Superior | Debating: 101 - Printable Version

Superior | Debating: 101 - Printable Version

+- Sinisterly (https://sinister.ly)
+-- Forum: General (https://sinister.ly/Forum-General)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://sinister.ly/Forum-The-Lounge)
+---- Forum: Serious Discussion (https://sinister.ly/Forum-Serious-Discussion)
+---- Thread: Superior | Debating: 101 (/Thread-Superior-Debating-101)

Pages: 1 2

Superior | Debating: 101 - Evangelist - 11-04-2013

The biggest rule of a debate is to attack a member’s argument and not the member itself. This believe it or not is used a lot, that is actually a logical fallacy. I will explain.

Ad Hominem

Attacking your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.

That logical fallacy has to be the most common used in online forums. A good example of this one is when a member has low stats and is debating against a member with a member that has high stats, so the member with high stats uses that to his advantage. I know the definition says “personal and character” traits but, it is almost the same thing

“Member with high stats” –

Code:
As a true solipsist I believe that my mind is the only real thing in the universe and all of you are things created from my mind and you are not real

“Member with low stats” –

Code:
you believe nothing outside one’s mind can be proven to be true. You therefore forfeit the debate by refusing any evidence, however logical that did not originate in your own mind, even before I present it."

“Member with high stats”—

Code:
A member with little experience on the forums cannot possibly disprove solipsism, you must not know much about this philosophy it is impossible to disprove

That looks blatant now doesn’t it? I have seen that, when people feel they are beat they quickly pull a logical fallacy to undermine their opponent. I have seen this with grammar too. “You are not smart because you have bad grammar” even when the person with sloppy grammar managed to beat the opponent. This logical fallacy could be the most common and frankly the lowest one. If you are debating please do not attack your opponent but, his argument.

Do your research; you can always avoid a blatant loss if you are educated in the topic at hand and always quote sources

A huge example of this is when a member makes a very uneducated point. Let’s use member “A” the uneducated one and “B” the educated one.

“A”:

Code:
LaVeyan Satanism is about antagonizing Christianity my committing crimes, performing human Sacrifices and drinking blood

“B”:

Code:
That is a very uneducated argument; LaVeyan Satanism is a religion that promotes individualism and over-achieving in life. We do not believe in any deities, we in fact do not believe in any supernatural entity, that makes your argument claiming we do sacrifices invalid because there is no deity that we can sacrifice too. Secondly, in order to be a part of the Church of Satan, one must have zero criminal records. You can be and will be removed upon committing crimes and not to mentioned reported to the authorities if caught by the Church: Source [Link to the church of Satan website] [Link to The Satanic Bible’s page]

It is very important to quote sources to give them validation.

Make threads lengthy and informational

If you want to appeal to the mature debaters’ one must present a topic in which it is explained in detail. Always pay attention to details when creating a thread. Backed up with facts

Example: “A” Sloppy created thread and “B” professional created thread (Even if the argument is proven)

“A”

Code:
“FLAC format songs sound better than MP3 songs”

The thread is not wrong, the statement made is correct, but the argument appears to be lazy and rushed. Offering little to no interesting points, so yeah, he made a point now what? You didn’t learn anything and he didn’t explain why. That does not appear to be a very educational thread now is it?

“B”

Code:
FLAC formatted songs present better quality of sound to the avid listener but, at the cost of more hard drive space:

A regular MP3 song occupies around 4 to 5 megabytes depending on the length and audio codec. A 192Kbps song is reduced in quality but takes less space as you can see here:

[Insert image]

A 320kbps song, while familiar with the FLAC sound occupies from 7 to 10 megabytes, but it is the best sounding MP3 codec

[Insert image]

As you can see in the example, the “B” goes in depth when talking about music formats which show professionalism and education. Do you want to be like “A” or “B”?

Always preview and proofread threads

This is very important; you have to always check to see if your points are clear. Always check if you didn’t contradict yourself because there is nothing worse than contradicting yourself and having the opponent use that against you. Example:.

Code:
I have no moral restriction, nothing is right or wrong to me, due to my lack of moral restrictions I make fun of everything and don’t see it wrong, I however do not make fun of rape because I feel that is too much

How would do you have no moral restrictions but, find making fun of rape wrong or crossing the line?

