NationStates Jolt Archive

The main case of this is in the homosexual marriage debate. Those who oppose homosexual marriage have stated that homosexuality is learned behaviour as oppoed to inherriant biological behaviour. What those who support homosexual marriage have simplified this to is the idea that those who oppose homosexual marriage believe that being homosexual is a 'choice'. Learned behaviour is far far more complicated than a 'choice'.

This trend has streamed across othef fields of debate also. Basicly you oversimplify your oppositions case to make it seem stupid. It isnt a legitimate debating tatic, no matter how widely used the idea that you are using is. If its an oversimplification of an idea, it isnt valid.

But not oversimplifying would mean having to understand your opponent's position, in which case, you might accidentally agree with them!

The main case of this is in the homosexual marriage debate. Those who oppose homosexual marriage have stated that homosexuality is learned behaviour as oppoed to inherriant biological behaviour. What those who support homosexual marriage have simplified this to is the idea that those who oppose homosexual marriage believe that being homosexual is a 'choice'. Learned behaviour is far far more complicated than a 'choice'.

This trend has streamed across othef fields of debate also. Basicly you oversimplify your oppositions case to make it seem stupid. It isnt a legitimate debating tatic, no matter how widely used the idea that you are using is. If its an oversimplification of an idea, it isnt valid.

I thought the main argument of those who propose to legalise gay marriage is that it doesnt matter if its a choice or not, it doesnt hurt anyone, so who cares?

And oversimplification is a strawman, if it really bothers you call people on it.

Yay! Another thread on gay marriage! :rolleyes:

Does it matter at all if it's a choice? Or learned? Or genetic?

No.

If gays want to get married, then they should be allowed to get married.

I think what some people are afraid of is that either they (who probably harbor some homosexual desires) or their children will be "talked into" being homosexual.

You oversimplified the arguments of those in favor of gay marriage to make your point about people oversimplifying arguments. Bravo.

The main case of this is in the homosexual marriage debate. Those who oppose homosexual marriage have stated that homosexuality is learned behaviour as oppoed to inherriant biological behaviour. What those who support homosexual marriage have simplified this to is the idea that those who oppose homosexual marriage believe that being homosexual is a 'choice'. Learned behaviour is far far more complicated than a 'choice'.

This trend has streamed across othef fields of debate also. Basicly you oversimplify your oppositions case to make it seem stupid. It isnt a legitimate debating tatic, no matter how widely used the idea that you are using is. If its an oversimplification of an idea, it isnt valid.


It may not be sound debating, but it is sound populism.

The idea is the convince a larger section of the public than your opponent does.
Convincing the opponent per-se has been proven to be almost impossible, even for the likes of Churchil and Lincoln.

It may not be sound debating, but it is sound populism.

The idea is the convince a larger section of the public than your opponent does.
Convincing the opponent per-se has been proven to be almost impossible, even for the likes of Churchil and Lincoln.
Quite. Look at British politics today; it's all style, with no substance in sight.

People are stubborn, and rarely change their mind one way or the other, and so all you can really hope to do in debate is convince those who are yet to make up their minds. Giving full credit to your opponents views makes it less likely you will be able to do this.

Heh I dont get how we can harp on about oversimplification on the one hand then glibly invoke ochams razor on the other?

Please explain this ohhh wise and wonderfull phliosophers?

Heh I dont get how we can harp on about oversimplification on the one hand then glibly invoke ochams razor on the other?

Please explain this ohhh wise and wonderfull phliosophers?
Who or what is ochams razor?

Can't we all just get along? (how's that for simple?)

"Learned behavior"? Does that even touch upon sanity somewhere? How exactly is homosexuality taught?

You oversimplified the arguments of those in favor of gay marriage to make your point about people oversimplifying arguments. Bravo.

The ironic hypocrisy by the OP was quite stunning, indeed.

But not oversimplifying would mean having to understand your opponent's position, in which case, you might accidentally agree with them!
Indeed. If I take the time to learn what my opposition's argument are, they might win me over with their insideous "facts" and "logic."

No, better that I just help advance The Debate. See, there are two sides to everything, even things that you think are fact. You might think that the sky is blue, but I stand ready to make sure that we have an honest and open debate on whether or not the sky is actually orange. You may think that wavelengths of light are empirically-verifiable, but I'm going to make sure we spend time discussing the relative merits of my theory that magical leprechauns fool you all into believing the sky is blue. That's what honest, open discourse is all about.

Quite. Look at British politics today; it's all style, with no substance in sight.

