Tu quoque---effective debating strategy?

[Jimmy Higgins]

What good does it do to change someone's mind with a stupid, illogical argument?

They first have to realize that their own argument is stupid and illogical. As long as they think it is fine and does not pose any threat to themselves at all, and it is also a weapon that they can continue to use against you, then they will persist with it. Before they would become convinced to switch to some alternative set of beliefs, they should become aware of a harmful defect in their existing set of beliefs.

After they realize their existing views are deficient in a variety of ways, they would be more receptive to other possibilities which do not have those same flaws. That is when you present a more viable and robust alternative.

But when Lion_IRC does it, I'm not seeing the genius or the pwnage.

 

[Brian63]

They first have to realize that their own argument is stupid and illogical. As long as they think it is fine and does not pose any threat to themselves at all, and it is also a weapon that they can continue to use against you, then they will persist with it. Before they would become convinced to switch to some alternative set of beliefs, they should become aware of a harmful defect in their existing set of beliefs.

Even if that's so, what's the point of replacing a defect with another defect?

That is not what happens. I am not advocating for a position at that point. They falsely think my position is that I favor the cruel killing of innocent babies, and that is morally revolting to them, and they scream it up close into my face. Before I explain what my actual position is and how it differs from that strawman, I just show how them continuing to use that line of attack will actually blow up in their own faces. Once they realize that and then stand back a little, they (and/or the audience) will be more receptive to hearing out other points of view. Including my real one.

So at that point I am not advocating another view that has another defect, am not advocating my real position at all (that comes later). I am just showing how their own line of rhetoric actually works better against themselves. So it is in their own best interest to stop using that shit.

 

[Brian63]

What good does it do to change someone's mind with a stupid, illogical argument?

They first have to realize that their own argument is stupid and illogical. As long as they think it is fine and does not pose any threat to themselves at all, and it is also a weapon that they can continue to use against you, then they will persist with it. Before they would become convinced to switch to some alternative set of beliefs, they should become aware of a harmful defect in their existing set of beliefs.

After they realize their existing views are deficient in a variety of ways, they would be more receptive to other possibilities which do not have those same flaws. That is when you present a more viable and robust alternative.

But when Lion_IRC does it, I'm not seeing the genius or the pwnage.

In this thread I have not been closely following the exchanges between several of you and Lion, so I really am not a good one to try and clarify things. I may inadvertently confuse them more instead. So others of you should sort that out rather than myself.

In the little that I have watched, I have seen what I believed were some good points by Lion and also others make good criticisms of Lion's points. So I am probably not in 100% agreement with any one of your views, just partial agreements and disagreements.

 

[Lion IRC]

Here's a tu quoque.

Them : The bible condones slavery.
Me : Governments all over the world 'condone' slavery.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...le-And-Slavery&p=856113&viewfull=1#post856113

Them: Thats not "condoning" slavery.
Me

 

[abaddon]

nm

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here's a tu quoque.

Them : The bible condones slavery.
Me : Governments all over the world 'condone' slavery.
https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...le-And-Slavery&p=856113&viewfull=1#post856113

Them: Thats not "condoning" slavery.
Me

Wow! That is a pretty rosy colored reflection on that post.

 

[aupmanyav]

Slaves eulogizing slavery.
Those who have seen the Emperor's new clothes trying to entice others.
OP: All is fair in love and war, any technique.

 

[jab]

I would describe tu quoque arguments as more "satisfying" than "effective". Almost by definition, they leave egg on both parties' faces. If "you're no better than me", it seems reasonably clear that we are probably both in the wrong, as opposed to either of us being correct in our actions.

They are also, generally speaking, personal attacks. Since most educated people see making personal attacks as a sure sign of a person stuck defending a weak position, you are once again not doing yourself many favors in the long run. Especially if they are poorly aimed personal attacks ("Oh yeah, well someone else who is in your country/political party/gender/religion said that...") that your interlocutor immediately knows does not apply to them anyway. If a tu quoque is poorly aimed, you end up making your opponent feel better about themselves, as you have essentially confessed to fault without concurrently succeeding in bringing them down to your level.

That said, as someone who frequently educates and advocates on racial equity issues, I have observed that tu quoque arguments are by far the most common type of logical argumentation attempted by "reasonable racists", partly because it can be quite rhetorically effective... if the people you're trying to convince are already quietly predisposed to agree with you, needing only a reason rather than a good reason as such, to advocate for their own self-interest at others' expense, and those you are attacking have more morals than sense and are thus quitely predisposed to accept your criticism. It doesn't work nearly as well in the other direction, for the same reason. If I say, "You accuse me of reverse racism, but doesn't that imply that your own position, exactly opposite to mine, is unreversed racism?" but it won't work nearly as well, because they aren't predisposed to agree with me, nor emotionally inclined to much care even if they did agree with me, and from a logical standpoint it was a weak argument that did not leave me in the moral right even if I am correct.

Conclusion: By all means, try a tu quoque if you know you're dealing with a fool, or if you are arguing a position that favors a position of privilege. But otherwise be wary, for rhetoric may be on your side but logic is not, and your argument will crumple swiftly should someone consider it critically for a few seconds.

A tu quoque is not overly effective or even intellectually honest, for the reasons you give; however, combined with a defense of one's own views that are under attack it can be effective in demonstrating to the other side that "you don't even believe in this incorrect position that you purport to hold".

 

[WAB]

Even if they did not behave as adults, they may not behave as the same childish brats that they had before. They simply would lay low for awhile, for instance. Or even if they themselves continue to fight back aggressively, it will expose their hypocrisy to the audience that the accuser's own accusations work even better against themselves than they would on the target.

[emphasis mine]
Post #38

Just a reminder that you have been defensive also when someone has criticized your posting behavior (and your beliefs).

 

[Brian63]

If by "defensive" you just mean "defended yourself" when I and/or my beliefs have been criticized, then okay. I disagree with a lot of the criticisms being made against them/me on the merits of them. You may agree with them. Okay. You have not hurt my feelings though, WAB.

 

[Lion IRC]

Have a look at this ↓ and consider my earlier point about the tu quoque as an effective way to deflate or nullify an opponent's position when that opinion is steeped in hypocrisy.

That the mere suggestion that some religious beliefs are bad for society and maybe believers might have the humanity to question them triggers them...
such strong and sometimes violent reactions...
The rage and tantrums...

Good summary of the reactions of internet atheist proselytisers when you challenge their sense of secular entitlement.

Try honestly examining your own beliefs in a petty, sexist, bigoted religion of authority worship before casting stones. "No, YOU!!!" is spewed ad nauseum from people who have nothing useful to say. It's really tiresome.

Hang on. I'm amplifying your point.

I agree with you about how bad it is.

Really bad. So, so bad, when these other people spew their opinions about religion. And those other people cast their stones. And then you get those atheists coming along with their rage and tantrums....

I maintain that the tu quoque can achieve an outcome where;
- The other person used to think "x" was bad,
- They are presented with the proposition that they too practise a form of "x"
- So maybe "x" isn't really so bad after all.

 

[Politesse]

I would describe tu quoque arguments as more "satisfying" than "effective". Almost by definition, they leave egg on both parties' faces. If "you're no better than me", it seems reasonably clear that we are probably both in the wrong, as opposed to either of us being correct in our actions.

They are also, generally speaking, personal attacks. Since most educated people see making personal attacks as a sure sign of a person stuck defending a weak position, you are once again not doing yourself many favors in the long run. Especially if they are poorly aimed personal attacks ("Oh yeah, well someone else who is in your country/political party/gender/religion said that...") that your interlocutor immediately knows does not apply to them anyway. If a tu quoque is poorly aimed, you end up making your opponent feel better about themselves, as you have essentially confessed to fault without concurrently succeeding in bringing them down to your level.

That said, as someone who frequently educates and advocates on racial equity issues, I have observed that tu quoque arguments are by far the most common type of logical argumentation attempted by "reasonable racists", partly because it can be quite rhetorically effective... if the people you're trying to convince are already quietly predisposed to agree with you, needing only a reason rather than a good reason as such, to advocate for their own self-interest at others' expense, and those you are attacking have more morals than sense and are thus quitely predisposed to accept your criticism. It doesn't work nearly as well in the other direction, for the same reason. If I say, "You accuse me of reverse racism, but doesn't that imply that your own position, exactly opposite to mine, is unreversed racism?" but it won't work nearly as well, because they aren't predisposed to agree with me, nor emotionally inclined to much care even if they did agree with me, and from a logical standpoint it was a weak argument that did not leave me in the moral right even if I am correct.

Conclusion: By all means, try a tu quoque if you know you're dealing with a fool, or if you are arguing a position that favors a position of privilege. But otherwise be wary, for rhetoric may be on your side but logic is not, and your argument will crumple swiftly should someone consider it critically for a few seconds.

A tu quoque is not overly effective or even intellectually honest, for the reasons you give; however, combined with a defense of one's own views that are under attack it can be effective in demonstrating to the other side that "you don't even believe in this incorrect position that you purport to hold".

Which only works if they agree.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, as per the OP, first, Tu Quoque is a rhetorical and strategic piece. The fact that it is rhetorical rather than logical, a cudgel rather than a razor per se, means it is not ethical to use, generally. In fact, my particular feelings on the devolution of reasoned discussion to Non Sequiturs is to bluntly state that if they wish to depart from reasoned debate, they may wish to sojourn to rhetorical mud slinging but I will, before I let myself end in a mud pit with the pig, sooner beat the pig until it stops squealing. Because reasoned discussion is the alternative to violence, so ultimately the abdication of it ought bring back the thing it displaced.

Does this make me scary? Ungentlemanly? Unseemly? Intimidating? Violent?

Only if you would resort to rhetoric over reason.

So my prescription is that the only valid strategy to the use of Tu Quoque is when one seeks a bloodied nose.

 

[Brian63]

What if you tried reasoned discussion, and it is not as effective?

The people kept repeating their sick assertions, illogical claims and hypocritical attacks on you---and they found out that they could keep getting away with it because you nothing you did posed a threat to them?

That was the scenario outlined in the OP and elsewhere in this thread. These are not overall reasonable people or people who (in their sequestered fundamentalist environment) or motivated to have a reasonable discussion. It is more of a game or a sport, and their goal is to bully you.

The attacks they use against you actually apply better against their own views than they do yours. So you would not mention that?

If you try to do more in-depth analysis, such as demonstrating the hypocrisy of their of their criticisms and how it is a strawman against yourself, the complexity of all that will go over their head. They behave with the mentality and maturity of a schoolyard bully. It would be great to have a mature discourse, but that does not happen with these folks as it stands. That is why I think tu quoque can sometimes be a helpful tool. It shows that they have to change their rhetoric and drop their heated personal attacks, because those will come back to bite them. Once they back off from that strategy, then a more substantive discussion can be had.

 

[Jarhyn]

My point is that if people wish to make game or sport of it, they'll find out how creatively violent someone can get, knowing full well that there will be consequences.

They have already demonstrated that they don't care about the logic, that they don't really know or have a moral drive to care about what the words really mean. They will feel the pain but they will muddy the waters so much and then accuse you of hypocrisy for being as unreasonable as they while still discussing and giving them the appearance of validity.

The proper response is not to play their game, which they practise harder at than you do on account of dishonesty being their bread and butter. The proper response is instead to show that they either play the game of reason, or they play the game of violence, and make it clear that in the latter, there are more of us who want to be able to return to and continue rationally discussing than those who would see it all become a contest of strength.

 

[Brian63]

They will feel the pain but they will muddy the waters so much and then accuse you of hypocrisy for being as unreasonable as they

I do not recall that ever happening. They never admit to themselves being unreasonable. They would only accuse me of being so, even though their criticisms do actually invalidate their positions more than mine. They still maintain a position of being reasonable themselves.

The proper response is instead to show that they either play the game of reason, or they play the game of violence, and make it clear that in the latter, there are more of us who want to be able to return to and continue rationally discussing than those who would see it all become a contest of strength.

That I think has more merit, but if they make the hypocritical attacks right at the outset, then I think they and the (potential) audience should be made aware that their plan A of personal attacks is not going to lead them to victory. They have to use some plan B.

 

[Jarhyn]

They will feel the pain but they will muddy the waters so much and then accuse you of hypocrisy for being as unreasonable as they

I do not recall that ever happening. They never admit to themselves being unreasonable. They would only accuse me of being so, even though their criticisms do actually invalidate their positions more than mine. They still maintain a position of being reasonable themselves.

The proper response is instead to show that they either play the game of reason, or they play the game of violence, and make it clear that in the latter, there are more of us who want to be able to return to and continue rationally discussing than those who would see it all become a contest of strength.

That I think has more merit, but if they make the hypocritical attacks right at the outset, then I think they and the (potential) audience should be made aware that their plan A of personal attacks is not going to lead them to victory. They have to use some plan B.

Indeed. That's why you clearly indicate that they are not engaging in reasonable not acceptable tactics as per your stated terms of working in dialogue.

It's just.. it dawns on me that the reason they enter such exchanges does not include "to be proven wrong and thus become more right", but rather "feel feelings of validation and quiescence from others who oppose me".

Their game is not your game. This of course they will always feel justified in, in comparison with your reasons, an asymmetrical game.

They don't think they are wrong. That they can possibly be wrong. Thus they feel justified in supporting that any way that it seems they may support it, regardless of whether the claim is fallacious, their conclusion is "truth" and the journey to the destination matters little. They have no need for Plan B. They just want to talk about you, and get quiescence or at the very least feel like they are winning. They don't care that their tactics let you sling mud back. They LIKE the mud. They are happy as a pig in shit slinging the mud because they practice it day in and out.

The response to someone who is going to not play your game of accepting they can be wrong is to simply not play that game with them. The inevitable response to "you can't do that" is "what are you going to do about it", and you either doing something about it, or quiescence.

 

[Brian63]

But I want to show that their plan A "attack mode" does not work. I do not want them to let them think they can mudsling without any consequences or repercussions. So if I show how their own attack works very effectively against themselves, then they tend to slow down and even stop using that attack. That has been a successful approach.

If a bully can keep bullying without punishment, then they will continue. If it hurts themselves each time they do, they are less likely to do it. Then a better playground becomes available.

 

[WAB]

Egads.

Brian, you go boy! Good luck! May you someday become aware of your ignorance! Same goes for you, Jaryhn.

 

[Brian63]

Good insight, WAB. Thanks for offering it.