The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroup
This Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To This Or Any Other
Newsgroup. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroup And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Phil Allison"
Subject: Re: How to Cheat in Debates
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:36:47 +1100
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:25:58 EST
Organization: Telstra BigPond Internet Services (http://www.bigpond.com)
"Bill Sloman" wrote in message
> "Phil Allison" wrote in message
> > There are at least ten recognised and popular ways of cheating
> > discussion or debate - some are so common they seem quite normal until
> > fallacy is pointed out. Here is my list:
> > 5. Quote the absent expert.
> > Declare an absent party to be an expert who supports your case. He
> > possibly isn't an expert or wouldn't in fact support you but your
> > cannot debate this person or yourself on the point since he is not
> > available.
> Which has an obvious variant
> 5a. Ignore a quoted authority
> Declare a quoted authority to be biased, insufficiently disinterested
> inaccessible. Do not bother substantiate this opinion, or find any
> countervailing evidence.
** First - the person quoted **has** to be an recognised, independant
authority AND what they say has to be on the issue exactly, non ambiguous
and does not require interpretation.
> This isn't actually allowed in classical stand-up debates, where there
> time to go to a library, or to check the sort of work of reference that
> can drag along to the debate, so you are obliged to debate on the basis
> everything that your opponent has said is true. Questioning the truth of
> their statements, and pointing out inconsistences with the real world, are
> treated as time-wasting.
** That is a piece of public entertainment - not a search for the truth.
> Web debates are mostly real differences of opinion about real subjects,
> they are not time limited. The web actually does include a lot of useful
> sites (as well as a much larger number of ill-informed and misleading
> and a pointer to good web site, or a good literature reference can "win" a
> debate between people who are interested in finding out the right answer.
** Far more often it is exactly as described in my number 5.
> Ignoring a good reference implies that you aren't interested in finding
> an objectively define right answer, and thus that you aren't taking part
> a debate, but exploiting the forum to proselytize your revelation.
** See above Bill. BTW You must post the wording of the info you are
> I must say that sermons of the Church of the Beatified Phil Alison aren't
> all that uplifting.
** Number 10 Bill - you have no case to post so you post insults.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The sci.electronics.design Newsgroup