Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Hello and welcome to KOEI Warriors (Forum), the official leading Rank 1 forum of ZetaBoards free online service of thousands of message boards aimed at video gaming; specifically the best KOEI TECMO fan site online! With over 35,000 forum members already a part of the community and millions of comments recorded! Thank you for visiting, we hope you enjoy the message board!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. By signing up and experiencing KOEI Warriors message board you will have access to features that are member-only such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, voting in recognized polls, and more importantly discussion and the latest news from KOEI TECMO with fellow fans of their products. Our Members Only section via joining will grant you KOEI Warriors graphics, downloads and more.

We also have social network pages on Facebook, Twitter and a videos channel on YouTube, so please find us there.

If you need any help please don't hesitate to ask a member of staff/moderator. Thank you.


Regards,
KOEI Warriors Staff Team


Join our community at KOEI Warriors (Forum)!

Already a member? Welcome back, please login here and enjoy KOEI Warriors (Forum).

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Guide to Being intellectually Honest and Debating
Topic Started: Thu Jan 1, 2009 12:56 am (671 Views)
DrewTheDude-Dono
Member Avatar
VAN DAMME KNOWS NO WEAKNESS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm honestly annoyed by the amount of people on the internet who lack any form of intellectual abilities or intellectual honesty. The amount of them is so large, I almost feel overcome by it. As such, I figured I might as well make this as to make this as to show how you should act on the internet {or in general for that matter} if you are to be perceived as an intellectual who seems trustworthy in their ideas and facts.

Now when it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty which is the most essential part of being a good debater.

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. Also, all of us bring various biases to the table despite what you may or mat not think.

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.

8. When addressing an argument, do not misrepresent it. A common tactic of the intellectually dishonest is to portray their opponent’s argument in straw man terms. In politics, this is called spin. Typically, such tactics eschew quoting the person in context, but instead rely heavily on out-of-context quotes, paraphrasing and impression. When addressing an argument, one should shows signs of having made a serious effort to first understand the argument and then accurately represent it in its strongest form.

9. Show a commitment to critical thinking. No need to say more.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.

While no one is perfect, and even those who strive for intellectual honesty can have a bad day or dislike how a person is acting{as can be in my case}, simply be on the look out for how many and how often these criteria apply to someone. In the arena of public discourse, it is not intelligence or knowledge that matters most – it is whether you can trust the intelligence or knowledge of another. After all, intelligence and knowledge can sometimes be the best tools of an intellectually dishonest approach.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Kratos Aurion
Member Avatar
MOAR
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Welcome back. Debates are just flame wars without you.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Shogun
Member Avatar
~
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
How about when someone pollutes sincere, freethinking discourse with sarcasm, irony, and other forms of pernicious wit? When arguing with such a person, he'll twist your words into a cruel pun and use them against you. I've come across way too many of them, and it makes many good, free thinkers uncomfortable when arguing.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Randy
Member Avatar
ドッカーン
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Agreed. Should this deserve a sticky?
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
DrewTheDude-Dono
Member Avatar
VAN DAMME KNOWS NO WEAKNESS!
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Shogun
Thu Jan 1, 2009 10:02 am
How about when someone pollutes sincere, freethinking discourse with sarcasm, irony, and other forms of pernicious wit? When arguing with such a person, he'll twist your words into a cruel pun and use them against you. I've come across way too many of them, and it makes many good, free thinkers uncomfortable when arguing.
I never really had a problem with that unless it was actually insulting or lacks any point in it. I don't see any problem with being satirical during a debate as long as it has a point to it.
Edited by DrewTheDude-Dono, Fri Jan 2, 2009 12:00 am.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
KiniroCorda
Member Avatar
リタ
[ *  *  *  * ]
DrewTheDude
Thu Jan 1, 2009 12:56 am
I'm honestly annoyed by the amount of people on the internet who lack any form of intellectual abilities or intellectual honesty. The amount of them is so large, I almost feel overcome by it. As such, I figured I might as well make this as to make this as to show how you should act on the internet {or in general for that matter} if you are to be perceived as an intellectual who seems trustworthy in their ideas and facts.

unfortunately... I am probably one of those people

Im not a very smart person at all


my I.Q is 92.. or something below 100
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Yuan Benchu
Member Avatar
~Distuinguished And Noble~
[ *  *  * ]
I think what the person might be referring to is the way you carry yourself during a debate, rather than the actual amount of knowledge on any given subject.

