I think the pro-ridicule argument has clearly won

[steve_bank]

I as not aware there were rules to argument and debate.

In a formal debate it is up to the debatees and or the moderaters of the debtae to set rules.

I was never a conservative but in the 70s I wt aced Bill Buckley's Firing Lie on PBS.

He had several tactics. When loosing an argument he would resort to criticizing word usage and grammar.

'You said this but whet you should have said is that using these words'.

Along with ridicule there is hyperbole and the exclude middle. Politicians make use of the excluded middle.

I say black, my opponent says white, and there is no possibilties in between. Polarization. One side is exclussvely right and te oter exclusvely wrong with no intermediate definitions or alternates.

n logic, the law of excluded middle (or the principle of excluded middle) states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. It is one of the so-called three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of identity.

It all depends on the anature of the debate. Politics is not about proving a thesis, it is about swaying opinion.

Scientfic debate is about physical quantities and physical evidence.

 

[Bomb#20]

 

[bilby]

My first impulse when someone states some kind of new principle, is to extrapolate it to an extreme to see if it holds.
That's not ridicule, it's using the ridiculous to illustrate the limits of something.

The late and sadly missed satirist, John Clarke, was a master of that approach.

I saw an interview with him once, where he said something along the lines of (and my memory is shit, so he probably said it better than this): If someone makes an absurd claim, you can spend a lot of time and effort trying to point out the flaws and underlying errors in their position, but if you do that, the audience will lose interest and wander off. Or you can simply accept the claim as though it were completely sensible and reasonable, and agree with it wholeheartedly, applying it in more and more ways until... whoops, I fell over.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Voltaire, Gibbons and Ingersol demonstrated wit and satire in the realm of religion were effective techniques. For one thing, a good laugh sticks in one's memory.

 

[AdamWho]

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

Ok, wow you got me, I am totally devastated....

Now can you discuss the substance of the OP?

 

[Politesse]

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

Ok, wow you got me, I am totally devastated....

Now can you discuss the substance of the OP?

Why?

Isn't ridicule the preferable form of discourse, not substantive and reasoned discussion? Make up your mind.

 

[AdamWho]

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

Ok, wow you got me, I am totally devastated....

Now can you discuss the substance of the OP?

Why?

Isn't ridicule the preferable form of discourse, not substantive and reasoned discussion? Make up your mind.

You didn't even bother to read the OP did you? (putting aside my accidental 'NOT'). OR maybe you didn't understand it?

The idea is that ridicule is a tool if the opponent isn't interested in an honest debate. So far there hasn't even been a debate in this thread much less a dishonest one.

Ironically, by not engaging in the premise of the OP, you are the one not engaging honestly. Do you or do you not have an actual opinion about the use of ridicule against an opponent who is not arguing in good faith?

 

[steve_bank]

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

Ok, wow you got me, I am totally devastated....

Now can you discuss the substance of the OP?

Why?

Isn't ridicule the preferable form of discourse, not substantive and reasoned discussion? Make up your mind.

You didn't even bother to read the OP did you? (putting aside my accidental 'NOT'). OR maybe you didn't understand it?

The idea is that ridicule is a tool if the opponent isn't interested in an honest debate. So far there hasn't even been a debate in this thread much less a dishonest one.

Ironically, by not engaging in the premise of the OP, you are the one not engaging honestly. Do you or do you not have an actual opinion about the use of ridicule against an opponent who is not arguing in good faith?

Maybe you are being ridiculed?

Maybe this is another ridiculous pseudo philosophical thread?


What is there to debate? People can and do use ridicule. It is common in politics and in daily life. Comedians use it to make a political or social point.

Rdicle is part of the social toolbox. Hmmm....did I just use a metaphor? Is metaphor a valid part of debate and argument?

Gosh. am I being ridiculous to make a point?

 

[Politesse]

It's just so incredibly stupid, can't you see the obvious?

I mean, aren't you ashamed by my ridicule? Doesn't it make you thoughtfully reconsider your position?

Ok, wow you got me, I am totally devastated....

Now can you discuss the substance of the OP?

Why?

Isn't ridicule the preferable form of discourse, not substantive and reasoned discussion? Make up your mind.

You didn't even bother to read the OP did you? (putting aside my accidental 'NOT'). OR maybe you didn't understand it?

The idea is that ridicule is a tool if the opponent isn't interested in an honest debate. So far there hasn't even been a debate in this thread much less a dishonest one.

