The "Kangaroo Court" Debate Style

[PoetPhilosopher]

Now if a person on the other side does get really pushy, though...

Me, I suppose I'd just tell them, "But I'm not necessarily trying to convince you of it. I'm simply making my case to the crowd by responding."

Sometimes, I think focusing too much on the debate opponent can become a distraction.

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, Greek philosophers also put an emphasis on the middle path being the road to virtue. It was kind of their whole thing, culturally. Others took the perspective that provided something is well-reasoned, there is no need to exclude what is perceived to be extreme, especially since "extreme" is principally a matter of one's frame of reference.

In medio stat virtus.

 

[Heyo]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

That's quite a set of truth claims you are making there.
Are you going to provide any evidence for them?

 

[We Never Know]

The debate should be based upon mutual respect.
And on the premise that both debaters, both interlocutors have the same rights, the same intellectual value.

If a debater starts the debate by saying: "I am superior to you, because I am God and you are nothing, so whatever you're going to say, it will not be considered reliable, even if you bring me tons of evidence", well...then there is no a real, equal debate founded upon ethical pillars.
But it's a monologue where a debater belittles the other.

"I am superior to you, because I am God and you are nothing"

Or as I have seen here several.times...
You believe in God. That tells me your IQ is lower and you lack in critical thinking skills"

I laugh every time I read something along those lines.

 

[MikeF]

At the end of the day, there's only a personal answer to that question. At least as far as I've been able to discern, any standard of "reasoning well" is made up. While there have been philosophical schools arguing there is something approaching objectively existing ideals or standards - say, that reason is an inherent property of the universe that can be discovered like mathematics can - I'm not convinced the human limits of knowledge would permit accurately identifying or knowing one knows such ideals anyway. And what does it even matter to have such immutable ideals or standards in a world that is in a state of constant change and transformation? There's something to be said for the comfort and peace of mind or sense of security that believe in "objective" things grants - whether it's "objective reality" or "objective morality" or "objective reasoning standards" or whatever. Not really my jive, but the concrete thinkers are all over it.

Yes, any standard is made up. If there is no standard, then there is no condition of having done something well. In a world without any shared or mutual standard, well, good, right, wrong have no meaning for society as an entity. There does not have to be a requirement that a standard exist objectively, independent of human thought, it simply has to be mutually agreed upon for it to exist and be useful.

If reasoning is merely rationalizing personal subjective preference, then no standard is required. If we agree, however, that the goal of reasoning is to arrive at some objectively true understanding, then we can come up with mechanisms by which we can evaluate whether or not the goal is being achieved and consequently make a determination as to whether the reasoning was done well.

 

[MikeF]

Everyone can [be wrong].

Excellent. We agree.

We don’t know or we wouldn’t be wrong, would we.

I asked "If so [people can be wrong], how do we know?"

I find your answer confusing, for you have agreed that all people have the capacity to be wrong, yet here you seem to contradict by saying we [people] actually do not have a way of knowing when we are wrong.

I would suggest, conflicting objective claims might be an indication to both parties that a least one or both are wrong. If that can be recognized then an effort can be made to reconcile those conflicting claims.

Certainly not by railroading others into our own little kangaroo court so we can always be right.

No, I agree that that would not be a solution. What is required are mechanism that can help mitigate our fallible individual subjective perspective.

I'm sure you'll deny such mechanisms are available to us. I would disagree.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Can anyone ever be wrong, misinformed, insufficiently informed, succumb to self-deception, become entrenched in confirmation bias?

If so, how do we know? Or perhaps it is better to ask, how is that determination made?

We all can. And we are all quick to see these faults in others, and exceedingly slow to recognise them in ourselves.

 

[MikeF]

We all can. And we are all quick to see these faults in others, and exceedingly slow to recognise them in ourselves.

Great. We are in agreement that anyone and everyone can be wrong at least sometimes and about some things.

How is it know when this occurs? How is wrongness established?

