I've been thinking about the value of negotiating, which is fundamentally arguing effectively and influencing people. I'll be the first to admit I'm no great debater or arguer, but having been exposed to such for so long its easy to notice how far I am beyond the vast majority of drones around me. I find it exciting to argue and I'd like to participate with like minded people. Absent the resources to join a local debate class, I naturally turned to the internet. Some ideas came to mind that I might as well put out on front street, you guys can take it or leave it.
Is anyone interested in participating in threads which are debates/role plays geared toward helping each other improve our thinking strategies? Anyone is welcome to contribute ideas. These would be public and on record for quite some time, naturally. Anyone can be judges or whatever type of positions we end up with, but it has to be structured with limits established before each "session" if you will. We will take positions we are comfortable with, and positions we are uncomfortable with, not for the sake of being right which is so often what this forum is about, but for the sake of having fun with peers, learning to argue a point effectively. We could say you have to use X amount of sources per post, or not. You have to point out X amount of logical fallacies, or not. X amount of types of arguments/reasoning by name (inductive, et al), or not. You have to respond in context or you're penalized, or not.
The topics could be related to political philosophy, or at least to something we can relate to, or not. The idea is to take a break and basically play a game with peers. We will do what we love, but in a way where we don't have to take our positions so seriously and where the goal is to improve, to teach our brain to considers different perspectives and to maintain lines of reasoning and to identify fallacies and hopefully to become more effective negotiators.
I love playing devil's advocate.
I'm in.
Also, I do think that this is a really good idea, especially if judges are meant to determine what would appeal to an outside audience.
I'll play. This has already kind of happened here and more recently here, just for examples.
This might also be a good use of the groups section. I went ahead and created an "Argumentation & Debate" group. You kick it off, hashem
Playing the devil's advocate is actually a good way to make someone rethink their own stance on an issue (if you pull it off correctly.) I had a global affairs class in high school where we had to do debates every other week, and ironically enough every topic I received was one I did not agree with (something like arguing in favor of going to war, etc.) Even then I still managed to "win" the debates and argue my topic effectively (I don't think it's hard to compete with a bunch of teenagers in a public school who probably never think out the box.)
A place to test your arguments and play some devil's advocate. Come to sharpen your intellectual sword. Concisely worded. I like where this is going.
I would start with something like "red hair is good, black hair is evil". But if this deserves attention then let's let the thread go for a day or so and see what sort of structure we can come up with.
As I mentioned, its my intention learn to debate, so I don't claim to be great by any measure. To that point, maybe we should stress using and identifying types of fallacies and reasoning by name. For example, supposition, ampliative, defeasable, indefeasable, inductive, deductive, abductive, probablistic, statistical, and so forth, just to name random types of arguments from wikipedia. Anyone knows you can find lists of fallacies anywhere.
My input would be to treat it like a game. You get credit/points/whatever for meeting certain goals for example "use 2 inductive arguments, one defeasable, one indefeasable" or "argue a deductive argument from 2 fallacies, A and B", literally any scenario is possible. And then, if for example the rule may be to argue logically, then you would be penalized if your opponent can identify fallacies.
Stuff like that.
EDIT: Maybe there are no penalties, to give judges less power. Suppose you only get points for meeting goals and calling out fallacies. This would also act to reduce fallacies, as nobody wants to hand points to the opponent.
Whoa...point system and possible penalties? Sounds like fun in theory, but I'd be afraid it might be too complicated to structure something like that.
We might just do it on the fly, and have the creator of the thread/ starter of the debate set up the "rules" to gear the discussion toward what he's looking to practice dealing with. For example, if you have a problem spotting fallacies when they come in discussions on taxation, when you start your thread you might say "try to use informal fallacies as much as you can. Lemme see if I can spot em. I get a point for each one I get, you get a point for everyone I miss."
I'd join but I'd whoop all y'all so... I don't think you want me to join.
Clayton -
I'll participate.
'Ancient aliens came and created Stonehenge.' "You can't prove it didn't happen!"
I had actually considered making one of these a few months ago.
Great idea! Looking forward to it!
Aristophanes: 'Ancient aliens came and created Stonehenge.' "You can't prove it didn't happen!"
This guy here might give you a run for your money.
