You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Debate’ category.
The second part of my series on conversational gambits and habits that are annoying, funnily enough, happened in the first Gambits post I made. Go check out the comment section as I will be pulling my example for this post directly from the text of a commentor.
“Guilt by association” is also near the top of the list of ‘argumentative styles’ that are prevalent online and also happen to annoy me. Let us begin.
My last post was about how people, in order to avoid arguing, conflate disagreement with hate. Let’s search for the counter argument presented here. Let’s break it down.
- “As to the Alabama, Christian Fundamentalist position you advocate on this blog.”
Analysis: It would be enlightening to know what the Alabama Christian Fundamentalist position is, and really if my arguments mirror theirs, does that make the argument in question wrong?
2. “The research has already spoken (although it will refine over time).”
Analysis: Just saying that “research has spoken” is not in anyway an argument especially if there is no evidence presented to qualify your claim. Hitchens said that a claim presented without evidence can be be dismissed without evidence. That is the case here.
3. “Who knows, maybe sensitive and loving treatments will change, either way.
Analysis: This is the informal fallacy of Begging the Question. With regards to gender affirming care and the mutilation of minors via surgery and cross-sex hormones there are no “sensitive and loving treatments” to be had. Permanent sterilization and the amputation of healthy tissue in no way can be considered “sensitive and loving” and yet that very conclusion was embedded in the statement.
4. “Right now, that’s where the science is.”
Analysis: This is a claim presented without evidence. “The science” currently states that the quality of the evidence for the efficacy of Gender Affirming Care and the procedures involved is poor at best. Several national health services, including Britain, France, Norway, Sweden, and Denmark have all either stopped or slowed GAC because of the lack of evidence. In reality – most children that experience ‘gender dysphoria’ will have their symptoms disappear with the onset of puberty – in the range of 80% to 90% (link to study). Be wary of anyone conclusively stating “what the science says”. The process of doing science is never complete as with new information theories will change to move closer toward the truth.
1. “There are scientists who said smoking doesn’t kill, and those who say climate change is a leftist/Jewish hoax. Your dissenting scientists as well as the right wing deplorables you site to trumpet them, are in that group.”
Analysis: Several processes are going on here, let’s tackle the overarching motif first. The setup is as follows: Group A (scientists in favour of Smoking) that, as history has illustrated, were wrong. In Group B (Other Scientists and right-wing deplorables) are exactly the same as group A. We should not follow group B because of a comparison (that contains a conclusion) has been drawn, in this case without charity or evidence provided.
It doesn’t follow that group B must share the same failings of group A, yet we are to condemn group B because the person who is making the argument says so. It’s quite bizarre.
Also, to address the guild by association angle the legitimate studies and credible scientists that have found and published evidence that does not “fit” with Brian’s world view must be spuriously associated with so called ‘deplorables’ and people who were wrong in the past. Who you are aligned with, or associate with does not affect the quality of the arguments you make. A solid argument from a reprehensible individuals is still a solid argument regardless of social standing.
So, the guilt by association ploy is used in the place of presenting an argument that has a solid factual base. This route of argumentation is rooted in emotional social coercion rather than presenting a counter argument that is based in fact.
Look at this clear example I culled from Twitter. It fits the coercive guilt by association tactic perfectly.
It is a textbook example of how not argue. Stay frosty and cogent folks, and learn to recognize poor argumentation when it comes your way. :)
We need to be able identify thought terminating cliches and deal with them appropriately. We need to encourage not suppress speech in society.
Douglas Murray has a hard rule about public debates. He will treat you with respect – until you cross the line of politeness and decency. Then, the gloves come off.
Very close to a master class is put on by Cenk Uygur on how not to hold your own in a debate and maintain your credibility.
Canadians are guaranteed the freedom of expression by our Charter of Rights. The self appointed sacred caste of trans has issues with people critiquing and discussion their vacuous ideology. The TQ+ community, because it doesn’t have a rational argument to stand on, then must rely on defamation, coercion, and social shaming to freeze out any debate of transgenderism and what its effects are on society.
“An Ontario judge has declared that human rights legislation “does not prohibit public discussion of anything,” in a free-speech victory for a teacher who was shut down when she raised concerns at a school board meeting about transgender-themed books in elementary school libraries.
“What happened here should not happen in a democratic society,” Ontario Superior Court Justice James Ramsay said in the case of now-retired teacher Carolyn Burjoski
“The Human Rights Code does not prohibit public discussion of issues related to transgenderism or minors and transgenderism. It does not prohibit public discussion of anything.”
Finally, one institution in Canada that isn’t kowtowing to gender ideology.
