Tag Archive for 'Debates'

How To Sabotage An Argument, Part 2

Written by Colin. Published on July 20, 2009 ago in General. 3 Comments

This is the second and final article in a series on how to basically lose an argument before you start it [part 1 here]. This line of reasoning is based on the premise that people who engage in an argument are doing to so in order to discover and communicate truth.

Hence, four more ways to sabotage your argument:

Ascribe Nefarious Intentions and Motives to the Other Side
This is quite prevalent in large, seemingly irreconcilable debates: abortion, religion, left versus right, etc… People who are pro-choice are not seen as intelligent people who are making a self-ownership case for abortion (although this would be wrong), but as “baby killers” or people who “support murder” or “do not support life.”This is ridiculous. Aside from the negligible portion of the population who are homicidal, no one else wants to see babies being killed. These people are not wrongly motivated – rather, they are wrong in methods.

Political leaders are called evil all the time – some of them are. George W. Bush has been hailed as the great Satan for the last seven years or so (and Obama has not been treated any different – except by the media), but it is very realistic that Bush has pursued what he has out of good motives and intentions. He has been sincerely wrong, probably criminally so, but he is not necessarily out there to thwart humanity and bring about apocalypse.

Attack the Personal Actions of Your Opponent
This line of reasoning follows from a very valid principle – practice what you preach. But at the same time, for the purposes of arguing things that aren’t always liveable (or if they are, aren’t lived anyway) it is completely useless. Ron Paul was attacked in the 2008 election for being one of the higher proposers of appropriations (earmarks) in congress. It was alleged that because Paul put forward earmarks, that someone this discounted what he said about fiscal responsibility. But truth isn’t dependent on our acting it out (Paul also voted down every single earmark he proposed). Just because someone doesn’t stop at stop signs, doesn’t mean they would be wrong to suggest that stopping at them is a good idea.

Become Self-Righteous About Your Arguments, Facts and Case
This is an easy mistake to make. After all, if we didn’t think we were right, then why would we argue? But this is not a problem with being right, it is a problem with believing one is infallible or that a morally neutral position is somehow “right” in the sense that it is good, while the other side is bad/evil. But more than that, it is a condescending attitude toward your opponent and/or his ideas. This is presuming a certain argument before your opponent makes it. With your own ideas, it is a blind refusal to allow them to be penetrated by other’s reason, logic or facts.

Forget That You Are Speaking With A Person
This is the most important thing, and the summary of the article.  We aren’t arguing with robots, with brainwashed automatons, with ideologies – we are arguing with people. People deserve to be respected and treated as people – they are intelligent, rational beings – despite how silly, ignorant or radical their worldview is.

Democratic Debate Highlights

Written by Colin. Published on June 4, 2007 ago in Current Events and Politics. 3 Comments

First of all, watch the entire debate here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11.
And a transcript here.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5ZTDzKdJOc[/youtube]
The candidates were asked if they would go after Bin Laden even if it meant some civilian casualties. Notice that all candidates raise their hands (except Kucinich) and then realize that maybe they made a mistake… Biden is the first to mention that maybe there is some gray area. Then a chorus of people agree in a quick attempt to cover themselves. Chris Dodd sheepishly tries to make it look like he wasn’t raising his hand, but just scratching the back of his head.

John Edwards made the point that part of his foreign policy would be to provide 100 million children around the world with free US-style education. Don’t be suprised, senator, if they turn that down.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MMtNNAYJB[/youtube]

Domestic Policy
The democrats had one common theme in this area – complete ignorance of economic law. There were constant promises to create goods and services by fiat – especially in health care. See specifically how Obama is more interested in attacking profit than he is about solving the issue. No mention about how it’s profits that encouraged those companies to provide insurance in the first place. I don’t think out next president should be so ignorant on basic economics.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTgPFJnV76c[/youtube]

Dennis Kucinich showed a lot of shrewdness and courage to say outright: “What Senator Clinton, Senator Edwards, Senator Obama are talking about, they’re talking about letting the insurance companies stay in charge. They’re talking about continuing a for-profit health care system.” Now, the man is an open socialist, but he is calling it like it is: all the republican and democratic solutions for universal health care simply grant the insurance companies a monopoly. At least Kucinich, while I think he’s wrong, is 100% honest about the facts here.

Coverage
CNN’s coverage has been one of extremes – some useful and innovative, others just plain annoying.

Among things annoying:

  • the amount of time given to mainline candidates was terribly unfair. It seemed like every question had to feature a response from Obama, Clinton and Edwards – while Gravel and Kucinich were ignored. Specifically, after Clinton bragged about her husband balancing the budget, Gravel made the weighty accusation that it was done by raiding social security. The conversation just moved on as though it didn’t happen.
  • The camera angles also were a little over the top. Occasionally they used a camera angle that reminded me of one at a rock concert -shaking, out of focus and definitely not giving me any useful visual information. They should have just blacked out the camera instead.

At time there was anarchy because there didn’t seem to be any time limits or formal means by which candidates were selected to answer questions. It basically seemed like a talk-show with Wolf Blitzer.

Useful:

  • Finally there were calls to stop the applause. I was really impressed with Wolf Blitzer asking the crowd over and over to stop it.
  • Moderator discretion was also generally well done – mostly used to make candidates actually answer questions.

Overall
This debate was a little more insightful than the others. People will claim there was more mud flung among the top-tier, but that really was just at the beginning. In fact, I couldn’t help but notice how many times Edwards would throw praise at Obama – probably looking to lock up a place on the ticket. Like all the others so far, I am very thankful that these debates have featured the lower-tier candidates. Gravel and Kucinich in this debate were willing to throw out ideas and challenges that would never be address by other candidates who need to play it safe. The media may like it because it’s good for ratings. I like it because it’s good for voters.