Debate Guide: Don't be too rational - Revision history

The Admins: /* Common hacks */

2025-01-02T10:27:18Z

Common hacks

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:27, 2 January 2025
Line 20:		Line 20:

	*'''[[Research\|Authority]]''' - Scientific/scholarly authority does not confer a logical advantage, but the most esteemed literature basically supports our position when methodological flaws in lesser studies are controlled for. Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics, or even repeated in the news media, supported by government statistics, etc. Our [[research]] section and [[Adverse effects of hysteria\|adverse effects]] article are good starting points for this kind of information, and should be frequently updated with fresh examples. If covering a particular subject, target-search some of the more supportive authors for more recent contributions.		*'''[[Research\|Authority]]''' - Scientific/scholarly authority does not confer a logical advantage, but the most esteemed literature basically supports our position when methodological flaws in lesser studies are controlled for. Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics, or even repeated in the news media, supported by government statistics, etc. Our [[research]] section and [[Adverse effects of hysteria\|adverse effects]] article are good starting points for this kind of information, and should be frequently updated with fresh examples. If covering a particular subject, target-search some of the more supportive authors for more recent contributions.

			==Lowbrow audiences==

	Debates with audiences who may be seen as "tabloid readers", "alt-right", "alt-left", "underclass" ([[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|not recommended]], unless for troll/agitprop type interactions) should avoid all advanced use of rational devices. Many such individuals strongly believe that intellectualism is itself a form of child (sexual) abuse that "encourages [[degeneracy]]". In fact, any use of reason with such an audience should be restricted to the clearest and most striking of maxims, folk/[[Wikipedia:Truthiness\|truthiness]] rationalizations and factoids, and '''never veer from lived experience'''. Imagine you are trying to explain yourself to the cast of [[Wikipedia:Gogglebox\|Gogglebox]] or [[Wikipedia:Aussie Gold Hunters\|Aussie Gold Hunters]].		Debates with audiences who may be seen as "tabloid readers", "alt-right", "alt-left", "underclass" ([[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|not recommended]], unless for troll/agitprop type interactions) should avoid all advanced use of rational devices. Many such individuals strongly believe that intellectualism is itself a form of child (sexual) abuse that "encourages [[degeneracy]]". In fact, any use of reason with such an audience should be restricted to the clearest and most striking of maxims, folk/[[Wikipedia:Truthiness\|truthiness]] rationalizations and factoids, and '''never veer from lived experience'''. Imagine you are trying to explain yourself to the cast of [[Wikipedia:Gogglebox\|Gogglebox]] or [[Wikipedia:Aussie Gold Hunters\|Aussie Gold Hunters]].

The Admins: /* Common hacks */

2025-01-02T10:25:22Z

Common hacks

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, 2 January 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Here are a number of irrational devices you can use in your debates:		Here are a number of irrational devices you can use in your debates:

	*'''Your own experiences''' - You can argue from your own personal experience. This can be touted as the ''very reason'' you want to press forward an argument. This technique is unlikely to work for sex offenders, but may help increase understanding of non-offending pedophiles ~~and~~ adults with experiences of [[Accounts and Testimonies\|childhood/teenage "abuse"]] ~~they recall fondly~~. Remember, ~~because we~~ do not know how certain arguments pertain to ''your'' experiences~~, our~~ guide does not mention personal experiences as often as ''you'' should.		*'''Your own experiences''' - You can argue from your own personal experience. This can be touted as the ''very reason'' you want to press forward an argument. This technique is unlikely to work for the most "deviant" sex offenders, but may help increase understanding of ''non-offending'' pedophiles/hebephiles, also adults with experiences of [[Accounts and Testimonies\|childhood/teenage "abuse"]] that do not concord with the victimhood model. Remember, as social-researchers, Newgon do not know how certain arguments pertain to ''your'' experiences. Our guide does not mention personal experiences as often as ''you'' should.

	*'''[[Accounts and Testimonies\|~~Reproduced~~ anecdotes]]''' - As detailed above, people are more willing to learn from personal experiences and spoken word. The arguments of a remote layman who could have any number of motives are likely to be ignored if they are not shown to pertain to real life.		*'''Other peoples' [[Accounts and Testimonies\|reproduced anecdotes]]''' - As detailed above, people are more willing to learn from personal experiences and spoken word. The arguments of a remote layman who could have any number of motives are likely to be ignored if they are not shown to pertain to real-life.

	*'''Thinking of the Children''' - It is irrational to base a whole argument around its implications on children. However, arguing that "even though it may have been slightly disturbing but harmless for the kid, the adult enjoyed it so much it was worthwhile" is [[Ethical inclusivist argument\|one form of rationality]] that should be checked at the door.		*'''Thinking of the Children''' - It is irrational to base a whole argument around its implications for "children". However, arguing that "even though it may have been slightly disturbing but harmless for the kid, the adult enjoyed it so much it was worthwhile" is [[Ethical inclusivist argument\|one form of rationality]] that should be checked at the door.

