Merged Actually Effective Written Debate/Effective Public Debate

I'm just going to leave this here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9258648

1) I'm convinced that the only way to actually get somewhere in our debate is to slow down and zoom in.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9252969

- Have you looked into my discussions about effective debate? I have long discussions about it on both my websites. This is what I've been developing, off and on, for over forty years.
Click to expand...

:eek:
 
- whaddaya mean “we,” kimosabe?

That long list from Jabba is nothing but psychological projectionWP. His nonsense certainly isn’t enough to send me into “fight or flight” mode. I could probably play his boring, repetitive list posts to help me go to sleep at night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Jabba, your ideas about effective debate may (I doubt it, but I'll concede that they may) be useful for looking at matters of opinion. Debate in general is a useful tool when thinking about opinions.

Should the atom bomb have been dropped on Japan in 1945, should F1 get rid of 'grid girls', is chocolate ice cream more delicious than strawberry ice cream?

All of these are matters of opinion, not matters of fact. There are no right or wrong answers, but there are people who will argue eloquently and vehemently for one side or another. Debate is a good way of allowing different people to test their ideas against others, to hear other people's points of view, and to seek to change minds.

However, debate is not the right way to look at matters of fact. You might be the most persuasive speaker in the world, able to win crowds over to your way of thinking easily, but if you are on the side of a flat earth, it doesn't matter if you win the debate. You're still wrong on a matter of fact.

Shroud authenticity is a matter of fact. Immortality is a matter of fact. Debate is the wrong tool for matters of fact.
 
Jabba said:
John,
– The basic problem is that once we humans slip into debate, our reflexes are all wrong for trying to find the truth. That’s how we humans are. Once into a debate, we automatically slip into a fight/flight mode and become oblivious to any truth- seeking urge we might previously have had, and seek only to win – or at least, to avoid losing.
– But note that two things happen here. We slip into a fight/flight mode; but also, we lose all sight of our seek-the-truth mode. It isn’t’ like the two objectives both have our attention, just that one of them is stronger — it’s like one of them slips entirely below our radar… We “zone out.”
Click to expand...

Science, engineering, and the law have developed forms of debate that are extremely effective at solving problems. Needless to say, those disciplines do not use anything like your idea of good debate.
 
Apparently ignoring your opponents posts and pretending their arguments don’t exist is a big part of “effective debate” in the Jabbaverse. Fortunately any neutral audiences will be able to see it for what it is.
 
Well, Jabba, let us examine your claims in some detail...

Jabba said:
1. Start doing everything we can to undermine effective presentation of evidence by the other side, and to overstate our own case. And,
Click to expand...
Agreed. You do that at every turn, yet take it a step further and present no evidence at all.

Jabba said:
2. Start placing a supreme premium upon quick answers.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Over the past 5 or so years we have become accustomed to getting no answer at all from you to questions raised. Thus, most folks simply post brief replies to your arguments in the certain knowledge that said replies will be ignored. Note that I said "most". There are some who take the time to respond in huge detail but that is irrelevant because you ignore that too.

Jabba said:
– More specifically yet, in regard to #1, we
1.1. Insult our opponents (We have numerous ways of doing this – both overtly and covertly.)
Click to expand...
Then why do you consistently do it?
Jabba said:
1.2. Refuse to yield the floor.
Click to expand...
Again, you take it a step further, not only refusing to "yield the floor", but refusing to acknowledge that any floor exists at all bar the fragment upon which you stand.
Jabba said:
1.3. Refuse to answer our opponents questions.
Click to expand...
Agreed. So why do you keep on doing it? Is it that you hope those questions will disappear if you simply ignore them?
Jabba said:
1.4. Pretend to answer their questions while ‘dancing around them’ instead?
Click to expand...
Yes. Why do you do it all the time?
Jabba said:
1.5. State opinion as fact.
Click to expand...
And that one too. Why is it bad to do such a thing for everyone except you, who has been doing so for years?
Jabba said:
1.6. Raise our voices.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Nobody here in this thread or others has done so. The problem is that you seem to perceive any rebuttal of your ideas as insults. Besides, are your ideas really that fragile?
Jabba said:
1.7. Grasp at straws (while pretending they’re hawsers). And,
Click to expand...
Of all participants in this and other threads, you are pointing the finger? It is to laugh.
Jabba said:
1.8. Lie.
Click to expand...
No comment to make on the number of times you have been caught out? Well...

