Tu quoque---effective debating strategy?

[Jimmy Higgins]

Lion: I think that abaddon and Jimmy Higgins gave excellent replies to your rebuttal of my post

I don't agree.

And I think you're (still) missing the point of the tu quoque tactic.

To derail the conversation and not positively defend your position?

Imagine if you were being lectured about sexual promiscuity/immorality by some clergy person whose own organisation was perceived as having pedophiles in its midst. Do you play the tu quoque card? Do you play the 'people who live in glass houses' card? Do you play the Matthew 7:5 card?

Or do you argue that sexual behavior among consenting adults isn't immoral and the importance of education to help ensure having mature views on sexual behavior to help ensure healthy (emotionally) sexual encounters/relationships.

 

[Lion IRC]

You didn't answer my question(s).

If the kettle points out that the pot is ALSO black/blacker, then the kettle has defended its position.

 

[Politesse]

You didn't answer my question(s).

If the kettle points out that the pot is ALSO black/blacker, then the kettle has defended its position.

Err, no, it has attacked both cookwares simultaneously. Two wrongs don't make a right.

You do realize that when someone says "that's the pot calling the kettle black", it's not meant as a compliment, right?

 

[Lion IRC]

That's the thing!

The pot has no rational basis to attack the blackness of the kettle.

Its not a case of two wrongs because, if it WAS, then the pot's (ad hominem) argument is an epic failure.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You didn't answer my question(s).

I did. The answer was you address the topic, you don't change the topic and revel in considering yourself as a master debater.

If the kettle points out that the pot is ALSO black/blacker, then the kettle has defended its position.

All you are doing is changing the subject and trying to make yourself look better by making your opponent look worse (The Russia Fallacy).

 

[Lion IRC]

Pot - hey kettle, you should see how blackish you look. Yuck.
Kettle - what's wrong with that? You're even blacker than me.

That's a tu quoque and theres no violation of logic going on. And its not derailing the argument or "changing the subject".

 

[Politesse]

That's the thing!

The pot has no rational basis to attack the blackness of the kettle.

Its not a case of two wrongs because, if it WAS, then the pot's (ad hominem) argument is an epic failure.

So your claim here is that if two people are wrong in the same way, but one of them calls out the other, suddenly they both become correct?

 

[Lion IRC]

No.

 

[Lion IRC]

Atheist : religion is bad/stupid
Me : atheism is a religion.

Am I agreeing that we are both bad/stupid?
Do you see any attempt at necessary inference?

 

[Politesse]

Atheist : religion is bad/stupid
Me : atheism is a religion.

Am I agreeing that we are both bad/stupid?
Do you see any attempt at necessary inference?

Then you can only be doing one of two things (presuming your premises were correct):

-Establishing that either both of you are in the wrong or no one is.

-Not having a point at all.

 

[Lion IRC]

No.
How do you come up with just two alternatives?
Why can't the atheist reconsider their assertion that religion is bad/stupid?

 

[Politesse]

No.
How do you come up with just two alternatives?

You yourself just admitted that this cannot establish that both of you are correct. If you are not in the wrong, their statement would be incorrect. But you can easily both be wrong without any logical contradiction. At worst, they might be embarrassed, which is not a synonym for incorrect.

They are free to contemplate their position of their own accord, but your argument has not obliged them to in any way.

 

[Brian63]

A 3rd alternative would be "if you think ethical position X is wrong and you accuse me of it, then you should be aware that you are at least as guilty of it too. We can also discuss whether ethical position X is right or wrong, but it is inconsistent to say it is wrong and condemn (what you falsely perceive as) me for advocating it, while being silent when you or your god engage in it yourself to an even greater degree.

It is basically a challenge for them to remain consistent in their positions, which is difficult and not something fundamentalists are prepared to do on difficult issues.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No.
How do you come up with just two alternatives?
Why can't the atheist reconsider their assertion that religion is bad/stupid?

They won't because your retort is fallacious.

