Okay, so... Here's something that really grinds my gears.
I find myself debating with people quite a lot in general. It usually leads to an argument of sorts since I try to get my point across in a formal way, yet whomever I'm arguing with doesn't respect the rules of debate. In this article, I aim to lay the foundations of what I consider to be good practice for a casual debate. Note that I will be using the words "debate" and "argument" interchangeably in this article to refer to debate.
This is a universal problem in debating and does not only hold true when arguing among friends or peers. It is extremely important for a debater to know and acknowledge the rules of Formal Logic. If not fully applied, it is at least advisable to know the common pitfalls of logical arguments.
First, let me define what I mean by a logical argument:
A logical argument is a set of logical statements that are grouped together and used to derive a different logical statement. The statements used to form the argument are called the premises and the derived statement is called the conclusion.
Now, let me give an example of the logical fallacy I experience to be the most common. It is called the Converse Error.
Say we have a statement p and a statement q. Furthermore, let us assume that statement p implies q. That is to say that, if statement p is true, that implies that statement q has to be true. People will sometimes make the conclusion that this means statement q implies statement p. This is called the Converse Error. One example of why this is not true is as follows:
Statement A: "Object X is made from diamond"
Statement B: "Object X is hard"
In this case, statement A implies statement B. If X is made from diamond, it must be hard. However, the converse is not true; just because X is hard doesn't necessarily mean it's made from diamond.
It is also false to say that, if statement A is false, that implies statement B is also false. Surely, an object can be hard and not made from diamond.
This one is tricky. When arguing it is very important that everyone agrees on the definitions of keywords used to form the argument. To some extent, it is also important that the debater be able to define the words they are using rigorously.
For example, consider the following question and assume it sparks a debate among your friends:
"Are lazy people good at math?"
This is, admittedly, a stupid example, but bear with me for a second.
First of all, how are we defining "lazy people". One could simply define someone who is lazy as someone who dislikes doing work, but that isn't a very good definition. At this point, I usually reach for the dictionary, but in many cases, even the dictionary definition, is too imprecise. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "lazy" as follows: "Unwilling to work or use energy." Well, that isn't particularly helpful. Oftentimes I find myself unwilling to use energy. For example: when sleeping. This does not necessarily make me lazy, nor does it make the desire to sleep a lazy one.
Secondly, what do we mean by "good at math"? Well, again, we can try to define it in simple terms as "being skillful in the field of mathematics", but then we have just taken the problem back a step. What do we even mean by "skillful"? For that matter, assuming we can define skillful, how skillful, exactly do you have to be, to be "good" at math?
Now, admittedly, there might not always be a good way to solve this problem; sometimes you are just stuck with crappy definitions for words. I do believe, however, that you should at least try to define your argument in such a way that everyone understands what you mean and that everyone can agree on what they are arguing about.
This is the last and probably most problematic part of debating. People get angry too quickly.
If you are someone who likes to have a good debate, you will probably have come across this problem several times in your life. People always take the thing you are debating personally. That is, when you try to prove your side of the argument, they assume that you are attacking them personally. This is hardly ever the case when you are dealing with a passionate debater. We merely seek a bit of cognitive exercise in the form of quick-thinking and fact-relaying.
It also frequently happens that people who like to debate will argue any side of the debate, regardless of whether they actually agree with it or not. See, the thing is, we don't typically even care about the topic being debated; we just want to participate in the debate, and therefore don't mind playing devils-advocate every once in a while.
A good debate is something to be cherished; it represents the collective knowledge of a group of people interacting with each other to ultimately decide which side of an argument is the correct one.
Now that you know the common pitfalls of an argument, I hope all of you will take this article as a warning and practice proper debating principles. In fact, you should share this article with your friends and family, lest they should be isolated from the knowledge of how to properly conduct a debate.