That's cool that people are interested. I couldn't be the only one. Awesome.
Clayton that's the spirit. Yes. :)
John James, I'm enitely for a sort of freestyle, impromptu, improv argument with spectators, and obviously anyone is welcome to try it. To me that seems very much like a regular thread though, just whatever arguments come out and winner takes all.
The idea of giving it a structure is what makes it like a game—and to some extent a regular forum is like a game with its post count and points system.
I'll be willing to go with whatever to get something started, but my input is that some sort of basic structure, say, X judges and X goals, is mainly what differentiates the idea from any other thread. I'm really into arguing things like shoes are invisible or completely useless things like that so there's no seriousness whatsoever except to the point of practicing using and identifying arguments and fallacies.
I don't even know if we need judges. Do debates have judges?
I'm really into arguing things like shoes are invisible or completely useless things like that so there's no seriousness whatsoever except to the point of practicing using and identifying arguments and fallacies.
Ha! I've seen that before. But, with regards to the threads purpose, how does that disprove the ancient aliens theory? It just proves that man could do it...
mihi modus tollens
In the spirit of this thread, it does not mean that man can disprove the ancient aliens theory - it just proves he can provide an alternate explanation! Now, let's see you off some proof in favor of the ancient aliens theory!
Let's just try and look at the logic of ancient aliens...
Stonhenge exists. - True
We have no record of its creation. - True
Therefore, Ancient Aliens did it. - Valid. It might not be the most valid, but...
Non sequitur! It does not follow from the two premises that Ancient Aliens necessarily created Stonehenge.
Regarding:
Aristophanes: Valid. It might not be the most valid, but...
Valid. It might not be the most valid, but...
A deductive argument is either valid or invalid. An inductive argument can be referred to as a strong or weak argument, but inductive arguments don't prove anything logically.
Fuck! I knew that didn't seem right while i was typing it. Strong/Weak is what I meant. "It might not be the strongest argument."
I was thinking of ... like ... Birds are fish, and fish are shoes, so birds are shoes. That is valid.
So, we'll say that:
Stonehenge exists - true
No records of its creation exist - true
there is no evidence that ancient man could do it - true
So, ancient aliens did it. - valid.
Aristophanes: Fuck! I knew that didn't seem right while i was typing it. Strong/Weak is what I meant. "It might not be the strongest argument." I was thinking of ... like ... Birds are fish, and fish are shoes, so birds are shoes. That is valid.
Yes, this would be a valid argument. For anyone who wants more info, it's a categorical syllogism.
Aristophanes: So, we'll say that: Stonehenge exists - true No records of its creation exist - true there is no evidence that ancient man could do it - true So, ancient aliens did it. - valid.
It's better, but still does not prove ancient aliens did it. You would need different premises, as what you have now still doesn't necessarily prove that ancient aliens did create it. There would still be other possibilities such as God, neanderthals, etc. So, in order to logically prove that ancient aliens did it, you would have to add a premise that would demonstrate that it was necessarily done by ancient aliens.
Also, I think this may have been an accident on your part, but your third premise is false:
We already established earlier that it is possible that ancient man could have done it. Perhaps you meant to say that "there is no evidence that ancient man did do it."
Malachi:Maybe this is a good place for this, I have been thinking about the supremacy of logic over all other arguments. As I see it, there are actually five types of arguments: logic, referring to a causal relationship between events; emotional, "this will make you feel these good emotions"; empirical, "experience has taught us that such and such is the case"; evidentiary arguments, meaning scientific experiments and forensic analysis; and appeals to authority. Notice that every argument implicitly refers to a cause/effect relationship, except for the appeal to authority, whose authority must be established by some argument. so I would really like to know what great philosopher has already worked all of this out, so I can read it.
Aristotle comes to mind. He contributed to a theory of persuasion, which contained the idea that there are three modes by which a speaker may persuade an audience - ethos, pathos, and logos. (Paraphrasing loosely) Aristotle’s idea was that we can be persuaded, First of all, by a speaker’s personal attributes, including such things as his or her background, reputation, accomplishments, expertise etc. Aristotle referred to this mode of persuasion as ethos. 2nd, a speaker can persuade us by connecting with us on a personal level, and by arousing and appealing to our emotions by a skillful use of rhetoric. This mode of persuasion Aristotle termed pathos. And third, the speaker may persuade us by using information and arguments—what he called logos.