	*'''[[Research\|Authority]]''' - Scientific/scholarly authority does not confer a logical advantage, but the most esteemed literature basically supports our position when methodological flaws in lesser studies are controlled for. Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics, or even repeated in the news media, supported by government statistics, etc. Our [[research]] section and [[Adverse effects of hysteria\|adverse effects]] article are good starting points for this kind of information, and should be frequently updated with fresh examples. If covering a particular subject, target-search some of the more supportive authors for more recent contributions.		*'''[[Research\|Authority]]''' - Scientific/scholarly authority does not confer a logical advantage, but the most esteemed literature basically supports our position when methodological flaws in lesser studies are controlled for. Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics, or even repeated in the news media, supported by government statistics, etc. Our [[research]] section and [[Adverse effects of hysteria\|adverse effects]] article are good starting points for this kind of information, and should be frequently updated with fresh examples. If covering a particular subject, target-search some of the more supportive authors for more recent contributions.

	Debates with audiences who may be seen as "tabloid readers", "alt-right", "alt-left", "underclass" ([[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|not recommended]], unless for troll/agitprop type interactions) should avoid ~~any~~ advanced use of rational devices. In fact, any use of reason with such an audience should be restricted to the clearest and most striking of maxims, folk/[[Wikipedia:Truthiness\|truthiness]] rationalizations and factoids. Imagine you are trying to explain yourself to the cast of [[Wikipedia:Gogglebox\|Gogglebox]] or [[Wikipedia:Aussie Gold Hunters\|Aussie Gold Hunters]].		Debates with audiences who may be seen as "tabloid readers", "alt-right", "alt-left", "underclass" ([[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|not recommended]], unless for troll/agitprop type interactions) should avoid all advanced use of rational devices. Many such individuals strongly believe that intellectualism is itself a form of child (sexual) abuse that "encourages [[degeneracy]]". In fact, any use of reason with such an audience should be restricted to the clearest and most striking of maxims, folk/[[Wikipedia:Truthiness\|truthiness]] rationalizations and factoids, and '''never veer from lived experience'''. Imagine you are trying to explain yourself to the cast of [[Wikipedia:Gogglebox\|Gogglebox]] or [[Wikipedia:Aussie Gold Hunters\|Aussie Gold Hunters]].

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]

	[[fr:Guide de débat: Ne soyez pas trop rationnel]]		[[fr:Guide de débat: Ne soyez pas trop rationnel]]

The Admins at 19:49, 28 May 2024

2024-05-28T19:49:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 28 May 2024
Line 21:		Line 21:
	*'''[[Research\|Authority]]''' - Scientific/scholarly authority does not confer a logical advantage, but the most esteemed literature basically supports our position when methodological flaws in lesser studies are controlled for. Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics, or even repeated in the news media, supported by government statistics, etc. Our [[research]] section and [[Adverse effects of hysteria\|adverse effects]] article are good starting points for this kind of information, and should be frequently updated with fresh examples. If covering a particular subject, target-search some of the more supportive authors for more recent contributions.		*'''[[Research\|Authority]]''' - Scientific/scholarly authority does not confer a logical advantage, but the most esteemed literature basically supports our position when methodological flaws in lesser studies are controlled for. Opponents/passive readers are more likely to believe an argument if it is supported by credentialed academics, or even repeated in the news media, supported by government statistics, etc. Our [[research]] section and [[Adverse effects of hysteria\|adverse effects]] article are good starting points for this kind of information, and should be frequently updated with fresh examples. If covering a particular subject, target-search some of the more supportive authors for more recent contributions.

	Debates with audiences who may be seen as "tabloid readers", "alt-right", "alt-left", "underclass" ([[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|not recommended]], unless for troll/agitprop type interactions) should avoid any advanced use of rational devices. In fact, any use of reason with such an audience should be restricted to the clearest and most striking of maxims, folk/truthiness rationalizations and factoids.		Debates with audiences who may be seen as "tabloid readers", "alt-right", "alt-left", "underclass" ([[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|not recommended]], unless for troll/agitprop type interactions) should avoid any advanced use of rational devices. In fact, any use of reason with such an audience should be restricted to the clearest and most striking of maxims, folk/[[Wikipedia:Truthiness\|truthiness]] rationalizations and factoids. Imagine you are trying to explain yourself to the cast of [[Wikipedia:Gogglebox\|Gogglebox]] or [[Wikipedia:Aussie Gold Hunters\|Aussie Gold Hunters]].

