjuro_ronin]

Argument Clinic

I'm not even sure how to respond to that...


As agree with DJ more often than not and when we don't we both can at least understand the point the other is making.

As for being big men, I can't speak for DJ, but in my case....That's what she said !

[GeneChing]

I'm not even sure how to respond to that...

Post a nacho ninjette pic. FTW!

[wenshu]

The Art of Being Right by Arthur Schopenhauer

Controversial Dialectic is the art of disputing, and of disputing in such a way as to hold one's own, whether one is in the right or the wrong - per fas et nefas.[1] A man may be objectively in the right, and nevertheless in the eyes of bystanders, and sometimes in his own, he may come off worst. For example, I may advance a proof of some assertion, and my adversary may refute the proof, and thus appear to have refuted the assertion, for which there may, nevertheless, be other proofs. In this case, of course, my adversary and I change places: he comes off best, although, as a matter of fact, he is in the wrong.

If the reader asks how this is, I reply that it is simply the natural baseness of human nature. If human nature were not base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in every debate have no other aim than the discovery of truth; we should not in the least care whether the truth proved to be in favour of the opinion which we had begun by expressing, or of the opinion of our adversary. That we should regard as a matter of no moment, or, at any rate, of very secondary consequence; but, as things are, it is the main concern. Our innate vanity, which is particularly sensitive in reference to our intellectual powers, will not suffer us to allow that our first position was wrong and our adversary's right. The way out of this difficulty would be simply to take the trouble always to form a correct judgment. For this a man would have to think before he spoke. But, with most men, innate vanity is accompanied by loquacity and innate dishonesty. They speak before they think; and even though they may afterwards perceive that they are wrong, and that what they assert is false, they want it to seem the contrary. The interest in truth, which may be presumed to have been their only motive when they stated the proposition alleged to be true, now gives way to the interests of vanity: and so, for the sake of vanity, what is true must seem false, and what is false must seem true.

However, this very dishonesty, this persistence in a proposition which seems false even to ourselves, has something to be said for it. It often happens that we begin with the firm conviction of the truth of our statement; but our opponent's argument appears to refute it. Should we abandon our position at once, we may discover later on that we were right after all: the proof we offered was false, but nevertheless there was a proof for our statement which was true. The argument which would have been our salvation did not occur to us at the moment. Hence we make it a rule to attack a counter-argument, even though to all appearances it is true and forcible, in the belief that its truth is only superficial, and that in the course of the dispute another argument will occur to us by which we may upset it, or succeed in confirming the truth of our statement. In this way we are almost compelled to become dishonest; or, at any rate, the temptation to do so is very great. Thus it is that the weakness of our intellect and the perversity of our will lend each other mutual support; and that, generally, a disputant fights not for truth, but for his proposition, as though it were a battle pro aris et focis. He sets to work per fas et nefas; nay, as we have seen, he cannot easily do otherwise. As a rule, then, every man will insist on maintaining whatever he has said, even though for the moment he may consider it false or doubtful.

Claim Victory Despite Defeat

This, which is an impudent trick, is played as follows: When your opponent has answered several of your questions without the answers turning out favourable to the conclusion at which you are aiming, advance the desired conclusion, - although it does not in the least follow, - as though it had been proved, and proclaim it in a tone of triumph. If your opponent is shy or stupid, and you yourself possess a great deal of impudence and a good voice, the trick may easily succeed. It is akin to the fallacy non causae ut causae.

Use Seemingly Absurd Propositions

If you have advanced a paradoxical proposition and find a difficulty in proving it, you may submit for your opponent's acceptance or rejection some true proposition, the truth of which, however, is not quite palpable, as though you wished to draw your proof from it. Should he reject it because he suspects a trick, you can obtain your triumph by showing how absurd he is; should he accept it, you have got reason on your side for the moment, and must now look about you; or else you can employ the previous trick as well, and maintain that your paradox is proved by the proposition which he has accepted. For this an extreme degree of impudence is required; but experience shows cases of it, and there are people who practise it by instinct.

Arguments Ad Hominem

Another trick is to use arguments ad hominem, or ex concessis.[4] When your opponent makes a proposition, you must try to see whether it is not in some way - if needs be, only apparently - inconsistent with some other proposition which he has made or admitted, or with the principles of a school or sect which he has commended and approved, or with the actions of those who support the sect, or else of those who give it only an apparent and spurious support; or with his own actions or want of action. For example, should he defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, "Why don't you hang yourself?" Should he maintain that Berlin is an unpleasant place to live in, you may say, "Why don't you leave by the first train?" Some such claptrap is always possible.

Make Your Opponent Angry

This trick consists in making your opponent angry; for when he is angry he is incapable of judging aright, and perceiving where his advantage lies. You can make him angry by doing him repeated injustice, or practising some kind of chicanery, and being generally insolent.

It Applies in Theory, But Not in Practice

"That's all very well in theory, but it won't do in practice." In this sophism you admit the premisses but deny the conclusion, in contradiction with a well-known rule of logic. The assertion is based upon an impossibility: what is right in theory must work in practice; and if it does not, there is a mistake in the theory; something has been overlooked and not allowed for; and, consequently, what is wrong in practice is wrong in theory too.

Become Personal, Insulting, Rude

A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.

[Lucas]

Post a nacho ninjette pic. FTW!

*flex*

[Featherstone]

can you order that dip on martialartsmart.com?

[YouKnowWho]

The difference between "discussion" and "argument" is:

- In discussion, you express your opinion and others express their opinions. It's fine if you and others don't agree.
- In argument, you think you are right and others are wrong. You want to force others to accept your opinion.

[wenshu]

*flex*

Oh. It's on.

"Bring out the gimp."

"Gimps sleeping."

"Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up."

[Lucas]

thats no nacho ninjette!!

heres the nacho ninjette cheese fairy

[Lucas]

a battle for power within the nacho ninjette order.