 

[wellwisher]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

This is why I have a beef with statistical, fuzzy dice and casino science and casino social science arguments. These do not use solid data, but rely on fuzzy dice data; margin of error. This is why they need a consensus; fuzzy dice science and politics. Science is about evidence of even one; Galileo; earth is not the center of the universe, and not a consensus of 99% consensus; earth is flat and the center of the universe. Casino science is often based on theory stemming from half baked data. This has downgraded science. If you factor out technology Physics peaked in the 1920's, due to the movement toward fuzzy dice data. Einstein warned them were he said he did not believe God chose to play dice with the universe. Or nature is logical and not based on fuzzy dice and casino math.

For example, when government or think tank studies start to project the social cost of CO2, in terms of health and mortality, this is not hard data. It makes use of the fear of the bogeyman; mortality, along with fuzzy dice data and fuzzy dice correlations, to add subjectivity. Ask them to point to a specific person? Fuzzy dice makes it too easy to cheat and game the system, with every con artist willing to sign up as part of the consensus.

If we took away this fuzzy dice game play from science, many areas of science would be dead in the water. Yet people assume much of this is settled science, due to the illusions of fuzzy dice. I have suggested we try science without this, but no takers.

As far as a Kangaroo court, a good modern day example is what we had in NYC against Donald Trump. The legal statute they used, had been used about 100 times, but in this case, it did not have any direct victims; zero tangible data. The other 99 cases had real people directly harmed. This case relied on Liberal subjective bias of fuzzy dice, of what may have been or could have been. However, nothing solid or tangible was presented. It was a farce based on who was in power; Kangaroo Court with a pre-planned result.

What the political Left did to Elon Musk was another fuzzy dice deal of a Kangaroo Court. His compensation had been connected to him leading his company, to certain objective and tangible financial milestones for the investors. He met those criteria, in terms of stock prices and company value. He, by hard data, earned his compensation; the original solid objective criteria deal. But the Kangaroo Court of Liberalism, added fuzzy dice variables, not in the contract, to steal his compensation, like thieves in the night. This was payback for Twitter and not censoring as ordered.

Recently, an FBI asset who had been used for years by the FBI, and who was considered a reliable and well paid source, all of a sudden was found suspect in terms of his hard evidence of the Biden Family business being paid by a Ukrainian Oligarch when President Biden was VP under Obama.

Why did it take so long, since the FBI had the data since VP Biden? Why was the FBI still using this asset for years after he made the original claim? Something is not right with that, especially with the Biden family business now being questioned by the House. It is connected to the potential $80 billion going to Ukraine; quid pro quo Joe, and a new deal of evidence tampering for the money? This is the only one, of many IRS accusations, but this is the one with the most $$$$ in play connected to President Biden.

Say the reliable FBI source had hard data, which explain why the FBI continued to use him. Now say the evidence was destroyed; evidence tampering. Now say the FBI and source had no hard data, and you were working against a Kangaroo Court that plays with fuzzy dice. Who will win now?

The infamous gangster Al Capone could get away with murder in court, since he would steal and destroy hard evidence and intimidate or kill witnesses. Therefore a rational court, back then, that had to use the hard data criteria, could not proceed, since it lost its main source of objective data. While defense lawyers and criminals lie and use subjectivity standards to create reasonable doubt, due to no evidence and no witnesses. If the Government is not objective but is the criminal, we have no hope for a fair trial. Their Kangaroo Court can rig any game, destroy any evidence, and even destroy any once reliable witnesses. This is not Democracy but a Banana Republic.

These three cases show the full spectrum of Kangaroo courts; false accusations, stealing, evidence and witness tampering. These all happened as planned by the Kangaroo Courts, with Trump polls improving, since most people see the injustice and damage caused by Kangaroo Courts.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Great. We are in agreement that anyone and everyone can be wrong at least sometimes and about some things.

How is it know when this occurs? How is wrongness established?

I would go further, and say that we’re probably more often wrong than right. That we are all feeling our way in the dark, and that anyone claiming with certainty that this or that point of view is the only correct one, should be treated with great suspicion.

