Essay:The Debater Debacle
|
This essay is an original work by MykalOfDefiance. It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas. Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights. Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts. |
Alright, a parable:
A fierce debater is talking to Joe. Joe says, "Ahhhhh. Lovely day outside, the sky is blue, the grass is green…"
"How do you know the grass is green?" replies the debater.
"Just look at it, idiot, it's green!" snaps Joe.
"I find your reliance on ad hominem attacks laughable."
"Man, come on, that grass is green like rain's wet!"
"Like your mom! But seriously, that's a false analogy."
"Either that grass is green, or I can shit Cheetos and apple juice."
The debater, with a bored tone, drones, "False dichotomy."
Seeing some people strolling by, Joe, now desperate, calls out to them. "Hey, what color is this grass?"
Though puzzled, they reply, "Green?"
The debater laughs. "An argumentum ad populum?"
The point of this article is how annoying and nit-picky people get with that long list of fallacies. Even if you're right, the way you word it is broken down and categorized into mistakes, and thrown back at you. If we would instead actually get an idea for what people are proposing and think about it, and decide what our opinions are on their opinion, we could do a lot less fighting and a lot more learning. Don't argue with semantics, argue with ideas. I call this phenomena "The Debater Debacle".