Jabba said:
– More specifically yet, in regard to #2. Because of this new set, we don’t have time to
2.1. Understand our opponent’s argument.
2.2. Really understand our own argument.
Click to expand...
Oh we understand your arguments the problem is that you do not.
Jabba said:
2.3. Think twice.
Click to expand...
Thinking once might be a start don't you agree?
Jabba said:
2.4. Step back from the canvas.
Click to expand...
That is just a trite meaningless sentence fragment.
Jabba said:
2.5. Look before we leap.
Click to expand...
Redundant given 2.4 of your current opus.
Jabba said:
2.6. Say what we mean.
Click to expand...
Really? So when you clearly mean "soul" why don't you say so?
Jabba said:
2.7. Keep from going off on tangents defending things we didn’t mean.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what has happened in your threads. Tangents have indeed developed to correct the claims you make to know what respondents actually mean as opposed to what they actually said.
Jabba said:
2.8. Realize we’re wrong.
2.9. Admit we’re wrong.
Click to expand...
Given that you have never done so, is this not a hypocritical position for you to take?
Jabba said:
2.10. Cool off.
Click to expand...
Is anyone getting hot under the collar in any of your threads? I think not.
Jabba said:
2.11. Apologize.
Click to expand...
Apology accepted, just stop doing it.

Now, I have a couple of predictions for you Jabba.

1. You will yet again ignore this reply, with the exception that...
2. You will report this post as an insult simply because I have had the temerity to disagree with you.

The reality is that your post is presented as a critique of discussions on this forum, but it isn't. It reads as though it is simply a precis of your personal posting style
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Science, engineering, and the law have developed forms of debate that are extremely effective at solving problems. Needless to say, those disciplines do not use anything like your idea of good debate.
Click to expand...

Jabba, If you live a thousand years, you will not have convinced a single one of your interlocutors because you don't listen to anything they say.
 
Agatha said:
Jabba, your ideas about effective debate may (I doubt it, but I'll concede that they may) be useful for looking at matters of opinion. Debate in general is a useful tool when thinking about opinions.

Should the atom bomb have been dropped on Japan in 1945, should F1 get rid of 'grid girls', is chocolate ice cream more delicious than strawberry ice cream?

All of these are matters of opinion, not matters of fact. There are no right or wrong answers, but there are people who will argue eloquently and vehemently for one side or another. Debate is a good way of allowing different people to test their ideas against others, to hear other people's points of view, and to seek to change minds.

However, debate is not the right way to look at matters of fact. You might be the most persuasive speaker in the world, able to win crowds over to your way of thinking easily, but if you are on the side of a flat earth, it doesn't matter if you win the debate. You're still wrong on a matter of fact.

Shroud authenticity is a matter of fact. Immortality is a matter of fact. Debate is the wrong tool for matters of fact.
Click to expand...
Agatha,
- Your comment above is probably the most positive response I'm going to get on this topic...
- However, "debate" may not be the best word to use, but it's obviously important in a democratic society that the voters be well-informed about the facts. We voters have different opinions about the facts -- we need to hear the opinions and factual support for those opinions so that we can make up our own minds about the truth.
 
Jabba said:
We voters have different opinions about the facts -- we need to hear the opinions and factual support for those opinions so that we can make up our own minds about the truth.
Click to expand...

You may note from this that you're requiring that facts should inform the debate, rather than be derived from the debate. That alone should point you towards a major flaw in your stated intention of determining facts by debate: it is inherently a circular process.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Your comment above is probably the most positive response I'm going to get on this topic...
- However, "debate" may not be the best word to use, but it's obviously important in a democratic society that the voters be well-informed about the facts. We voters have different opinions about the facts -- we need to hear the opinions and factual support for those opinions so that we can make up our own minds about the truth.
Click to expand...
If you think my comment was positive, or is in support of your theory, you might want to read past the first sentence.

Have all the debate you want about points of view or opinions, people might be swayed into a different opinion by a persuasive and well-evidencd argument.

But you aren't arguing for an opinion or a point of view in your Shroud thread or your Immortality thread, you are trying to prove (or "essentially prove") a fact - an objective or scientific truth. Science is not a democracy, nor are truth or facts subject to opinions. Light travels at 299,792,458 metres per second, no matter how many people vote otherwise.
 
Jabba said:
Agatha,
- Your comment above is probably the most positive response I'm going to get on this topic...
- However, "debate" may not be the best word to use, but it's obviously important in a democratic society that the voters be well-informed about the facts. We voters have different opinions about the facts -- we need to hear the opinions and factual support for those opinions so that we can make up our own minds about the truth.
Click to expand...

No, Jabba. You're not a champion of civil society. You are not on a noble quest to bring truth to the world.
 
Agatha said:
If you think my comment was positive, or is in support of your theory, you might want to read past the first sentence.
Click to expand...


I think reading past the first sentence is against Jabba's rules for Actually Effective Written Debate.
 
