[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
Name
Email
Subject   (reply to 1007)
Message
BB Code
File
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: None
  • Maximum file size allowed is 7000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently unique user posts. View catalog
Note: Try the 'File URL' option to post an image directly from the internet
File 129127571321.png - (1.05MB , 1071x900 , Class is in Session.png )
1007 No. 1007
Good day students, class is in session. Today I will be teaching about how to stay civil in a debate. Let us inspect some examples.

First we have an example of a particularly bad reply:

Rofl. Sure is revisionist in here. Typical liberal. "Oh shit, they're pointing out how retarded my ideology is, and how its led to the deaths of millions of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, and the economic ruin of vast portions of the world. I BETTER PRETEND THEIR OPINIONS DON'T MATTER! THAT'LL STOP 'EM!"

There are several things wrong with argument (if it can be named as such). The basis of this argument does not follow a structured order of ideas. Not only that, it is filled with assumptions and ad hominem attacks. It puts words in the mouth of the other party and attempts to pass this off as a legitimate point. Under no circumstances should the other party be insulted- even if they deserve it. And whilst humour can keep a debate lighthearted and entertaining and I appreciate this individual's attempt at it, it should be done tactfully and try to avoid the usage of memes and overused phrases.

Next, we have an example of a good reply:
Tru facts (intentionally mispelled): ~91% of the population has below a 120 IQ. Only ~75% of the population has an IQ above 90. This correlates pretty nicely to the ~68% high school graduation rate. So basically, what this is saying, is that American public high schools weed out people with below average intelligence, but will produce graduates who are just marginally average. In essence, that piece of paper is useless- which is why people go to college. You say that "raising the requirements to go to college will improve the quality of graduates". This is true, however, already very few people are of the caliber to graduate college and reducing the number of people who go there will basically make the university's income to go FUBAR. Preferably, the quality of high school teaching would be improved to make more people smart enough to handle university. However, this is not happening, and thus universities must accept sub-par students in order to make ends meet.

We start off with a little joke to make things a little interesting. Next, the debator follows a structured argument supported with examples and statistics, in a manner where it is easy to follow his line of logic. Preferably he would have given a source for his statistics, but this often requires a large time investment to dig up past records so it is understandable if the person wishes not to spend that much time on an internet argument. The truth of an other person's point is acknowledged, and a suggestion is made to improve that idea. It stays strictly objective and never once resorts to personal attacks.

There are other guidelines for debate, but merely following the suggestions I've just made will greatly improve the quality of your rhetoric. Remember, the aim of the debate is to come to a greater understanding, not to 'crush' the other person. Debate is the fire through which your ideas are forged to become stronger. Competition is healthy, but keep in mind that you should stay open to the other person's ideas and avoid prolonged 'trench warfare' situations. Last but not least, know when to acknowledge when you are wrong.
Expand all images
>> No. 1008
>ad hominem attacks
this is how real men argue
>> No. 1010
I realize that you purposely didn't cite your statistics' sources because you were lazy. However, since your entire reply was based around them, it made that reply just as weak as the first one. You didn't actually achieve a more solid post; you merely made yourself feel better about it.
>> No. 1011
>statistics
"Anything can be proven with [quotes and] statistics; 70% of people know this." -Homer J. Simpson

statistics are probably the most overused and misused pseudomathematical proof resource. ironically enough, mathematicians are the only -so called- scientists who don't learn/use them.
>> No. 1013
I wish I could appreciate your thread, but it feels like conservatives are once again being straw-manned and joked at. You've instantly turned off half your audience by doing that.

In addition your "good" paragraph isn't arguing correlation, it's just plain jumping logically. Instead of linking IQ to people that graduate it says the group of people with an IQ over 90 is about the same size as the group of people who graduate. With that kind of logic I could "correlate" any group I wanted just because its group members at one point, whichever point I chose, are about the same size. The error in that is obvious.

For example:
>68% of Americans oppose the Ground Zero masque, so I guess that must mean it correlates to the amount of people who have over X amount of IQ, thus ayone who agrees with it is stupid.

It just doesn't work. To argue correlation one has to prove that both change because of some factor X (basically proving they are related). Simply taking a static point on from a random dimension on the information line doesn't mean anything.
>> No. 1014
>Preferably he would have given a source for his statistics, but this often requires a large time investment to dig up past records so it is understandable if the person wishes not to spend that much time on an internet argument. The truth of an other person's point is acknowledged, and a suggestion is made to improve that idea. It stays strictly objective and never once resorts to personal attacks.

I'm autistic so if you don't cite your sources I won't believe you, especially as anonymous.
>> No. 1015
Tohno is slowly turning into a debate club. Let's have (mad) tea parties, instead.
>> No. 1016
>>1015
>hello i am retarded and do not know how to think critically let's just all take it easy and pretend we like tea so i won't feel bad for being dumb
>> No. 1017
>>1016
Honestly, you look a lot more dumb than the person you're "green-texting".
>> No. 1036
>>1007

>Remember, the aim of the debate is to come to a greater understanding, not to 'crush' the other person.

Come on, that sounds boring.

>>1008

Real men use fists.

>>1017

Yeah, greentexting for purposes other than quotations makes you look like a retard. Sorry bro.

And I love how you feel superior about not being 'dumb'. Since IQ pops up quite a few times in this thread lets link this to intelligence (i.e. people with higher IQ are smarter). As you don't really affect your 'intelligence' (IQ is not something you can greatly improve over time - one could argue you're born with it) being proud of it is just about as stupid as being proud to be born in some country/your heritage and probably even more retarded than being proud of your looks (as good looking people usually tend to take proper care of their bodies).
Having low IQ or being unable to understand quantum physics doesn't make you less of a person in any way.

Byu the way - your IQ score only shows how good you are at solving IQ tests. That's basically it but of course you're free to believe whatever you want to. IQ is about as meaningless as EQ (which was made by people who felt bad about their low IQ) or SQ.


OP, it appears you 'lost' some kind of internet 'argument' (or rather, a flamewar) and you're mad about it. Don't be. As the old saying goes - arguing on the internet is like paraolympics - even if you win you're still retarded. (And again, being really retarded (as in suffering from intellectual disability) doesn't make you less of a person but then again if you can't take a joke like that you take life way to seriously.) The only way to really 'win' is not participating.
>> No. 1049
Its up to you. If crushing others is the only reason for an argument to be thrilling, then so be it. Of course, this lecture is already lost on you. Even if I am unyieldingly correct, you will just close your eyes and clasp your hands over your ears, blurting out your pathetic argument. You'll dig in your heels and keep arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence because it is not the acquisition of truth which drives you, but to extinguish the anguish which outrages your soul and to feel superior. Do you know what kind of people allow their emotions to overwhelm them? Not men for sure. Women. And also hormone-charged teenagers. You do not belong here. May I suggest a place where you belong?

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards
http://boards.4chan.org/r9k/
>> No. 1050
File 129134514314.png - (395.26KB , 641x480 , 1285743534125.png )
1050
>>1049

Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason  


-  [WT]  [Home] [Manage]

- Tohno-chan took 0.03 seconds to load -

[ an / ma / mai / ns ] [ foe / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / mp3 / mt / ot / pic / so / fb ] [ ddl / irc ] [ home ]