 

[abaddon]

No.
How do you come up with just two alternatives?
Why can't the atheist reconsider their assertion that religion is bad/stupid?

Why should they when you've given them no reason except an accusation of hypocrisy?

Hypocrisy's no big deal. It's the point that matters. Why don't you question the claim that religion is bad/stupid? It'd be an infinitely more apt response than tossing out the specious "atheism is a religion" claim.

Here's your pot example:

Pot - hey kettle, you should see how blackish you look. Yuck.
Kettle - what's wrong with that? You're even blacker than me.

You say it doesn't derail or change the subject. But the contention is that "the color black is a problem". Your choice is to address that or misdirect from it with an accusation of hypocrisy.

Atheist : religion is bad/stupid
Me : atheism is a religion.

With this one, you were asking: "Am I agreeing that we are both bad/stupid?"

No. But the problem is you're failing to address the point: that religion is bad/stupid. It doesn't matter who's religious and who isn't.

No atheist is going to "auto-correct" merely because you assert there's a hypocrisy. And no imaginary audience is going to see his hypocrisy and applaud you for pointing it out. What they see is you failing to argue against the claim that religion is bad/stupid.

 

[Politesse]

A 3rd alternative would be "if you think ethical position X is wrong and you accuse me of it, then you should be aware that you are at least as guilty of it too. We can also discuss whether ethical position X is right or wrong, but it is inconsistent to say it is wrong and condemn (what you falsely perceive as) me for advocating it, while being silent when you or your god engage in it yourself to an even greater degree.

It is basically a challenge for them to remain consistent in their positions, which is difficult and not something fundamentalists are prepared to do on difficult issues.

Then what good does it do? They won't change their mind, and you know you've made an irrational argument, so where's the satisfaction?

 

[Brian63]

Then what good does it do? They won't change their mind, and you know you've made an irrational argument, so where's the satisfaction?

This was already addressed. The process of changing minds is not a 1-step process. It does not occur merely because you point out the logical flaws of an argument either. To get someone to change their beliefs, they need to become uncomfortable with their existing beliefs and/or become convinced that some other beliefs are in their own best interest and are more drawn to those.

Pointing out that their own views or behaviors are hypocritical will not change their beliefs from X to ~X, but it at least reveals that there is at least some defect in their views. They cannot continue on as is. Whenever they launch some dumb criticism that actually is more dangerous to themselves than it is against the intended target, they will show some more restraint about using that dumb criticism. They will rethink that more. Again, it will not be immediate. It probably would not be a complete reversal. It is not the entirety of the exchange. But some degree of change is more plausible. It is just one part of the overall process, not the entirety of it. As soon as they cool off with the childish trolling rhetoric that backfires against themselves, then there will be some room for a more mature conversation to grow.

 

[Politesse]

Then what good does it do? They won't change their mind, and you know you've made an irrational argument, so where's the satisfaction?

This was already addressed. The process of changing minds is not a 1-step process. It does not occur merely because you point out the logical flaws of an argument either. To get someone to change their beliefs, they need to become uncomfortable with their existing beliefs and/or become convinced that some other beliefs are in their own best interest and are more drawn to those.

Pointing out that their own views or behaviors are hypocritical will not change their beliefs from X to ~X, but it at least reveals that there is at least some defect in their views. They cannot continue on as is. Whenever they launch some dumb criticism that actually is more dangerous to themselves than it is against the intended target, they will show some more restraint about using that dumb criticism. They will rethink that more. Again, it will not be immediate. It probably would not be a complete reversal. It is not the entirety of the exchange. But some degree of change is more plausible. It is just one part of the overall process, not the entirety of it. As soon as they cool off with the childish trolling rhetoric that backfires against themselves, then there will be some room for a more mature conversation to grow.

What good does it do to change someone's mind with a stupid, illogical argument? If that's the best you can come up with, your ideas aren't worth having let alone sharing.

 

[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.

 

[Politesse]

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?