{"id":66058,"date":"2015-03-19T19:04:26","date_gmt":"2015-03-20T03:04:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=66058"},"modified":"2015-03-19T19:04:26","modified_gmt":"2015-03-20T03:04:26","slug":"the-two-honest-forms-of-argument","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/?p=66058","title":{"rendered":"The Two Honest Forms Of Argument"},"content":{"rendered":"

John T. Reed writes<\/a>: There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:<\/p>\n

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent\u2019s facts
\n2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent\u2019s logic<\/p>\n

Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics are typically employed by dishonest politicians, lawyers of guilty parties, dishonest salespeople, cads, cults, and others who are attempting to perpetrate a fraud. My real estate opponents, in general, are either charlatans or con men. As such, they have no choice but to employ intellectually-dishonest tactics both to prove that I am wrong and to persuade you to buy their products and services. My coaching opponents are generally not charlatans or con men, but many are quite political. Other coaches denounce me because I denounced some approach they use and they cannot admit they were wrong. Those who dislike my military views are also career politicians notwithstanding their claims to be \u201cselfless servant warriors.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here is a list of the intellectually-dishonest debate tactics I have identified thus far. I would appreciate any help from readers to expand the list or to better define each tactic. I am numbering the list in order to refer back to it quickly elsewhere at this Web site.<\/p>\n

Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that \u201cdream stealers\u201d will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is \u201cnegative;\u201d in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word \u201cprofessor\u201d is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being \u201ctoo intense,\u201d a common put-down of successful youth and high school coaches. People who criticize their former employer are dishonestly dismissed as \u201cdisgruntled\u201d or \u201cbitter.\u201d These are all efforts to distract the audience by changing the subject because the speaker cannot refute the facts or logic of the opponent.<\/p>\n

Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating, but admits to no change of subject and pretends to be refuting the original on-subject statement of his opponent<\/p>\n

Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2 changing the subject; as stated above, it is prohibited by Robert\u2019s Rule of Order 43; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, \u201cThey\u2019re just trying to sell newspapers\u201d or in my case, books\u2014questioning motives is not always wrong; only when it is used to prove the opponent\u2019s facts or logic wrong is it invalid. If my facts or logic are wrong, my motive may be the answer to why. But let\u2019s cut out the middleman of why my facts or logic are wrong and just point exactly what the error is. Pointing out the suspicious motive only indicates there is no error, just an attempt to insinuate an error by innuendo.<\/p>\n

Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2 changing the subject<\/p>\n

False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it \u201cassumes facts not in evidence\u201d<\/p>\n

Hearsay: debater cites something he heard but has not confirmed through his own personal observation or research from reliable sources, e.g., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid\u2019s allegation that a Bain Capital investor whom he refuses to name told him that Mitt Romney has not paid any taxes for ten years.<\/p>\n

Unqualified expert opinion: debater gives or cites an apparently expert opinion which is not from a qualified expert; in court, an expert must prove his qualifications and be certified by the judge before he can give an opinion<\/p>\n

Sloganeering: Debater uses a slogan rather than using facts or logic. Slogans are vague sentences or phrases that derive their power from rhetorical devices like alliteration, repetition, cadence, or rhyming; Rich Dad Poor Dad\u2019s \u201cDon\u2019t work for money, make money work for you\u201d is a classic example. In sports, coaches frequently rely on cliches, a less rhetorical form of slogan, to deflect criticism.<\/p>\n

Motivation end justifies dishonest means: debater admits he is lying or using fallacious logic but excuses this on the grounds that he is motivating the audience to accomplish a good thing and that end justifies the intellectually-dishonest means<\/p>\n

Cult of personality: debater attempts to make the likability of each debate opponent the focus of the debate because he believes he is more likable than the opponent<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

John T. Reed writes: There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics: 1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent\u2019s facts 2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent\u2019s logic Intellectually-dishonest debate tactics are typically employed by dishonest politicians, lawyers … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[29658],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66058","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-speech"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66058","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=66058"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66058\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":66059,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66058\/revisions\/66059"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=66058"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=66058"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lukeford.net\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=66058"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}