	[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]		[[Category:Debate]][[Category: Debate Advice & Technique]]

	[[fr:Guide de débat: Ne soyez pas trop rationnel]]		[[fr:Guide de débat: Ne soyez pas trop rationnel]]

The Admins at 19:43, 28 May 2024

2024-05-28T19:43:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:43, 28 May 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Image:Totc.JPG\|frame\|[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children Think of the Children!]]]The most vehement '''moral realists''' and '''"child savers"''' frequently win debates, public policy changes and media adulation, not because their arguments ''are'' irrational but because some of the most irrational parts of their arguments are at the same time extremely powerful. ~~This is because most~~ people (as a result of low intelligence and/or poor education) do not have the ability to reason beyond "making sense" of an argument at the point it enters their head. ~~Most people~~ do not have the ability or ~~the goodwill~~ to ~~challenge~~ widely held beliefs by employing [~~https~~:~~//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/~~Deductive_reasoning deductive reasoning]. While ~~the~~ level of reasoning ability ~~does depend~~ on ~~your audience~~ (see [[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|starting a debate]]), there is a practical need for irrationality in just about any debate. Dry reason alone is not likely to overcome the most entrenched taboo of the last two centuries.		[[Image:Totc.JPG\|frame\|[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children Think of the Children!]]]The most vehement '''moral realists''' and '''"child savers"''' frequently win debates, public policy changes and media adulation. This is not ''because'' their arguments are irrational but because some of the most irrational parts of their arguments are at the same time extremely powerful when articulated with grit and passion.

			Most people, as a result of low intelligence and/or poor education, do not have the ability to reason beyond "making sense" of an argument at the '''point it enters their head'''. They do not have the ability, patience or good faith to question widely held beliefs by employing [[Wikipedia:Deductive_reasoning\|deductive reasoning]].

			While your readers' level of reasoning ability depends on the platform (Reddit has higher levels of debate-literacy than TikTok, etc, see [[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|starting a debate]]), there is a practical need for irrationality in just about any debate. Dry reason alone is not likely to overcome the most entrenched taboo of the last two centuries.

	==Plausibility==		==Plausibility==

The Admins at 21:09, 1 August 2022

2022-08-01T21:09:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:09, 1 August 2022
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Plausibility==		==Plausibility==

	When working from a debate guide, ''plausibility'' is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as:		When working from a debate guide, ''plausibility'' is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as offering the response a sharp, alert, but '''relatively disinterested person''' could have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge they are facing, then all the better. For example, immediately choking up a link to a research article on this wiki, or even reproducing a list of citations without linking to us (the preferred technique) might not play out as you had wished. There is such a thing as being perceived as ''knowing too much'' about a topic to be credible. At first, you might want to argue from commonsense - or more specifically, work some of our arguments into a commonsense rebuttal. Say that "many studies and surveys suggest" what you are contending, and offer to go looking if your opponent wants citations.

	~~:''"~~offering the response a sharp, alert, but '''relatively disinterested person ~~could~~''' have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge they are facing~~"''~~

	~~...~~then all the better. For example, immediately choking up a link to a research article on this wiki, or even reproducing a list of citations without linking to us (the preferred technique) might not play out as you had wished. There is such a thing as being perceived as ''knowing too much'' about a topic to be credible. At first, you might want to argue from commonsense - or more specifically, work some of our arguments into a commonsense rebuttal. Say that "many studies and surveys suggest" what you are contending, and offer to go looking if your opponent wants citations.

	==Common hacks==		==Common hacks==

The Admins at 00:26, 18 April 2022

2022-04-18T00:26:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:26, 18 April 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[Image:Totc.JPG\|frame\|Think of the Children!]]The most vehement '''moral realists''' and '''"child savers"''' frequently win debates, public policy changes and media adulation, not because their arguments ''are'' irrational but because some of the most irrational parts of their arguments are at the same time extremely powerful. This is because most people (as a result of low intelligence and/or poor education) do not have the ability to reason beyond "making sense" of an argument at the point it enters their head. Most people do not have the ability or the goodwill to challenge widely held beliefs by employing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning deductive reasoning]. While the level of reasoning ability does depend on your audience (see [[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|starting a debate]]), there is a practical need for irrationality in just about any debate. Dry reason alone is not likely to overcome the most entrenched taboo of the last two centuries.		[[Image:Totc.JPG\|frame\|[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children Think of the Children!]]]The most vehement '''moral realists''' and '''"child savers"''' frequently win debates, public policy changes and media adulation, not because their arguments ''are'' irrational but because some of the most irrational parts of their arguments are at the same time extremely powerful. This is because most people (as a result of low intelligence and/or poor education) do not have the ability to reason beyond "making sense" of an argument at the point it enters their head. Most people do not have the ability or the goodwill to challenge widely held beliefs by employing [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning deductive reasoning]. While the level of reasoning ability does depend on your audience (see [[Debate Guide: Starting a debate\|starting a debate]]), there is a practical need for irrationality in just about any debate. Dry reason alone is not likely to overcome the most entrenched taboo of the last two centuries.