Rhetoric kicks ass.
Most of the people that have ever lived have never died. Humans live forever.
Dude. I used them both and ended up flipping a coin for could/did. Also, I could switch my argument from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid and it negates that guys achievement (in the video above he didn't prove Pyramidal contruction) within the parameters of this debate.
It's better, but still does not prove ancient aliens did it. You would need different premises, as what you have now still doesn't necessarily prove that ancient aliens did create it.
I was trying to not have ten points. I indented one because, since I include it, I can ( andalmost have to) include every other possible point in that direction.
Aside from the logic debate, does Ancient Aliens use murals and old writings to try to justify the theory? I'd assume that they are given the jumping off point from something?
Most of the people that have ever lived have never died.
Are you sure? Are there more people alive today than all that have lived in the past?
It reminds me of Heywood Banks "I am older than a lot of famous dead guys. A lot of famous dead guys didn't live as long as me. Oh, sure they accomplished more in a lot less time. But, they are dead now and what good does that do you?"
Aristophanes: Dude. I used them both and ended up flipping a coin for could/did. Also, I could switch my argument from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid and it negates that guys achievement (in the video above he didn't prove Pyramidal contruction) within the parameters of this debate.
Dude. You are in a thread about learning how to debate better. You can either lose the attitude and learn to sharpen your skills and use precise language to articulate what you really mean, or you can just get pissy when someone points out a flaw in your argument in a thread on learning to debate better.
In addition, switching topics would defeat the purpose of the debate. The point is to pick a side and defend it while attacking your opponent's weaknesses. Changing topics isn't useful.
Aristophanes: I was trying to not have ten points. I indented one because, since I include it, I can ( andalmost have to) include every other possible point in that direction.
If you need 10 premises to prove your case, then use those 10 premises. Choosing to not use even one would mean having a flawed argument. Even if your argument is valid, having incomplete or false premises is not good for logical debate.
Aristophanes: Aside from the logic debate, does Ancient Aliens use murals and old writings to try to justify the theory? I'd assume that they are given the jumping off point from something?
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
I have only attacked your arguments and not provided my own for you attack, so I will do so now:
I do not believe a deductive argument can be made to prove that humans built Stonehenge, but I do believe that an inductive argument can be made to strongly suggest that humans did, in fact, create Stonehenge:
gotlucky: Aristophanes:Dude. I used them both and ended up flipping a coin for could/did. Also, I could switch my argument from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid and it negates that guys achievement (in the video above he didn't prove Pyramidal contruction) within the parameters of this debate.Dude. You are in a thread about learning how to debate better. You can either lose the attitude and learn to sharpen your skills and use precise language to articulate what you really mean, or you can just get pissy when someone points out a flaw in your argument in a thread on learning to debate better.
Aristophanes:Dude. I used them both and ended up flipping a coin for could/did. Also, I could switch my argument from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid and it negates that guys achievement (in the video above he didn't prove Pyramidal contruction) within the parameters of this debate.
Chill out man. If you think my "attitude" was from the word "Dude." I said that because I was amazed that you pointed out something that i debated myself about.
I am not going to try to prove ancient aliens. I brought it up because hashem said debate 'stupid things' and AA is on the history channel...
Again, I am not trying to "debate" that subject. I, myself, was curious to figure out why History Channel has it on TV because it is so illogical. That is why I would have suggested "switch" the main point to the pyramids; merely something else on the show. So get off your high horse. There was no attitude in my post.
You do that. You find ten premises to try and prove something like ancient aliens. There are literally an infinte amount of them. Like my inquiry as to whether or not they originate in some kind of drawings or writings from ancient times. By including one, I simply open up the door for every infinite instance to be used to tear the proposition down. I wanted to avoid this conversation.
I am simply asking where the foundational reasoning for the show comes from? That infinite list of possibilities...
In response to your strong induction argument. All I can do is attempt to demonstrate it as "weak" instead of "strong."
Newgrange, believed to predate Stonehenge, is believed to have needed a workforce of 300 for a period of 20 years in order to construct it.
First, is there evidence that the creators of Newgrange were not aliens?!?!?