Every time I read Jabba's rules and justification for AEWD, it reinforces two things:
- the "rules" were written because Jabba was frustrated at not winning arguments, so he's tried to codify rules to constrain the skills of the other party; and
- he still thinks debate is about finding facts, which it isn't. It's a competition of rhetoric. Any discussion on Jabba's methodology is fundamentally flawed on this basis, as the method is being misrepresented.
 
Mojo said:
I think reading past the first sentence is against Jabba's rules for Actually Effective Written Debate.
Click to expand...

Jabba has stated more than once that he often only reads the first line or two of other people's posts.

But what he really does, what he really thinks, and what his real goals are when he posts remain for me a matter of pure speculation.
 
- I'll try some more.
- To what extent do you think that public debate is effective?
 
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side. That's the way we are.
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you perceive such a tendency in yourself?
Click to expand...

Very much so. The primary challenge for any skeptic is to understand that tendency and compensate for it. This, however, rather tends to undermine the supposition that public debate is a means of arriving at facts, because those who don't recognise their prejudices and allow for them will simply select what evidence they want to hear and ignore the rest. The problem is not in transmitting good information; it's in having it successfully received.

Dave
 
Jabba said:
Dave,
- Can you perceive such a tendency in yourself?
Click to expand...

If over a dozen people were telling me over and over that my argument was nothing but that for over five years I'd at least consider the possibility.
 
Many professions have developed methods of debate that are demonstrably effective at finding facts, solving problems, and even changing opinions. And none of those debate methods look anything like what Jabba proposes.

Conversely, the method Jabba proposes is demonstrably ineffective. It is essential that if your new invention purports to be a wheel, it must actually roll.*












---
* Yes, that's a reinventing-the-wheel joke
 
Last edited:
Jabba said:
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side.
Click to expand...


Some are so emotionally committed to one side of an augment that they are unable to objectively judge either side. And the problem is inevitably worse where it concerns their own side.
 
Jabba said:
- Currently, if we humans are emotionally committed to one side of an argument, we have almost no ability to objectively listen to -- and judge -- the other side. That's the way we are.
Click to expand...


But, jabba, you've stated that the purpose of your "debate" style isn't to objectively listen to or judge any other style. You've said that two representatives on either side should just debate for some unseen objective audience. You never really explained where this audience would come from, how the representatives would be chosen or why any issue should have only two sides.

So whatever the faults in the current system, it works better than your version.

Even so, Kialo lets you explore subtopics of subtopics with audience interest determining both what all the branches are and which branches are worth exploring. You should check it out. It's the closest thing to your ideas on the subject of debate that appears to be working.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Very much so. The primary challenge for any skeptic is to understand that tendency and compensate for it. This, however, rather tends to undermine the supposition that public debate is a means of arriving at facts, because those who don't recognise their prejudices and allow for them will simply select what evidence they want to hear and ignore the rest...
Click to expand...

- Exactly. But could it be possible to correct for this tendency? And, if we think that it might be possible, shouldn't we (someone) be addressing that possibility?

Dave Rogers said:
The problem is not in transmitting good information; it's in having it successfully received.

Dave
Click to expand...
- I would say that we err very much in both directions.
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again:


Kid Eager said:
Every time I read Jabba's rules and justification for AEWD, it reinforces two things:
- the "rules" were written because Jabba was frustrated at not winning arguments, so he's tried to codify rules to constrain the skills of the other party; and
- he still thinks debate is about finding facts, which it isn't. It's a competition of rhetoric. Any discussion on Jabba's methodology is fundamentally flawed on this basis, as the method is being misrepresented.
Click to expand...
 
Jabba said:
- Exactly. But could it be possible to correct for this tendency?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is possible; the method is known as rational skepticism. Many people round here practise it.

Jabba said:
-And, if we think that it might be possible, shouldn't we (someone) be addressing that possibility?
Click to expand...

We are. You, very clearly, are not; and your latest excuse for failing to do so, it appears, is to feign mystification at the possibility that such a thing as rational skepticism could possibly exist, and demand that someone re-invent it.

Jabba said:
- I would say that we err very much in both directions.
Click to expand...

And I would say that I understand very clearly what you are trying to say and do, clearly enough to understand the fatal flaws in your mothodology, in this and in other areas (yes, we both know what those areas are); and I note that you have not, in five years of debate, abandoned or assimilated a single element of kowledge or understanding. This is not the pot calling the kettle black; it's the pot calling the mirror black.

