You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Debate’ tag.
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.
Sorry for the incovenience of having to go to youtube to watch the happenings at the Oxford Union. It was quite a raucous affair.
Compare and contrast with the lecture at Cambridge where students as opposed to radicals came out and a productive mostly civil debate and conversation resulted.
The activist Left wants more of Oxford and less of Cambridge. I implore everyone watching to be more like Cambridge and respect others and their opinions while debating the merits of the arguments at hand.
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).
Universities should be places where the hard discussions can be had. Contentious issues are what Universities are made for… or at least what they were made for.
Once you meet the interloper please observe his tactics. He is attempting to provoke a reaction using mid level violence techniques. His goal, while completely discrediting himself, was to discourage debate. His asshollery was deliberate. Never give them what they want, as the goal of their ‘activism’ is your reaction.
It may be hard in the moment but let them be the clowns and disrupters – you keep your cool like the trio of Billboard Chris, Peter Boghossian and James did.
Never heard of mid level violence? Find out.
Discussing issues about our society in the online world is almost always a contentious affair, but lately it seems that people are particularly unwilling to engage in conversation and debate.
One of the terms that is getting thrown around liberally is the “the Far Right”. Any point of disagreement once this magic spell has been pronounced can be safely disregarded and the conversation considered to be “won” by the person deploying it.
The problem is that, in reality, nothing has been ‘won’ and more importantly the issue at hand has not been discussed or evaluated on any meaningful level.
The only solution is more engagement and involvement, it is what keeps our society free and functioning.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…