"It is estimated that the construction of the Passage Tomb at Newgrange would have taken a work force of 300 at least 20 years."
Am i accepting your conclusion here in the premise that humans built this (and/or other megaliths; why I cannot use the pyramids as a counteer example, but you can use this is beyond me. We are both inserting something that is not the subject as "proof" or "evidence" of our points and neither one really resembles the task of erecting Stonehenge...)?
This demonstrates that man during this time period was willing to spend an entire generation/lifetime building a large site, and they had the workforce to build it too.
Does it? We cannot verify construction method, or constructors. can we?
Wally Wallington demonstrated on his website, The Forgotten Technology, that he was able to recreate a Stonehenge-like structure, and he is now recreating an exact replica by himself without using modern technology.
Yes. He did however, discover the pivot of massive weight by spinning a rock on concrete. If man cannot lift a giant rock, then it would be difficult to move the rocks with the dual pivot rocks because you would need to place the giant rocks on top of other giant rocks (or maybe flatter smaller rocks) in order to pivot them. Remember the point is to prove how they got the giant rocks onto each other in the first place. I did notice he had some kind of wooden contraption for moving the rocks as well, so I cannot to discount this point entirely.
That a single man could build Stonehenge with technology available to prehistoric man strongly suggests that a workforce of a few hundred could build Stonehenge in a single generation.
Pretty much. Although, the time of a generation is arbitrary as demonstrated from points one and two.
Aliens only exist in our mind. Aliens exist in our mind. We are aliens. Humaliens made stonehenge.
Eh, there was also the fact that you were so dismissive about the actual argument (i.e. wanting to just switch to pyramids because Wally Wallington wouldn't apply to that). But I guess I misunderstood you. My mistake.
Okay. We don't have to debate about it if you don't want to, but you did actually attempt to prove it, whether you really care about it or not.
If you really wanted to switch to the pyramids for that reason, then you should have just said so. The reason that you actually provided was "[a]lso, I could switch my argument from Stonehenge to the Great Pyramid and it negates that guys achievement (in the video above he didn't prove Pyramidal contruction) within the parameters of this debate."
So don't get mad at me because you don't articulate your thoughts clearly.
You were the one who brought up the subject of ten premises. I see no reason why I should have to provide ten premises that prove that ancient aliens built Stonehenge. I'm on the side that they didn't. If you wanted to avoid this conversation, why did you start it?
I will direct you here to read more about it. Some of the more relevant material:
1) "None of the structural slabs were quarried, for they show signs of having been naturally weathered".
2) Human corpses had been buried and cremated within Newgrange.
3) "[T]he grave goods that came from Newgrange were typical of Neolithic Irish passage grave assemblages."
The evidence points to humans having built Newgrange. There is no evidence that Ancient Aliens built Newgrange.
I have touched upon this already, but you did not use the pyramids as a counterexample. From what you wrote, you cited the pyramids so that you could change the argument entirely. But even if you were to try to use the pyramids as a counterexample, they do not change the point of Newgrange, which is that it is possible that humans could be build prehistoric sites. Even if the pyramids were built by ancient aliens, that would not prove that they built Stonehenge. At best, it shows that it is possible, just as Newgrange demonstrates that it is possible that humans were building sites back then.
Archaelogists have found evidence that humans did in fact built Newgrange. Even if it cannot be demonstrated with 100% certainty, the evidence they found shows that it is more than likely. And there exists no evidence that ancient aliens did build it.
He has already erected a mini replica of Stonehenge, and he is working on a full size replica. He is doing this with methods that would have been available when Stonehenge was constructed. And he did this by himself. It should be easier with more people.
True. It could have taken more or less time. Some have postulated that it took as little as five years while others have said that thirty years is more likely.
Does this count? I recently tried doing something like this in the Obamacare thread but I think it can come across as begging for free answers. I'm trying to gauge the proper boundaries of doing this.
ok here is a classic. If you already know the fallacy in this argument don't spoil it for those that don't.
Every forum post is the same. One forum post is the same as itself. Assuming that n forum posts are the same as themselves, there exist two sets of n forum posts, each containing n-1 forum posts and another one, that are the same, so if n forum posts are the same n+1 forum posts are the same. Therefore, by proof by induction, all forum posts are the same.
Schools are labour camps.