People are stubborn, and rarely change their mind one way or the other, and so all you can really hope to do in debate is convince those who are yet to make up their minds. Giving full credit to your opponents views makes it less likely you will be able to do this.

You may convince a man in pleasant conversation over a drink of something.
Not in the adverserial setting of a debate. I'm thinking the last time a debate worked, in that sense, was in the run-up to Salamis.

You oversimplified the arguments of those in favor of gay marriage to make your point about people oversimplifying arguments. Bravo.
heh heh!

Who or what is ochams razor?


Heh with a name like philosphy, now you tell me? Come are you saying you really don't know?

Heh with a name like philosphy, now you tell me? Come are you saying you really don't know?
My name isn't philosophy, and it certainly isn't philosphy. :)

Heh with a name like philosphy, now you tell me? Come are you saying you really don't know?

Elucidate me.
OCHAM. Are you on about some kind or runes?

People are stubborn, and rarely change their mind one way or the other, and so all you can really hope to do in debate is convince those who are yet to make up their minds. Giving full credit to your opponents views makes it less likely you will be able to do this.

I've convinced people in debates before, and I've been convinced in debates as well.

Comprehending your opponent's point of view is essential to that, and it's also essential to convincing a truly neutral person, assuming he is intelligent and knowledgeable enough to understand both sides. Propaganda is best for bringing in those already leaning towards your side.

I've convinced people in debates before, and I've been convinced in debates as well.

Comprehending your opponent's point of view is essential to that, and it's also essential to convincing a truly neutral person, assuming he is intelligent enough to understand both sides.
Perhaps you're right.

Or perhaps I oversimplified the argument. ;)

Elucidate me.
OCHAM. Are you on about some kind or runes?

Heh very funny, but my answer to you would have to be googlit!

Perhaps you're right.

Or perhaps I oversimplified the argument. ;)

I would slightly modify my earlier post, thinking it over - non-substantive rhetoric can indeed sometimes be effective at convincing the neutrals, if it successfully manages to portray you as a knowledgeable and intelligent person and your opponent as an idiot. The effect, however, diminishes with the intelligence and knowledge of the neutral audience in question.

But what it will almost never do is convince somebody who isn't sure, but is leaning towards the other side. You want to stump that person, give him an argument he can't answer - you don't want to give him an excuse to dismiss what you say. You have to use substantive arguments for that.

I would slightly modify my earlier post, thinking it over - non-substantive rhetoric can indeed sometimes be effective at convincing the neutrals, if it successfully manages to portray you as a knowledgeable and intelligent person and your opponent as an idiot. The effect, however, diminishes with the intelligence and knowledge of the neutral audience in question.

But what it will almost never do is convince somebody who isn't sure, but is leaning towards the other side. You want to stump that person, give him an argument he can't answer - you don't want to give him an excuse to dismiss what you say. You have to use substantive arguments for that.
I tend to think that most people are already leaning one way or the other, and it's a question of how strongly they lean. If they hover on the fence, then you might swing them your way, but they'll probably be easily pulled back to the other side again. If they're at the extreme, you'll either never convince them, or something will happen that changes their viewpoint completely and they'll come over to your side with a vengence.

Understanding your opponents point of view is vital if you want to be successful at debate; you need to know what they're going to say, and have your answer ready so that magic 'stumped question' you refer to never occurs. But it's hard to keep faith in the power of reason when you so often come across illogical views so tightly held you haven't a hope in hell of getting through.

I tend to think that most people are already leaning one way or the other, and it's a question of how strongly they lean.

Unless they're not knowledgeable enough to form a coherent opinion either way, or they just don't care, or they've heard good arguments for both sides and can't resolve them.

If they hover on the fence, then you might swing them your way, but they'll probably be easily pulled back to the other side again.

Not always. I've been convinced before, mostly on issues where I sat somewhere close to the fence, and on at least one - gun control - I've moved from slightly oriented in one direction to strongly oriented in the other. Then there are the arguments that don't convince you of your opponent's position, but force you to modify your views anyway, to account for them. That's probably one of the most productive aspects of debate.

If they're at the extreme, you'll either never convince them, or something will happen that changes their viewpoint completely and they'll come over to your side with a vengence.

True. Though I don't know if "with a vengeance" is an accurate depiction; sometimes the converts are among the few who actually do understand their opponent's arguments, and engage them seriously.

Understanding your opponents point of view is vital if you want to be successful at debate; you need to know what they're going to say, and have your answer ready so that magic 'stumped question' you refer to never occurs.

That's also true.

But it's hard to keep faith in the power of reason when you so often come across illogical views so tightly held you haven't a hope in hell of getting through.