 

[Altfish]

The debate should be based upon mutual respect.
And on the premise that both debaters, both interlocutors have the same rights, the same intellectual value.

You may start a debate with those values, BUT it can become apparent that one or both have dubious intellectual value and may thus lose their rights.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it's time that someone called this debate 'style' to the forefront and exposed it for what it is. Not just because it's an absurdly unfair and unproductive debate methodology, but because it's a symptom of a much deeper and broader intellectual failure.

But let's start with what it is.

I ask you for, or otherwise catch you making a statement about reality/truth that you have chosen to accept as real and true for yourself, via your experience and understanding of life.

I then proclaim that since you are positing this "truth claim" for us to witness, that you are then responsible for convincing us/me of it's truthfulness. (Even though I have no intention of ever accepting it as being true, and I have every intention of opposing your effort to do so by any means I can muster, because I have already decided that your truth claim is false.)

You may offer your reasoning in support of your truth, but it will be opposed and deemed invalid because the criteria for it's validity will be mine. Not yours.

Then, when you fail to convince me of something I never intended to be convinced of, I declare to you, to all, and especially to myself that your truth claim is invalid because you failed to convince me of it's validity (failed to prove it) according to MY rules and MY requirements for establishing validity and for achieving the level required to stand as 'proof'.

Notice that I am in charge of everything. And that I am not to be questioned. It's YOU who is on trial. And ME who is deciding your fate.

And if those of you who are reading this are being honest about it, you will already have acknowledged that we see this tactic being used ALL THE TIME on the many debate threads on this site. And if you're really being honest, you will have acknowledged also that it is a very common tactic used by those opposed to any sort of religious truth claim. And that it's a dishonestly rigged debate tactic from top to bottom.

1. It starts right off by insisting that anyone that offers any concept of truth, however remotely or internally held, is positing a truth claim expecting everyone else on the planet to immediately accept and adopt as the absolute and undeniable truth. When in fact this is almost never the case. In nearly every instance, such claims are nothing more then an internalized opinion that one has chosen to hold onto as a workable possibility. Very few of us actually assume without any doubt that our truth is the truth for everyone. There are a few, I'm sure, but not many.

But the "Kangaroo Courtsters" never bother to ask the degree to which anyone's conception of truth is being offered. Or the conviction with which it's being held. Because these forms of mitigation undercut their goal of setting up their all-powerful "Kangaroo court" debate style. And consequently to play the unquestionable and undeniable judge and jury within it. To 'condemn the accused' (to producing "proof") before the trial even begins.

Then, if the 'accused' is foolish enough to enter the trap, every piece of "evidence" or reasoning he offers will be determined to be invalid by the criteria for evidence and reason being imposed by the clearly biased and antagonistic "judge". So that whatever evidence is offered as support will be turned into evidence against (because it's been deemed 'invalid'). The whole process is a biased farce intended to stroke the ego of the kangaroo court judge at the expense of the 'accused' truth proclaimer.

And when it's over the only winner is the judge's ego, as nothing was shared or learned by either participant regarding reality or truth.

So the next time someone says to you "the burden of proof is on you" ... beware. Because they are very likely inviting you into their Kangaroo courtroom, where they have no intention whatever of considering anything you might actually have to offer them in terms of understanding realty or truth. But instead intend just to feed their ego and ignorance at your expense.

This sounds like an expression of frustration from someone who often takes irrational positions.

In a public debate - and everything on RF is public to some extent except for private messages - the person making an argument typically has one of two goals:

- convince their opponent to accept the argument, OR
- convince the audience that a reasonable person would accept the argument.

You often take unreasonable positions. Debating with you is like peeling an onion of irrationality: try to address one absolutely wild opinion and we discover that it was covering a whole stack of even wilder opinions.

I often feel like trying to get you to accept a rational position you don't already agree with would take a lifetime of work, and I just don't care enough about you, random person being wrong on the internet, to put that kind of effort in.

Because you're often so unreasonable, it's much easier for people debating you to take the second approach: convince the audience that a reasonable person would accept their argument... which generally has the implication that you're being unreasonable.