Even if a reply is Low Quality, you should always retain quality when responding

I have seen a member, that posts a very HQ thread and has others replying with short and bad arguments and they fall along those lines. Example:

A posted thread:

Code:
Oh magic, magic, magic. In my educated and experienced opinion, it does not work. It only truly works if you believe in it fully. You have to have a conviction surpassing the normal person’s. The most common forms of magic are White and black magic. Here’s an example of summoning. 

When a Catholic priest starts the communion ceremony, they summon the body of Jesus Christ in a piece of bread and his blood in wine, then eat and drink his body. A Catholic would really tell you it’s his body and most of them do not consider it metaphorical. This makes them accessories to murder, and “cannibals?”

The LQ reply:

Code:
No it is not, that is not considered cannibalism because it is the body of Jesus, you are wrong /thread

Don’ts of the poster

Code:
You are an idiot, I am not wrong that promotes cannibalism

Do’s

Code:
You are not thinking outside the box, even if the act is completely metaphorical it is still advocating the action of eating and drinking blood, which is a practice that even metaphorically can cause repulsive re-actions. Even if it is the body of Jesus it is still a promotion of cannibalism, Jesus was a person wasn’t he?

Since, knowledge is a big part of debating, here you will find download links to my personal book collection, and here you will find different hyperlinks to different collections, ranging from Christianity to Astral and Lucid dream literature.

Left-Hand Path Religion Literature
Magic Literature (Rituals, Literature, Philosophy)
Misc and Random Books
Novels, Short Stories and Poems (HP Lovecraft's full book collection)
Right-Hand Path Religion Literature

Logical Fallacies, learn more here: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html

That would be all for the thread, the points I made, while few, cover most of the rules of presenting a logical and educational debate, we really don’t want simple threads, we debate to learn and share knowledge. Not lose IQ, so keep the section clean and up to quality.

Anymore questions please feel free to ask, this thread was brought to you by the Superior group.

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Auth - 11-04-2013

Very nice thread man, was a good read will help me in the future debating too!

Will give the others a read soon.

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Nil - 11-04-2013

"Do your research; you can always avoid a blatant lost if you are educated in the topic at hand and always quote sources"

Why should I listen to you when you use the wrong word, idiot.

Spoiler:

hehehe

Add this website in there too: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
You can use the scroll bar under the main menu to go through all of the fallacies alphabetically.

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Evangelist - 11-04-2013

(11-04-2013, 08:53 PM)Villain Wrote: Very nice thread man, was a good read will help me in the future debating too!

Will give the others a read soon.

I am glad you liked it, it was hard to come up with examples and debating myself LOL
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(11-04-2013, 08:53 PM)Chaos Wrote: "Do your research; you can always avoid a blatant lost if you are educated in the topic at hand and always quote sources"

Why should I listen to you when you use the wrong word, idiot.

Spoiler:
hehehe

Add this website in there too: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
You can use the scroll bar under the main menu to go through all of the fallacies alphabetically.

Nigga I wrote this in 35 minutes!

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Freddy Krueger - 11-04-2013

When did this noob get in here? nice to see them mad debating skills.

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Nil - 11-04-2013

Decided to read a random paragraph from the Bible because I wanted to see how the version read, and I read about how these son's had to see their father's genitals. Couldn't have chosen a better page.

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Banadmin - 11-04-2013

Stuck. Confused

mile:

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Evangelist - 11-04-2013

(11-04-2013, 09:59 PM)Blue Wrote: Stuck. mile:

Damn at least all that hard work paid off. To bad there is no award for it like before. I might do another for a different section.

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Banadmin - 11-04-2013

(11-04-2013, 10:04 PM)Evangelist Wrote:
(11-04-2013, 09:59 PM)Blue Wrote: Stuck. mile:

Damn at least all that hard work paid off. To bad there is no award for it like before. I might do another for a different section.

I'll make the award later on, man.

RE: Superior | Debating: 101 - Evangelist - 11-04-2013

(11-04-2013, 10:14 PM)Blue Wrote:
(11-04-2013, 10:04 PM)Evangelist Wrote:
(11-04-2013, 09:59 PM)Blue Wrote: Stuck. mile:

Damn at least all that hard work paid off. To bad there is no award for it like before. I might do another for a different section.

I'll make the award later on, man.

Man nah, I wasn't really aiming for it, I just want better threads to debate in