I find myself debating with people quite a lot in general. It usually leads to an argument of sorts since I try to get my point across in a formal way, yet whomever I'm arguing with doesn't respect the rules of debate. In this article, I aim to lay the foundations of what I consider to be good practice for a casual debate. Note that I will be using the words "debate" and "argument" interchangeably in this article to refer to debate.
Problem #1: Logical fallacies
This is a universal problem in debating and does not only hold true when arguing among friends or peers. It is extremely important for a debater to know and acknowledge the rules of Formal Logic. If not fully applied, it is at least advisable to know the common pitfalls of logical arguments.
First, let me define what I mean by a logical argument:
A logical argument is a set of logical statements that are grouped together and used to derive a different logical statement. The statements used to form the argument are called the premises and the derived statement is called the conclusion.
Now, let me give an example of the logical fallacy I experience to be the most common. It is called the Converse Error.
Say we have a statement p and a statement q. Furthermore, let us assume that statement p implies q. That is to say that, if statement p is true, that implies that statement q has to be true. People will sometimes make the conclusion that this means statement q implies statement p. This is called the Converse Error. One example of why this is not true is as follows:
Statement A: "Object X is made from diamond"
Statement B: "Object X is hard"
In this case, statement A implies statement B. If X is made from diamond, it must be hard. However, the converse is not true; just because X is hard doesn't necessarily mean it's made from diamond.
It is also false to say that, if statement A is false, that implies statement B is also false. Surely, an object can be hard and not made from diamond.
Problem #2: Improper Definitions
This one is tricky. When arguing it is very important that everyone agrees on the definitions of keywords used to form the argument. To some extent, it is also important that the debater be able to define the words they are using rigorously.
For example, consider the following question and assume it sparks a debate among your friends:
"Are lazy people good at math?"
This is, admittedly, a stupid example, but bear with me for a second.
First of all, how are we defining "lazy people". One could simply define someone who is lazy as someone who dislikes doing work, but that isn't a very good definition. At this point, I usually reach for the dictionary, but in many cases, even the dictionary definition, is too imprecise. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "lazy" as follows: "Unwilling to work or use energy." Well, that isn't particularly helpful. Oftentimes I find myself unwilling to use energy. For example: when sleeping. This does not necessarily make me lazy, nor does it make the desire to sleep a lazy one.
Secondly, what do we mean by "good at math"? Well, again, we can try to define it in simple terms as "being skillful in the field of mathematics", but then we have just taken the problem back a step. What do we even mean by "skillful"? For that matter, assuming we can define skillful, how skillful, exactly do you have to be, to be "good" at math?
Now, admittedly, there might not always be a good way to solve this problem; sometimes you are just stuck with crappy definitions for words. I do believe, however, that you should at least try to define your argument in such a way that everyone understands what you mean and that everyone can agree on what they are arguing about.
Problem #3: Over-sensitivity
This is the last and probably most problematic part of debating. People get angry too quickly.
If you are someone who likes to have a good debate, you will probably have come across this problem several times in your life. People always take the thing you are debating personally. That is, when you try to prove your side of the argument, they assume that you are attacking them personally. This is hardly ever the case when you are dealing with a passionate debater. We merely seek a bit of cognitive exercise in the form of quick-thinking and fact-relaying.
It also frequently happens that people who like to debate will argue any side of the debate, regardless of whether they actually agree with it or not. See, the thing is, we don't typically even care about the topic being debated; we just want to participate in the debate, and therefore don't mind playing devils-advocate every once in a while.
In conclusion:
A good debate is something to be cherished; it represents the collective knowledge of a group of people interacting with each other to ultimately decide which side of an argument is the correct one.
Now that you know the common pitfalls of an argument, I hope all of you will take this article as a warning and practice proper debating principles. In fact, you should share this article with your friends and family, lest they should be isolated from the knowledge of how to properly conduct a debate.
From problem one i can see that discrete structures is getting to you
ReplyDeleteIndeed... It's getting to me xD
Delete