GNU-Linux
02-06-2004, 22:57
*Sorry if this is a multiple post - NS server seems to make it hardest to post when it would be the most annoying to multipost/not post at all.
I worry about general forum posters' ability to discuss matters.
Every topic seems to contain posts written in very bad debating strategy.
Some faults include:
1. Selective "Rebuttals" -
instead of arguing against the most important point made, posters argue against the easiest to disprove.
This is similar to:
2. Completely Ignoring Main Points -
no matter how many times they are said, people seek to win the argument by simply ignoring all the important points, often making vague statements in reply instead of actual counter-arguments.
3. Irrelevant Material -
things that have some connection to the topic, but not actually relevant.
E.g. On a topic about US presidential candidate Kerry, people post stuff about US Ex-President Clinton.
This is similar to:
4. Changing the subject -
people aren't very good at arguing the case, so they try to change the topic slightly, to something they are better at arguing against.
And of course, we can't forget:
5. Nonsense "deductions" - people reach conclusions erroneously. This wouldn't be so bad if it were not for:
6. Refusal to accept opponents deductions regardless of obvious truth -
people seem to treat debate as a war of words, where each side is trying to "defeat" the other, and admitting when the other side makes a correct point is "giving up".
As I see it, debate is various people using their combined knowledge and deductive abilities to reach a logical conclusion. Of course, each one will enter the discussion with different views, as each has had different experience and possesses different knowledge and have followed different routes of logic. A debate where each member leaves with exactly the same views as upon entering is pointless. By all means put forward your views, but remember, other people will then put theirs forward, and you shouldn't be blind to them.
I worry about general forum posters' ability to discuss matters.
Every topic seems to contain posts written in very bad debating strategy.
Some faults include:
1. Selective "Rebuttals" -
instead of arguing against the most important point made, posters argue against the easiest to disprove.
This is similar to:
2. Completely Ignoring Main Points -
no matter how many times they are said, people seek to win the argument by simply ignoring all the important points, often making vague statements in reply instead of actual counter-arguments.
3. Irrelevant Material -
things that have some connection to the topic, but not actually relevant.
E.g. On a topic about US presidential candidate Kerry, people post stuff about US Ex-President Clinton.
This is similar to:
4. Changing the subject -
people aren't very good at arguing the case, so they try to change the topic slightly, to something they are better at arguing against.
And of course, we can't forget:
5. Nonsense "deductions" - people reach conclusions erroneously. This wouldn't be so bad if it were not for:
6. Refusal to accept opponents deductions regardless of obvious truth -
people seem to treat debate as a war of words, where each side is trying to "defeat" the other, and admitting when the other side makes a correct point is "giving up".
As I see it, debate is various people using their combined knowledge and deductive abilities to reach a logical conclusion. Of course, each one will enter the discussion with different views, as each has had different experience and possesses different knowledge and have followed different routes of logic. A debate where each member leaves with exactly the same views as upon entering is pointless. By all means put forward your views, but remember, other people will then put theirs forward, and you shouldn't be blind to them.