I think I've managed to sway a few religious fundamentalists once or twice. Slightly, yes, but at least I've managed to get them to think, which has to count somewhere.

The main case of this is in the homosexual marriage debate. Those who oppose homosexual marriage have stated that homosexuality is learned behaviour as oppoed to inherriant biological behaviour.

"Those who oppose homosexual marriage" are not a homogeneous group, my dear. Quite a few within that group have used the word "choice" themselves - have point-blank stated that it is a choice. If your argument is different, then by all means, make it, but do not ignore that and incredibly common argument is "choice".

Not always. I've been convinced before, mostly on issues where I sat somewhere close to the fence, and on at least one - gun control - I've moved from slightly oriented in one direction to strongly oriented in the other.
I have changed my mind many times before, but usually only on issues I don't particually care about. I also like to think (hope?) that I have an open mind about most issues, and I try not to assume that I have all the answers already. I have, however, debated with people whose arguments have been conclusively beaten and they still do not shift an inch. I'm sure we could name several such people on this forum alone.

Then there are the arguments that don't convince you of your opponent's position, but force you to modify your views anyway, to account for them. That's probably one of the most productive aspects of debate.
I agree. As with everything, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. If debate brings the two poles closer to each other, then it has been productive.

I have changed my mind many times before, but usually only on issues I don't particually care about. I also like to think (hope?) that I have an open mind about most issues, and I try not to assume that I have all the answers already.

As do I. There comes a point where you are sure that you can't be right about everything, and thus are compelled by your own rational impulse to question your opinions.

One of the scariest things about knowing how to argue is the risk that you can convince yourself of anything.

I have, however, debated with people whose arguments have been conclusively beaten and they still do not shift an inch. I'm sure we could name several such people on this forum alone.

Well, of course. But the Internet is not the best place to sway fundamentalists of any sort.

I agree. As with everything, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. If debate brings the two poles closer to each other, then it has been productive.

That is true, but modifying your opinions in response to your opponent's arguments doesn't always involve moving closer to your opponent. There have been plenty of right-wing arguments, for instance, that instead of moving me rightwards, have convinced me of the folly of partial steps and radicalized me even further.

Heh very funny, but my answer to you would have to be googlit!You should probably do so yourself.
Then once you're done that, try googling Occam and you might understand what's going on.

The main case of this is in the homosexual marriage debate. Those who oppose homosexual marriage have stated that homosexuality is learned behaviour as oppoed to inherriant biological behaviour. What those who support homosexual marriage have simplified this to is the idea that those who oppose homosexual marriage believe that being homosexual is a 'choice'. Learned behaviour is far far more complicated than a 'choice'.

The learned behaviour argument is pretty weak, anyway.

So what if it's learned behaviour? It doesn't hurt anyone, so why criticise people for doing it?

I continue to assert that the government shouldn't regulate marriage at all. I sent an e-mail to the Prime Minister telling him that just the other day.

You should probably do so yourself.
Then once you're done that, try googling Occam and you might understand what's going on.


Yeah cheers for the unwarrented insult, and I know my spelling is not up to par(can't help that), but really if you look at the word, and try to deduce through my bad spelling you'll understand what I'm saying; and given the context that it was said in then I'm sure that you will be able to comprehend what I'm talking about. On the other hand if your just too fuckin' lazy, and if your bag is to take the piss out of people with 'specific learning dificulties' then I guess gongrats are in order coz your good at that!

The learned behaviour argument is pretty weak, anyway.

So what if it's learned behaviour? It doesn't hurt anyone, so why criticise people for doing it?

I continue to assert that the government shouldn't regulate marriage at all. I sent an e-mail to the Prime Minister telling him that just the other day.

The learned behaviour argument is less than very weak, it has not got a leg to stand on infact. Learnt form who, from where? Hands up how many people know gay men who's fathers are gay as well?

I agree with you, they do no harm at all. The goverment has no business telling us who can get married and under what surcumstancies.

The learned behaviour argument is pretty weak, anyway.

So what if it's learned behaviour? It doesn't hurt anyone, so why criticise people for doing it?

I continue to assert that the government shouldn't regulate marriage at all. I sent an e-mail to the Prime Minister telling him that just the other day.
Did you get a response like

Dear Canadian citizen,

Due to the large volume of email the Right Honourable Mr Harper receives daily, he will not get the chance to read your message. To save server space it has been deleted. Have a nice day!

Did you get a response like

No. I got a response from an underling telling me that the issue was under the supervision of the Minister of Justice, and that they'd forwarded my message to his office.

No response from him, yet, though.