I get why this would be frustrating for you, but people who take this approach aren't doing anything wrong.

 

[MikeF]

I would go further, and say that we’re probably more often wrong than right. That we are all feeling our way in the dark, and that anyone claiming with certainty that this or that point of view is the only correct one, should be treated with great suspicion.

Indeed. I'm all for a perpetual posture of rational skepticism, especially towards one's self.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, any standard is made up. If there is no standard, then there is no condition of having done something well. In a world without any shared or mutual standard, well, good, right, wrong have no meaning for society as an entity. There does not have to be a requirement that a standard exist objectively, independent of human thought, it simply has to be mutually agreed upon for it to exist and be useful.

If reasoning is merely rationalizing personal subjective preference, then no standard is required. If we agree, however, that the goal of reasoning is to arrive at some objectively true understanding, then we can come up with mechanisms by which we can evaluate whether or not the goal is being achieved and consequently make a determination as to whether the reasoning was done well.

If standards are made up but agreed upon for convenience, how does that translate in to what you call "some objectively true understanding?" I don't follow.

How do you go from something that is not objective to something that somehow is? What is this supernatural magic that makes this happen without an objectively existing standard to discover that is independent of human thought?

That phrase "objectively true understanding" sounds like an oxymoron. Unpack it for us.

 

[PureX]

Excellent. We agree.

I asked "If so [people can be wrong], how do we know?"

I find your answer confusing, for you have agreed that all people have the capacity to be wrong, yet here you seem to contradict by saying we [people] actually do not have a way of knowing when we are wrong.

If we had a way to know that we are wrong, we wouldn't have been wrong in the first place.

We apply our ideas (theories) of reality and truth to our immediate experience of being, and our theories either function as real and true, or they don't, within those immediate circumstances. And that's how we decide if those ideas are "right" or "wrong". But even in that moment, we are back at square one, and not knowing that our "new" ideas of reality and truth are real and true beyond that moment. And so we continue the process of applying our theories, and seeing what results. Always playing "catch-up" and never getting ahead of the moment. Never really knowing what s 'real and true'.

This is the humans condition. Our experience of existence is limited and relative, and so we never get to know what is real and true beyond our immediate circumstances. Which are limited and relative. So this fantasy that there is an objectively real and true form of knowledge that we can somehow ascertain via logic and experiment is simply false. All we are ever going to get are more limited and relative theories about what is real and true, that we can never actually know to be real or true beyond the limits of our immediate circumstances. Every scientist understands this. The scientism crowd clearly does not understand this, and wants to fight to keep from acknowledging it.

It is this delusion that we can obtain objective knowledge of what is real and true that fuels the current obsession with the "kangaroo court" method of "debate" (which isn't about debate at all).

I would suggest, conflicting objective claims might be an indication to both parties that a least one or both are wrong.

This presumes that the truth is not "conflicting", or paradoxical. When in fact the closer to the truth we humans get, the more paradoxical it appears to us (because it s holistic beyond the capacity of our binary mental processes). So instead of avoiding paradoxical "conflict", we perhaps ought to be pursuing and embracing it.

If that can be recognized then an effort can be made to reconcile those conflicting claims.

I see no logical reason why we would need them to be 'reconciled'. The 'truth' of the A side of a coin and the truth of the B side of that coin are not reconcilable. If you can only see the A side, and I can only see the B side, then we need to share our experience and understanding of the coin with each other to gain any comprehension of the real truth of it. We don't need one view to "defeat" the other and declare itself the only or 'real' truth. Because it's not.

No, I agree that that would not be a solution. What is required are mechanism that can help mitigate our fallible individual subjective perspective.

There is no mitigating our fallibille individual subjective perspective. It's all we have. We can share the information we have, but that information s still going to be derived from a collection of fallible individual subjective perspectives. That concept is a fantasy that we humans too often prefer over the scary reality of our never knowing what is real or true beyond the immediate limitations and circumstances of our experience of being.