“Piatkowski later told a local CTV station, however, that Burjoski’s comments were actually transphobic and “questioned the right to exist” of trans people. He said he had no choice but to expel the teacher from the meeting. He told 570 News radio that Burjoski was “disrespectful” towards transgender people and was “not promoting healthy debate” at the meeting. The organization took down its recording of the meeting — a regular, public session of elected officials — and had YouTube remove another copy of the video for alleged copyright infringement.”
Ah. The right to exist. This is one of the favourite motte and bailey rhetorical dodges of the transgender ideologues. The question at hand was should books that present a false narrative of ‘transition’ be available to elementary school children. Nothing to do with existence or ‘erasing’ trans people.
“She launched a defamation lawsuit, which the board sought to have thrown out. In a Nov. 23 ruling, Ramsay dismissed the bid and ordered the board to pay Burjoski $30,000 in costs. He said her claims have merit and should be allowed to proceed, adding the comments made against her were “defamatory.”
“They accused her of breaching the Human Rights Code, questioning the right of trans persons to exist and engaging in speech that included hate. She did not do any of those things,” the judge said in his ruling.
“The chairman of the board acted with malice or at least, with a reckless disregard for the truth. He had made an embarrassingly erroneous and arbitrary decision to silence a legitimate expression of opinion and he was widely criticized for it. It is not a stretch to infer that, realizing that, he tried to justify himself with the public by assassinating the plaintiff’s character.”
The judge said he saw no prospect Piatkowski will be able to prove his statements were based in fact, since he accused her of saying things she did not say.
Hopefully our Supreme Court won’t overrule this correct decision in favour of free speech in Canada.
1/ The current controversy in Saskatchewan shows how the gender debate has become the perfect storm for loss of confidence in the Charter. The Charter has never commanded universal respect among Canadians but in recent years these doubts have increased.
2/ The Charter was introduced by Pierre Trudeau over opposition from the provinces. The notwithstanding clause was one of a series of compromises which won the grudging support of 9 provinces. Quebec did not agree and has used the notwithstanding clause regularly.
3/ Public support for the Charter has grown because it was believed to secure broadly shared values of equality between individuals and limitations on state authority. It was seen as reinforcing democratic government by protecting the fundamental conditions for democracy.
4/ More recently academic and now judicial thinking has adopted a new concept of human rights based on ameliorating the condition of oppressed groups, even at the expense of traditional values of liberty and equality.
5/ This new concept of rights has pushed the courts further into the realm of policy making for which the judicial process is not designed. Bad decisions will happen and as they become more frequent the need for a political safety valve has increased.
6/ A basic problem is that court procedures are intended to resolve a clear conflict between two parties. There are often many different perspectives to a Charter issue and all of these perspectives are seldom adequately represented in court.
7/ The rules of evidence make it difficult to present a full picture of the complexity of an issue like pediatric gender transition. The scientific background has to be presented through expert witnesses who submit written reports. This is a costly process.
8/ The high costs of bringing a Charter case mean that many cases are brought by groups receiving government funding. The government is using the Charter litigation to advance the interests of favoured groups in a way that bypasses the legislative and public debate.
9/ Judges of course follow the media and in most cases they can rely on their own general knowledge to aid in understanding the evidence presented in court. However, on the issue of gender medicine Canadian media coverage has been hopelessly biased.
10/ A judge who reads the Globe and Mail and listens to the CBC will have heard nothing about the international controversy over gender medicine. There has been no coverage of the closure of the Tavistock gender clinic of the policy changes in Sweden, Finland and Norway.
11/ Strict rules of evidence exist because court cases are intended to provide a final resolution to a dispute. There are provisions to re-open a criminal conviction where new evidence is discovered after trial in other types of cases the decision is final after the final appeal.
12/ Public policy, on the other hand, should be constantly revised as new and better evidence emerges. New evidence on pediatric gender transition is emerging rapidly but it is being ignored by Canadian media and policy makers.
13/ There is a risk that when Canada finally realizes how harmful the current approach to pediatric transition has become, the ability to change course will be hindered by Charter judgments made on the basis of faulty and limited evidence.
14/ In these circumstances, use of the notwithstanding clause may be a necessity but it is worth considering that we would not be in this mess if our major institutions did not show such disregard for the Charter’s protection of freedom of expression.
Have you ever been bullied by someone from the reparations crowd? Perhaps there are a few possible answers in here.
This was Douglas Murray’s closing statement in the Munk Debate over whether one should trust the mainstream media. It should be required viewing over at the CBC and CTV.
Also, see the full debate here where you can watch Douglas Murray and Matt Taibbi crush the opposition and especially Malc Gladwell, who offered little toward the substantive debate of the topic at hand (constructing strawmen and playing the racism card doesn’t seem to cut it in serious debate).
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…