[Hong Wu]

I was thinking yesterday that almost every argument I've had with a person about politics or policy can probably be simplified down to three principles or arguments. To my memory, no one has ever actually refuted any of these three principles and I'd be interested to see if anyone can disagree with them if I lay them out clearly.

1) If I'm going to let experts dictate policy in a way that requires me to change my life, I expect that (a) the expert be proven right most of the time over the long term and (b) that the changes be applied to everyone unless there is a strict necessity, such as militarily, for it to be otherwise.

This most commonly applies to environmentalist arguments. Environmentalist models haven't proven to be consistently right (basically the opposite of that), so (a) is not satisfied here. The prevalence of private jets and multiple giant homes among leading environmentalists means that (b) is not satisfied.

2) Any social values or policies need to be compatible with people's inevitable desire to continue their family lines. Values that run contrary to this have no long-term staying power.

This applies to various socially liberal policies. You can talk about being nice to the homosexuals and other kinds of deviants but the existence of bisexuals and "recovered" homosexuals makes it clear that socially conservative policies do contribute to the continuation of families. These desires are normal, inevitable and ultimately necessary; they need no other defense.

3) Any philosophical argument should be useful to people in some manner other than having an argument for the sake of having an argument. This doesn't mean useful in a strictly physical or utilitarian sense, it just means avoiding semantics and nihilism by staying focused upon a stated goal. If the goal and a debate's relationship to it can't be clearly stated and understood by all participants then the philosophy is serving no purpose within a given exchange.

[Pants-of-dog]

Arguments should be:

1. Consistent with empirically verifiable facts. They should describe or be based on real things.

2. Logical. They should be consistent and not use logical fallacies.

3. Clear. They should be clearly written and described using the simplest language possible.

[Hong Wu]

Arguments should be:

1. Consistent with empirically verifiable facts. They should describe or be based on real things.

2. Logical. They should be consistent and not use logical fallacies.

3. Clear. They should be clearly written and described using the simplest language possible.

If you were attempting to restate my argument, sorry but you failed. 1) People can argue about what constitutes a "fact" indefinitely and do so every day, 2&3) every argument includes some kind of logic unless it was not stated clearly. Even crazy people follow some kind of logic, it just may not be a stable form of logic or it may not be a correct interpretation of circumstances.

Usually when someone is accused of not using "facts" or "logic" it is a glorified way of saying that they disagree with some kind of perception, value or opinion, or it is an assertion that the other person is lying. A genuine failure to use facts or logic at all almost never happens. There is also no point in debating with people who consciously choose to lie so none of this applies to them.

[Tainari88]

@Hong Wu You really need to deal with something fundamental about debate.

It is both an art and a science. Both. Which means you have to be well balanced in both disciplines.

1) Scientific Method. Use it. To deal with facts.

2) Art. A great philosopher once said that art can be explained through political tools. A politician lies to cover up the truth--and an artist uses lies to reveal a truth.

That is how debate should be conducted. Not what you put up there. It sounds like a refusal to deal with either science or art Hung Wu. If that is the case you won't be effective at debating in any real way.

You will just be refusing to learn and letting your ego run wild unchecked. Those usually are the worst debaters in the world.

[B0ycey]

3. Clear. They should be clearly written and described using the simplest language possible.

Actually this is an important point that every SINGLE poster should adhere to. I have lost count the amount of times I have read someone post to Wellsy, that 'they didn't have time to respond to his great posts' but still found time to write a response to someone who wrote a three line thread on Trump.

From my behaviour of internet studies, I have learnt that you should use/be,

1. Simple language
2. Short sentences
3. Straight to the point
4. Limit the size of the post

If you want the average user to understand your point, be bothered to read your point and give them the opportunity to respond to your point, try to consider these four factors when posting.

[Hong Wu]

@Hong Wu You really need to deal with something fundamental about debate.

It is both an art and a science. Both. Which means you have to be well balanced in both disciplines.

1) Scientific Method. Use it. To deal with facts.

2) Art. A great philosopher once said that art can be explained through political tools. A politician lies to cover up the truth--and an artist uses lies to reveal a truth.

That is how debate should be conducted. Not what you put up there. It sounds like a refusal to deal with either science or art Hung Wu. If that is the case you won't be effective at debating in any real way.

You will just be refusing to learn and letting your ego run wild unchecked. Those usually are the worst debaters in the world.

I'm not sure what the first part here is supposed to mean. The scientific method is usually defined as observation -> hypothesis -> experiment. How exactly does this apply to debate? If you mean floating different ideas and asking them to be criticized, isn't that exactly what I've done here?

Regarding art, my writing skills are more than competent although a debate (as distinct from an argument) should value clarity over beauty. I think you missed the point there. Beauty in language is for things like poetry or at least prose, it is at best a secondary goal when trying to discuss a complicated subject.

[Pants-of-dog]

If you were attempting to restate my argument, sorry but you failed.

No, I was not attempting to restate your weird fallacies. I was pointing out what arguments should be like, because your suggestions made no sense.