Dave
 
JoeMorgue said:
If over a dozen people were telling me over and over that my argument was nothing but that for over five years I'd at least consider the possibility.
Click to expand...
Joe,
- How could I have stumbled upon immortality, when all the experts in the relevant math and science have not? Somehow, I must be wrong! But so far, I can't figure out why -- and in that other thread, I either disagree with the arguments against my claim, or just don't understand them.
- And then, everyone on that thread -- except for me -- is a committed skeptic. I'm committed in the other direction, but trying to see your arguments in the best possible light...

- So, in this thread, I'm claiming that
1. We humans should be able to design a format and "ambience" to solve our problem with debate.
2. We need to solve it.
3. The Internet provides a significant new opportunity to do that. And,
4. This website could at least begin the process.
-
 
Jabba said:
Joe,
- How could I have stumbled upon immortality, when all the experts in the relevant math and science have not? Somehow, I must be wrong! But so far, I can't figure out why -- and in that other thread, I either disagree with the arguments against my claim, or just don't understand them.
- And then, everyone on that thread -- except for me -- is a committed skeptic. I'm committed in the other direction, but trying to see your arguments in the best possible light...

- So, in this thread, I'm claiming that
1. We humans should be able to design a format and "ambience" to solve our problem with debate.
2. We need to solve it.
3. The Internet provides a significant new opportunity to do that. And,
4. This website could at least begin the process.
-
Click to expand...

You can't figure out why because you refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong. You've been shown by skeptics, statisticians, and everyone else exactly how and why you are wrong, and rather than considering the possibility, you simply ignore them and pretend that you are still right. The only thing that needs solving is your desperate need to be immortal.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes, it is possible; the method is known as rational skepticism. Many people round here practise it...
Click to expand...
- Wouldn't it be more rational -- and functional -- to avoid insulting your opponents, or his ideas? What skeptic around here avoids insulting their opponents -- let alone, their ideas?
 
Jabba said:
- Wouldn't it be more rational -- and functional -- to avoid insulting your opponents, or his ideas? What skeptic around here avoids insulting their opponents -- let alone, their ideas?
Click to expand...

Would you define ignoring direct replies and rebuttals to arguments as insulting behavior?
 
Jabba said:
- Wouldn't it be more rational -- and functional -- to avoid insulting your opponents, or his ideas? What skeptic around here avoids insulting their opponents -- let alone, their ideas?
Click to expand...

Pointing out where you are wrong is not insulting. Showing your ideas to be wrong is not insulting. On the other hand, continuing to insist you are correct despite having had your argument shredded in multiple ways, by multiple posters, over the course of multiple years is insulting. You are in no position to complain about your critics being insulting.
 
Jabba said:
- Wouldn't it be more rational -- and functional -- to avoid insulting your opponents, or his ideas?
Click to expand...

Jabba, you have been incessantly insulting over the full five years of the immortality thread, by repeatedly insisting that you're trying to teach the ignorant and that the only reason everyone disagrees with you is that nobody's clever enough to follow your arguments. If you'd made the slightest attempt to avoid being insulting, you'd get more polite treatment in return.

Dave
 
jond said:
You can't figure out why because you refuse to consider the possibility that you are wrong. You've been shown by skeptics, statisticians, and everyone else exactly how and why you are wrong, and rather than considering the possibility, you simply ignore them and pretend that you are still right. The only thing that needs solving is your desperate need to be immortal.
Click to expand...
jond,
- I have often admitted (in this forum) that I was wrong about something, and I've asked lots of questions trying to understand the claims against mine. IMO, much of the time, that I ask these questions, I don't get direct answers -- I get complaints and very indirect answers (that really don't help).
 
Dave Rogers said:
Jabba, you have been incessantly insulting over the full five years of the immortality thread, by repeatedly insisting that you're trying to teach the ignorant and that the only reason everyone disagrees with you is that nobody's clever enough to follow your arguments. If you'd made the slightest attempt to avoid being insulting, you'd get more polite treatment in return.

Dave
Click to expand...
Dave,
- Can you give me some examples?
- (Note that I'm not going off topic. The first rule in my debate model is that everyone be friendly and respectful.)
 
Jabba said:
jond,
- I have often admitted (in this forum) that I was wrong about something, and I've asked lots of questions trying to understand the claims against mine. IMO, much of the time, that I ask these questions, I don't get direct answers -- I get complaints and very indirect answers (that really don't help).
Click to expand...

- You have never admitted being wrong about anything of substance.
- You are always given very explicit explanations as to where you are going wrong. Both about statistics, and about logic and reason.
- Frequently, you write long strings of text (every fringe reset), and people respond with point by point refutations. And EVERY SINGLE TIME you ignore those point by point refutations, claiming you can only read one line.
- That you can't understand many of the answers you get says much more about you than it does about your critics.
- That you insist you know much more about everything than your critics and then claim "you don't understand" says a lot more about you than it does about your critics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom