The Art of Argument / Philosophy

[Chapsie]

Welcome to the art of Philosophy.

I've learned many things over the years about arguments and logical conclusions, etiquette and the conventions in philosophical arguments and debates. I'd like to share it with you guys!
 
Now, the first thing I've learned about arguments is charity. Charity is a sorely lacking trait in all of these threads and I thought it should be the first thing to be addressed. This is for when you are analysing an argument, or statement, and are in the process of retaining the information to make your rebuttal. You need to just give the argument the benefit of the doubt, no matter the horrendous content it may be arguing for. If one gives an example, assume it being true. Take the statement, and prove it false by giving logical answers. "A means that B is true, however, C proves A wrong, therefore B is wrong." Also, charity pertains to the context of the argument, as the rebuttals should solely be towards the argument at hand, and no side-handed blows towards the "philosopher." Personal views have no place in debates, that is in fact a convention. Paraphrased by me, the words of one of my philosophy professors "If you have conflicting views with this courses content, then that is good. Challenge you beliefs, drop them as they are challenged and change them as you see logically fit. Otherwise, I recommend you drop this course."
 

The second thing on my list is logic. Now, I know we use it quite often, however I think we stray from the path of logic and reason. When we get worked up, we tend to veer off course of this very important rule, and cause threads to look toxic. Jab are not logical, they're unnecessary and rude. They only make you look bad as a person and do not get your point anywhere further. However, the satisfaction of striking a point down from a tough argument is amazing. But then there comes a better point that in turn strikes down your counter. Don't get mad, rather use your passion for the argument to rebuttal and in turn get closer to being at the truth. The point of debates are not to argue one side to the other they are simply to state a point, a view, a opinion, or a belief, and argue various perspectives. When that begins, you rule out many perspectives, and then you get the solid proven, logical arguments. This is usually when things get heated, and they should not. You are all working towards the same truth whether you as people like it or not, there is normally only one truth to all debates, being broad or accurate.

 
Another point is content/clarity. A point/statement/argument can be as simple as a few sentences, or as elaborate as a whole book. But as long as the content is relevant to the argument at hand, then people should have a good time understanding your view. Your sentences should be well put together, spelled correctly, and punctuation where it should be. Now mistakes are fine, but a terribly written argument is a magnet for personal attacks, (which as said above, should be avoided) or an easy conclusion. No one wants a one reply solution to an argument you've thought up of. Example: hey guys, i think that horses are actually not good animals to use as workers cuz its animal abuse." This is objectively a bad argument, however it is a solid premise (logically speaking, which we should be). If it was put together better, it would be easier to read, answer, and even reply to. Example: "Work animals like horses, dogs, cats, etc. are tired out day after day working for humans and at what payment are we giving them? Just for food and sub-par treatment. We ought to let these animals free again, since we have machines of our own that can take their place..." And the argument can go on for pages, with many more broad definitions that we could argue against or for.

 

Another point I'd like to address very briefly is the personal jabs/Person over argument. They hurt me on the inside when I see a perfectly good debate go sour because someone's view was challenged, thus causing them to lash out (even if subtly, because it's not at all subtle). Keep the jabs towards the argument not the person. If you feel as though you are mad, just take a break, walk away, and breath. No use hurting someone's feelings and "growing" your epeen all for the sake of your integrity. You are not losing any dignity when you are losing an argument, you are merely seeing the truth, or a new view that you may not want to adopt. In that case, leave the conversation because any negative input you'd have is not helping any situation. Remember, there's another human on the other side of that screen.

 
I will update this if people like this, and we can use it as some sort of reference if anyone wants more tips. I just thought that I'd suggest some conventions to help guide the debates. Any spelling errors or grammar mistakes, just report them to me. It's 2:24 am and I'm just fed up with this section of the forums, I love it, but the community needs a little bit of a reform.

Edited March 27, 2016 by Chappie

[Mutsuo Toi]

Thanks, it's very informative, I could use it to defend my own fascism ideal.

[SoS]

There's a lot of threads here where logical argument is useless. Morals are subjective. God and religion is a matter of faith, not to be proven or disproven. Of course, these subjects are going to devolve into emotional displays - because opinions on these subjects are normally based on emotion. And an objective person is like Satan to a person with strong emotion based beliefs.

[Chapsie]

There's a lot of threads here where logical argument is useless. Morals are subjective. God and religion is a matter of faith, not to be proven or disproven. Of course, these subjects are going to devolve into emotional displays - because opinions on these subjects are normally based on emotion. And an objective person is like Satan to a person with strong emotion based beliefs.

 

That is exactly where personal discretion comes in. Logical arguments are not useless in any argument. Give me one and I guarantee eventually I will find some logic in it. Illogical arguments should be dismissed, and can easily be dismissed. Arguing using opinions and faith is not arguing, it's yelling your thoughts on a matter you know little or nothing about; getting nowhere. There is no place for emotion in an argument and that is where your point is going wrong. Even if it creeps in, that is when an argument becomes weak and you can just dismiss that person as being illogical or toxic if it gets that far.

 

God and religion has been popular among many philosophers I have studied. An old, famous, and my personal favourite argument is the "Logical Argument of Evil" in which disproves the goodness, or powers of any such god. So it proves that logic can be used to take down even the most powerful ideological entities.

 

Now, this thread will not be about that argument; that was of course an example. However, it will just discuss logical arguments in general. 

 

 

(If you want the link to the argument: http://www.iep.utm.edu/evil-log/ )

Edited March 27, 2016 by Chappie

[SoS]

Thanks for the link. However, one must believe in evil and in good for that logic to apply. Good and evil are subjective. I believe in the Sense of Tragedy.

 

There is no place for emotional outbursts in a civil conversation. But, this isn't the most mature community. So, it's bound to happen.

[Chapsie]

Thanks for the link. However, one must believe in evil and in good for that logic to apply. Good and evil are subjective. I believe in the Sense of Tragedy.

 

There is no place for emotional outbursts in a civil conversation. But, this isn't the most mature community. So, it's bound to happen.

 

I know there are lots of valid points for and against this argument, and that is why I enjoy it.

 

You're exactly right, that's why I made this post. To at least make them aware when they're straying off course so they can't exactly be at fault for being ignorant of argument etiquette. But alas, your point applies to the fact that not everyone will read this either haha but that is life I'm afraid.