Guest Tracker Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 In an open debate can any tactic or point of view on any topic that is up for open discussion be deemed to be 'cheap'? What does the team think! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I think tactics become cheap when one of the debatees has no valid point themselves and only seek to discredit other peoples point of view, especially allowing personal issues to influence what they say, which in turn leads to abuse and distortion of the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Did you have anyone specific in mind Donna? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 No Siree, just a generalization B-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 donna miller - 2011-07-21 3:22 PM No Siree, just a generalization B-) You shouldn't really generalise in debate or argument, Donna. .......but everybody does! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 That was a cheap shot :'( Sorry Rich, Your thread was going so well 'til people started replying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Never mind Donna - as long as it stays good humoured and nobody disappears so far up an unspecified and very dark orifice that they lose all sight of common sense, we should be OK! And yes, it's a generalisation and not aimed at anyone specific! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 donna miller - 2011-07-21 3:27 PM That was a cheap shot :'( A cheap shot it was not! ..............a cheap joke, maybe. (and some fell on stony ground :-S ) BTW, Tracker, Amazon is good for them: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00498ZTDW/ref=asc_df_B00498ZTDW3688100?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&tag=googlecouk06-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B00498ZTDW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I don't get it Oh wait a minute, tactic.................tictac. You make me larf you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Thanks Robbin' - are you saying you can smell my breath from there so I need a gross of Tictacs? Farts maybe - but not breath surely! Or was that a Tictactical error! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 ....I thought you were after cheap tictacs? (I did wonder why, but then I read the Amazon description from the link, viz: Product Features A uniquely sensual experience 8-) ....hey ho, some people are easily pleased :-S ) As for your f*rts, I just thought they were muck-spreading again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 First a caveat. By debate, I assume we mean, approximately, a structured and reasoned discussion aimed at clarifying an issue. A kind of search for truth, if you will, where, if verbal, each should be able to state their position in turn, without interruption or being shouted down. Anything else is pretty much just a slanging match, prone to become increasingly heated and progressively less revealing. In terms of tactics in debate, therefore, I think yes - though it depends what you mean by "cheap". If you mean underhand, or unworthy, then emphatically yes. In terms of point of view, I think no, providing only that the point of view addresses the issue, and not some other unrelated issue, from which conclusions are misapplied. The cheap tactic, all too often applied in arguments on here - and frequently the point at which debate degenerates into a mere slanging match - is when it is the person, rather than what they said, that is attacked. Comments such as "you really are a nasty piece of work", for example, are mere insults and, IMO, have no place in debate. IMO, this can be equally extended to dismissing counter-arguments on the ground that they result from personal animosity, rather than what was "said". Arguments of the "you only disagree with me because you don't like me" type. In both cases they are little more than a form of verbal bullying, because they duck the issue by trying to use personality, offensively or defensively, as a cover for poor argument. It is worth noting that the often quoted "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", does not admit any notion of calling into question the character or honesty of either party. However repugnant one finds a person's stated views, it should be possible to respond to them without insult. After all, we do not (mostly) know each other, so have no idea of anyone else's personality, or sense of humour. Losing one's temper and ranting at some total stranger with whom one disagrees is a human frailty, of which from time to time we are all, I guess, guilty. Doing so in writing however, is rather unforgivable, as well as unwise, since assumptions made in the heat of the moment can easily be reconsidered before the "submit" button is pressed. Guilty? Of course I am! Prick me, and do I not bleed? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Abso-flippin-lutely Brian - well said! Thanks for seriousing up what was fast becoming an entirely frivolous thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 ....well, if you want some serious input. I'm not so sure that, if we are talking about true debate (to slightly paraphrase Brian "a search for the truth"), there is really a place for "tactics". "Tactics" could be considered to be a procedure calculated to achieve a desired end (indeed, my Oxford Dictionary defines it very much like this). If one then scrutinises the "tactics" used in the "debates" taking place on this forum, I would postulate that few of them are being used ultimately in "a search for the truth", rather they are being used in single-mindedly pursuing one person's view (and quite often in a closed-minded manner), in order to "win". The true nature of debate should not rely on "tactics" in this manner, nor indeed should it really encourage an overwhelming desire to win, since if the end result is in fact the truth (or something near it) then are we not all "winners". One should be open to opposing views, and be prepared to consider, digest, and as neccesary accept or reject them. I have no problem