I'm sure you'll deny such mechanisms are available to us. I would disagree.

 

[MikeF]

If standards are made up but agreed upon for convenience, how does that translate in to what you call "some objectively true understanding?" I don't follow.

How do you go from something that is not objective to something that somehow is? What is this supernatural magic that makes this happen without an objectively existing standard to discover that is independent of human thought?

That phrase "objectively true understanding" sounds like an oxymoron. Unpack it for us.

Depends on what we are talking about. Subjective preferences are not objective, by definition, so when speaking of objective things it would start with anything that *is*, independent of what anyone thinks about it.

Objectively true would be a phrase to distinguish that which is true independent of a subjective preference or opinion. Of course it can be objectively true that a subject holds a particular subjective preference or opinion while that preference or opinion may not be objective itself or supported by a set of objective facts.

Discovery, I would say, begins with intersubjective corroboration (or contradiction as the case may be).
ETA: or exposure to an event that conflicts with our expectation and thus may prompts a re-evaluation (no guarantee though).

 

[Quintessence]

This sounds like an expression of frustration from someone who often takes irrational positions.

It really isn't.

I don't always agree with PureX's approach, but if one is unable to see the veracity of much of what they're saying here? That's symptomatic of concrete thinking - a closed mind - and exactly what they're talking about in the opening post. Declaring other cultures and concepts to be "irrational" by the standards of one's own vantage point is an outsider's judgement. Too often, humans do not take of their own pair of glasses to put on those of another. They refuse to (or are actually unable to) walk a mile in another's shoes. And in so doing, they condemn others ways of seeing and being as less-than, wrong, irrational, or whatever.

I'll grant that there are some pairs of shoes one just really doesn't want to try on. Even the most routine paradigm shifters who aim to approach understanding other cultures and concepts on their own merits rather than one's own will draw some lines so they do not go mad. I suppose some folks just have very narrow boundaries for how far outside of one's own paradigms one can stretch before madness, perhaps. So to them, anything outside of their rubber band's stress tolerance is irrational or insane because it would drive them mad. It would destroy their identity and who and what they are. Thus the defense and attack against things begins...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It really isn't.

I don't always agree with PureX's approach, but if one is unable to see the veracity of much of what they're saying here? That's symptomatic of concrete thinking - a closed mind - and exactly what they're talking about in the opening post.

"Closed-minded thinking" is a good description of @PureX 's debating style.

It's nearly impossible to have any sort of discussion with him that involves the words "faith" or "belief" because he insists that everyone uses the definitions he's come up with, and when people don't comply, he derails the thread.

If you raise valid points with him, he ignores them. If you point out that they were in fact valid, he starts shouting "kangaroo court!"

... and when everyone just kinda shrugs and doesn't engage with him, he makes threads like this one, apparently.

Edit: it seems to be about ego and deference, IMO. He's constructed an elaborate belief system for himself and if you treat it as just one person's opinion instead of unassailable truth, he freaks right out. He only interested in open-mindedness to the extent that he wants other people to treat what he's putting forward with the respect that he's decided it's due.

 

[Quintessence]

"Closed-minded thinking" is a good description of @PureX 's debating style.

It's nearly impossible to have any sort of discussion with him that involves the words "faith" or "belief" because he insists that everyone uses the definitions he's come up with, and when people don't comply, he derails the thread.

If you raise valid points with him, he ignores them. If you point out that they were in fact valid, he starts shouting "kangaroo court!"

... and when everyone just kinda shrugs and doesn't engage with him, he makes threads like this one, apparently.

Yeah, like I said, I don't always agree with their approach. It's heavy-handed for my tastes. Doesn't make the points made any less worthy, though.

 

[Estro Felino]

You may start a debate with those values, BUT it can become apparent that one or both have dubious intellectual value and may thus lose their rights.

It only happens whenever one feels superior to their own interlocutor.
I have met people who claimed they were superior to me...
even if they had just a high school diploma and could barely speak in Italian. Only in dialect.

I have a law degree and can speak 5 languages yet I don't consider myself superior to anyone.