1) People can argue about what constitutes a "fact" indefinitely and do so every day,

Yes, whcih is why the facts should be empirically verifiable, and evidence should be presented to show this verification.

2&3) every argument includes some kind of logic unless it was not stated clearly. Even crazy people follow some kind of logic, it just may not be a stable form of logic or it may not be a correct interpretation of circumstances.

...which is why arguments need consistency and a lack of fallacies.

Usually when someone is accused of not using "facts" or "logic" it is a glorified way of saying that they disagree with some kind of perception, value or opinion, or it is an assertion that the other person is lying. A genuine failure to use facts or logic at all almost never happens. There is also no point in debating with people who consciously choose to lie so none of this applies to them.

Please note that you have yet to use facts or logic.

—————————

Actually this is an important point that every SINGLE poster should adhere to. I have lost count the amount of times I have read someone post to Wellsy, that 'they didn't have time to respond to his great posts' but still found time to write a response to someone who wrote a three line thread on Trump.

From my behaviour of internet studies, I have learnt that you should use/be,

1. Simple language
2. Short sentences.
3. Straight to the point
4. Limit the size of the post

If you want the average user to understand your point, be bothered to read your point and give them the opportunity to respond to your point, try to consider these four factors when posting.

...and never use Latin or Greek.

[Tainari88]

That is something culturally specific. Remember always that in other cultures debate, speeches, and essays and many other forms of public speaking follows varying rules.

About being short and to the point I rarely am. I am used to Latin American debates where politicians talk a lot! Too many words is part of the style. If you are short and to the point? Most probably you are or come from either Anglo English speaking debates online or German influenced ones. The Italians, Latinos, Spaniards, etc are not into short and sweet. Not their style.

The Japanese and Chinese love to give a speech and they never tolerate questions from people who are not their peers.

Arabs love quoting poetry and never being direct in answering questions.

That short and to the point stuff is Anglo and German. Remember that.

[Tainari88]

Actually this is an important point that every SINGLE poster should adhere to. I have lost count the amount of times I have read someone post to Wellsy, that 'they didn't have time to respond to his great posts' but still found time to write a response to someone who wrote a three line thread on Trump.

From my behaviour of internet studies, I have learnt that you should use/be,

1. Simple language
2. Short sentences
3. Straight to the point
4. Limit the size of the post

If you want the average user to understand your point, be bothered to read your point and give them the opportunity to respond to your point, try to consider these four factors when posting.

Boycey my previous post above. Thank you.

[B0ycey]

Boycey my previous post above. Thank you.

Tainari88, I don't think it is just Latinos, Asians or Italians who like to write long detailed posts, even the Anglos seem to fall into this pitfall. But it seems that the Internet has a different acceptance/rules from the reader to how much they are prepared read and how much attention they will tolerate when reading when compared to written text. It appears we are more likely to read and respond to posts that are both short and straight to the point than long and detailed ones. Perhaps you should try an experiment (as you are latino). Next time you enter a threat that is new to you but has about forty posts to it already, see how many longer detailed posts you actually read when compared to the shorter ones. This is true for the lurkers too (people who aren't registered users but still read posts). So if you want people to read and respond to you more perhaps try out those rules I wrote.

[Tainari88]

@B0ycey I understand what you are saying. I am from the era of before the millenials. I did not grow up with cell phones or computers or anything at all like that. I grew up with green phones with long cords stuck to the side of a kitchen wall, and the only time I would get calls on that phone from adults wanting to talk to my father or mother.

I got addicted to reading very thick and long classic novels and non fiction books in various languages at a very young age. This made my brain get addicted to long and tough walls of text. It is my preferred reading. Short and to the point is too easy and I usually like long, complex concepts in fiction and non-fiction. A long time ago I took a course on speed reading given by the Iris intsitute is based in Chicago. I applied the method. So I read very very fast and with understanding.

Short and to the point doesn't develop long term focus and concentration. The young people now have short attention spans. That is alright for doing short things. For long and well done research papers, books, thesis, etc. it is a big problem. People can't focus enough to put in the time to analyze with a lot of concentration and depth with reading. Something that has to be revived.

Fragmented thoughts that can only focus on a subject for 3 minutes or 5 minutes is not the best thing for a long term career in writing, reading, technical writing, and even engineering. You need focus. Can't do it with short attention span habits.

But you are right. Many people don't have the time to read long texts. But they better respond with depth. They rarely do sometimes because they never developed the necessary habits.

One of the best books to read about debating and fighting verbally with others is one by a linguistics professor that wrote a series on what constitutes great debating and verbal self-defense. Her books as far as I know are out of print. Her name is Suzette Elgin. Dr. Suzette Elgin. She wrote the series entitled "The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense." She dedicated her life to the analysis of words as a linguist and she developed a method in which people could learn how to defend themselves.

Let me see if I can find a link for you to see the look of the books if ever you run across them in a used book store:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/like/401431028976