	==Plausibility==		==Plausibility==

JohnHolt: /* Plausibility */

2021-10-22T15:30:51Z

Plausibility

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:30, 22 October 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:
	==Plausibility==		==Plausibility==

	When working from a debate guide, ''plausibility'' is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks ~~like something~~ like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as:		When working from a debate guide, ''plausibility'' is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as:

	:''"offering the response a sharp, alert, but '''relatively disinterested person could''' have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge they are facing"''		:''"offering the response a sharp, alert, but '''relatively disinterested person could''' have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge they are facing"''

JohnHolt: /* Common hacks */

2021-10-09T00:01:09Z

Common hacks

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:01, 9 October 2021
Line 11:		Line 11:
	==Common hacks==		==Common hacks==

	Here are a number of irrational devices ~~that~~ you can use in your debates:		Here are a number of irrational devices you can use in your debates:

	*'''Your own experiences''' - You can argue from your own personal experience. This can be touted as the ''very reason'' you want to press forward an argument. This technique is unlikely to work for sex offenders, but may help increase understanding of non-offending pedophiles and adults with experiences of [[Accounts and Testimonies\|childhood/teenage "abuse"]] they recall fondly. Remember, because we do not know how certain arguments pertain to ''your'' experiences, our guide does not mention personal experiences as often as ''you'' should.		*'''Your own experiences''' - You can argue from your own personal experience. This can be touted as the ''very reason'' you want to press forward an argument. This technique is unlikely to work for sex offenders, but may help increase understanding of non-offending pedophiles and adults with experiences of [[Accounts and Testimonies\|childhood/teenage "abuse"]] they recall fondly. Remember, because we do not know how certain arguments pertain to ''your'' experiences, our guide does not mention personal experiences as often as ''you'' should.

JohnHolt: /* Plausibility */

2021-10-08T23:59:44Z

Plausibility

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 8 October 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:
	When working from a debate guide, ''plausibility'' is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks like something like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as:		When working from a debate guide, ''plausibility'' is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks like something like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as:

	:''"offering the response a sharp, alert, but '''relatively disinterested person could''' have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge ~~you~~ are facing"''		:''"offering the response a sharp, alert, but '''relatively disinterested person could''' have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge they are facing"''

	...then all the better. For example, immediately choking up a link to a research article on this wiki, or even reproducing a list of citations without linking to us (the preferred technique) might not play out as you had wished. There is such a thing as being perceived as ''knowing too much'' about a topic to be credible. At first, you might want to argue from commonsense - or more specifically, work some of our arguments into a commonsense rebuttal. Say that "many studies and surveys suggest" what you are contending, and offer to go looking if your opponent wants citations.		...then all the better. For example, immediately choking up a link to a research article on this wiki, or even reproducing a list of citations without linking to us (the preferred technique) might not play out as you had wished. There is such a thing as being perceived as ''knowing too much'' about a topic to be credible. At first, you might want to argue from commonsense - or more specifically, work some of our arguments into a commonsense rebuttal. Say that "many studies and surveys suggest" what you are contending, and offer to go looking if your opponent wants citations.

JohnHolt: /* Plausibility */

2021-10-08T23:59:06Z

Plausibility

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:59, 8 October 2021
Line 5:		Line 5:
	When working from a debate guide, ''plausibility'' is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks like something like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as:		When working from a debate guide, ''plausibility'' is something all too easily overlooked. The ideal reply in a comment thread or on a bulletin board probably looks like something like a cross between the arguments within this guide, and a casual response on social media. If you can be perceived as:

	:''"offering a response a sharp, alert, but '''relatively~~'''~~ disinterested person ~~'''~~could''' have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge you are facing"''		:''"offering the response a sharp, alert, but '''relatively disinterested person could''' have made naturally, given the audience and the challenge you are facing"''

	...then all the better. For example, immediately choking up a link to a research article on this wiki, or even reproducing a list of citations without linking to us (the preferred technique) might not play out as you had wished. There is such a thing as being perceived as ''knowing too much'' about a topic to be credible. At first, you might want to argue from commonsense - or more specifically, work some of our arguments into a commonsense rebuttal. Say that "many studies and surveys suggest" what you are contending, and offer to go looking if your opponent wants citations.		...then all the better. For example, immediately choking up a link to a research article on this wiki, or even reproducing a list of citations without linking to us (the preferred technique) might not play out as you had wished. There is such a thing as being perceived as ''knowing too much'' about a topic to be credible. At first, you might want to argue from commonsense - or more specifically, work some of our arguments into a commonsense rebuttal. Say that "many studies and surveys suggest" what you are contending, and offer to go looking if your opponent wants citations.