whatsoever with a debater working out the best way to put forward their arguments, but I think "tactics" is the wrong word (and approach). As far as "cheapness" is concerned, Brian hits the nail on the head. Resorting to "ad hominem" as opposed to addressing the argument at question, is simply cheap and unforgivable (and generally counter-productive). Unfortunately, in the heat of debate, particularly written rather than verbal, it is all too easy to slip into such an approach; though I actively try to avoid it myself, it is too easy to either be drawn into it by one's antagonist(s), or slip over the edge with some semi-humorous reference, and then it all goes downhill. Let us all be very aware of the fact,however, that a number of posts are made specifically fishing for such a response (I should say, in my opinion :-)). Would that we would all take the commonly given advice about "write a response, read it back, but don't send it". As far as a cheap point of view is concerned; Well if you have a point of view, and it is genuinely held, then how can it be cheap? It may be wrong, ludicrous, or simply boring, but cheap wouldn't be the correct word. If, however, one purports to hold a point of view (but don't) simply to divert or antagonise in the debate, then one simply cheapens oneself. The nature of true debate is to be true to one's views, propose and defend them as necessary, but be aware it is a dialogue, not a monologue, and be prepared to be persuaded by good, honest and constructive argument. Not much hope of that on here, then. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Tracker - 2011-07-21 4:41 PM Abso-flippin-lutely Brian - well said! Thanks for seriousing up what was fast becoming an entirely frivolous thread! Apologies for my rather pious intervention - a little local computer difficulty meant you all got your frivolity in before I got to post. With further apologies to Robin (with whom I agree in pious, serious, mode :-)), on the whole, I think the frivolity more appropriate to the question. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 You never need apologise for posting Brian - or for being serious - or frivolous! You're right - it was a sort of semi frivolous thread title brought about by a jibe from another thread and it can be looked at both seriously and frivolously depending on the mood of the poster - all views gratefully accepted! Serious subjects can be debated with humour, indeed maybe a splash or three of humour helps prevent a serious topic becoming stuffy and boring? Freedom of speech and it's allied facets are a serious matter but we are so fortunate in this country to be able to treat them in a light hearted manner - but that does not mean we don't value them any the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laimeduck Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I simply cannot believe the abuse that is thrown about so gratuitously on these forums! I would not dare to write what some people do. If I have a problem I will say it face to face, but the pure nastiness that some put in black & white is just mind boggling. I believe that much of it is done on purpose to satisfy egos, or simply to attempt to 'be better than' Please note that these comments do not apply to anyone who has posted so far on this thread. *-) The best response - is no response - therefore no fuel for the fire. There are approx. 65 Million people in this country - so there are loads of others to converse or debate with reasonably. That's my tactic & I'll stick to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I blame the PC brigade8-)............Since they banned bear baiting.............there's only chatterbox left(lol)(lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-07-22 10:25 AM I blame the PC brigade8-)............Since they banned bear baiting.............there's only chatterbox left(lol)(lol) Ah, but for how long, the mods are flexing their muscles *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-07-22 10:25 AM I blame the PC brigade8-)............Since they banned bear baiting.............there's only chatterbox left(lol)(lol) Ah, but for how long, the mods are flexing their muscles *-) ooh err, hubble bubble double trouble :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 donna miller - 2011-07-22 10:59 AM Ah, but for how long, the mods are flexing their muscles *-) Yeah:-(............guess I'll have to go back to pulling the wings of flies:-S That was a joke:D......................No flies were harmed during the typing of this post(lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Ah, but when you pull their wings off, do they become walks? I can just imagine the scene now that the 'other' thread has been pulled. A dozen members will now be sending PMs discussing which post was the final straw and who's fault it all was. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendipman Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 :D :D ....... QUI GRAVIS ES NIMIUM POTES HINC IAM,LECTOR,ABIRE QUO LIBET... If you are likely to be the really pernictety type of reader,do you mind leaving now? Just head in the direction of absolutely anywhere else.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 donna miller - 2011-07-22 12:16 PM I can just imagine the scene now that the 'other' thread has been pulled. A dozen members will now be sending PMs discussing which post was the final straw and who's fault it all was. *-) What have I missed? 8-) Someone enlighten me please! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Tracker - 2011-07-21 2:35 PM In an open debate can any tactic or point of view on any topic that is up for open discussion be deemed to be 'cheap'? What does the team think! You may recall some time back a member who regulary posted 'loaded' questions/posts, he always had a post ready to reply when he thought someone had fallen into his trap, it was obvious after several instances that it was a tactic, and not one I was impressed with, I called him on it and he flounced off in a huff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.