So even if you have little knowledge on a subject, you might still be able present some form of evidence or logic to show your reasons for something you do think know. And if you end up wrong, then you should have the maturity to come forth and admit it. No one cares how much you know, as long as you contribute to a debate in a mature, consistant and open minded way.

It's all well and good knowing everything, but if you can't explain it properly or be willing to take some form of criticism then you'll find that you have very few allies that agree with you.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
AK049
Member Avatar
Wisdom and Virtue (seeker)
[ *  *  * ]
I would like to add some more debating guidelines for the benefit of everyone: :)

Substance takes priority over style. Elegance must be used only to point to the content of the argument.

Strive for clarity and openness to the truth.

Argue with a good cause. Do not spark a flame war out of malicious intent.

Avoid all fallacies.

"The truth that sets us free requires us to set it free." Knowledge, principles, and beliefs are ultimately judged by the standard of truth. Satyagraha. :mellow:
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
scholar
Member Avatar


Some minor things I've noticed about this:

1. Do not overstate the power of your argument. One’s sense of conviction should be in proportion to the level of clear evidence assessable by most. If someone portrays their opponents as being either stupid or dishonest for disagreeing, intellectual dishonesty is probably in play. Intellectual honesty is most often associated with humility, not arrogance.
:When someone thinks that their argument is right, then there is nothing but an overstating of power. If you do not show an absolute in your conviction to prove your point, then how can you expect anyone else. If you say God exists, and you believe strongly in whatever faith you are a part of then you will most likely try to destroy the standing of the opposition mercilessly. It is not arrogance that propels them, but faith.

2. Show a willingness to publicly acknowledge that reasonable alternative viewpoints exist. The alternative views do not have to be treated as equally valid or powerful, but rarely is it the case that one and only one viewpoint has a complete monopoly on reason and evidence.
:Again with religion, you believe that your answer IS THE ONLY answer. There can be no equally valid argument in such a case.

3. Be willing to publicly acknowledge and question one’s own assumptions and biases. All of us rely on assumptions when applying our world view to make sense of the data about the world. Also, all of us bring various biases to the table despite what you may or mat not think.
:Every being on this planet is biased, yet no one wants to admit it. How can you make one believe that their religion is biased, or their ideals are biased when they believe in them strongly?

4. Be willing to publicly acknowledge where your argument is weak. Almost all arguments have weak spots, but those who are trying to sell an ideology will have great difficulty with this point and would rather obscure or downplay any weak points.
:Faith has been a weak argument for centuries, but no one will admit it.

5. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when you are wrong. Those selling an ideology likewise have great difficulty admitting to being wrong, as this undercuts the rhetoric and image that is being sold. You get small points for admitting to being wrong on trivial matters and big points for admitting to being wrong on substantive points. You lose big points for failing to admit being wrong on something trivial.
:See above.

6. Demonstrate consistency. A clear sign of intellectual dishonesty is when someone extensively relies on double standards. Typically, an excessively high standard is applied to the perceived opponent(s), while a very low standard is applied to the ideologues’ allies.
:Same as points above. Faith triumphs over all.

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument. Ad hominem arguments are a clear sign of intellectual dishonesty. However, often times, the dishonesty is more subtle. For example, someone might make a token effort at debunking an argument and then turn significant attention to the person making the argument, relying on stereotypes, guilt-by-association, and innocent-sounding gotcha questions.
:If you are arguing with a murderer, can you not attack him for being a murderer? I'm well aware what Ad Hominem is, as it's used against me constantly because of my somewhat controversial views. It seems odd that I'm actually advocating the right to use it. I'm a paradoxical creature. If you are arguing with a murderer then you will be unable to look beyond this in most cases. Criminals are demonized and so are their ideals.

10. Be willing to publicly acknowledge when a point or criticism is good. If someone is unable or unwilling to admit when their opponent raises a good point or makes a good criticism, it demonstrates an unwillingness to participate in the give-and-take that characterizes an honest exchange.
: Faith, look above.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
SmitanSaxon
Member Avatar
By Odin's beard!
[ *  *  *  * ]
If you don't like how a person acts in a debate, then ignore them, simple as that. If a person is being rude and obnoxious that should give you the sign that they are too stubborn to accept anyone's opinion. Ignoring them would do no harm since debates rarely change anything. Plus it is foolish to expect everyone to voice their opinion in a civilised, respectful way.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Archives · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Composed & Designed by, ©KOEI Warriors, 2005-2017. All rights reserved.