Ironically, by not engaging in the premise of the OP, you are the one not engaging honestly. Do you or do you not have an actual opinion about the use of ridicule against an opponent who is not arguing in good faith?

How do you determine whether someone is arguing in "good faith", out of curiosity? It doesn't seem all that reasonable to me to engage in discussion with a bad-faith actor at all, but if I do, I generally try to put my best case forward, not my worst. Humor is fine, but personal attacks are the tool of the playground bully, not a skilled rhetorician. If you are stooping to the level of ridicule, preferentially, it won't be long before your audience cannot tell the difference between the "bad faith" of your opponent, and that which you yourself are employing.

 

[AdamWho]

How do you determine whether someone is arguing in "good faith", out of curiosity? It doesn't seem all that reasonable to me to engage in discussion with a bad-faith actor at all, but if I do, I generally try to put my best case forward, not my worst. Humor is fine, but personal attacks are the tool of the playground bully, not a skilled rhetorician. If you are stooping to the level of ridicule, preferentially, it won't be long before your audience cannot tell the difference between the "bad faith" of your opponent, and that which you yourself are employing.

The point is to attack the bully, not become the bully. It is about attacking the strong who are not acting/arguing in good faith.

A couple of examples of not arguing in good faith
1. Not conceding uncontroversial facts
2. Not conceding disproven points
3. Use of argument fallacies instead of arguments
4. Implicit threat of violence
5. lying about points in the debate

 

[Politesse]

It is about attacking the strong who are not acting/arguing in good faith.

And if they think you are arguing in bad faith?

 

[AdamWho]

It is about attacking the strong who are not acting/arguing in good faith.

And if they think you are arguing in bad faith?

The premise is that a person is acting in bad-faith and unwilling to engage in reasoned argument. In such a case reasoned argument is irrelevant.

Are you going to engage with the OP or are we going on a solipsistic tour?

 

[Politesse]

It is about attacking the strong who are not acting/arguing in good faith.

And if they think you are arguing in bad faith?

The premise is that a person is acting in bad-faith and unwilling to engage in reasoned argument. In such a case reasoned argument is irrelevant.

Are you going to engage with the OP or are we going on a solipsistic tour?

I am engaging with the OP. If you don't want people to define terms or clarify/defend the argument you're proposing, obviously the philosophy forum is the wrong placement for the thread. Indeed, if you're offended by solipsism, the philosophy forum may not be a fun place for you in any case.

Contrarily, defend your "premise". How is someone else supposed to determine that you are arguing in "good faith" in contrast to their "bad faith", if your dominant rhetorical tactic is ridicule, exactly the method that would naturally be preferred by someone with no intent to discuss anything seriously?

You claim that "lurkers" will be won over by your clever taunts. But how is an outside observer supposed to tell the difference between the two of you, under such circumstances? For if two people are sitting there "ridiculing" each other, don't they both just seem like children fighting in the schoolyard?

 

[bigfield]

How do you determine whether someone is arguing in "good faith", out of curiosity? It doesn't seem all that reasonable to me to engage in discussion with a bad-faith actor at all, but if I do, I generally try to put my best case forward, not my worst. Humor is fine, but personal attacks are the tool of the playground bully, not a skilled rhetorician. If you are stooping to the level of ridicule, preferentially, it won't be long before your audience cannot tell the difference between the "bad faith" of your opponent, and that which you yourself are employing.

The point is to attack the bully, not become the bully. It is about attacking the strong who are not acting/arguing in good faith.

A couple of examples of not arguing in good faith
1. Not conceding uncontroversial facts
2. Not conceding disproven points
3. Use of argument fallacies instead of arguments
4. Implicit threat of violence
5. lying about points in the debate

It does not make sense to reserve ridicule as a response to bad debate behaviour. Ridicule should be employed whenever possible. I'd say it's always a valid option in politics, although there's no guarantee you've got the wit to actually use it effectively.

There are a few exceptional situations in which ridicule should not be used. I don't think you would do very well to use ridicule in the context of an academic debate among respected experts, or a discussion between students in a higher learning classroom, or a discussion between professionals when solving a problem in their business domain. In those situations, the audience expects the speaker to present sound arguments, and there's a good chance you'd just discredit yourself by resorting to emotional appeals.

Your audience, not your opponent, decides whether or not it is appropriate to use ridicule.