When debating, we should always use the rules of Boolean logic / algebra

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sure, but RFers frequently break the simpler rules, so it would be good to start there...

Good grief ...

 

[icehorse]

Good grief ...

Another elucidating and unambiguous post from the king of sanctimony. Why make such a post at all?

 

[icehorse]

I just did in the post you replied to.

Oh, Pluto? If so, I would sort of agree. That debate concerns semantics, correct? Within that debate, there would probably be times when the debater uses logic, correct? At those times, the debater should follow boolean rules.

So I guess I need to amend the OP to something like: When using logic, we ought to follow boolean rules.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh, Pluto? If so, I would sort of agree. That debate concerns semantics, correct? Within that debate, there would probably be times when the debater uses logic, correct? At those times, the debater should follow boolean rules.

You asked me an an example of a debate that doesn't use logic and the one I provised are Whovians debating who the the Doctor is. It's ultimately subjective with no Natural Laws to guide the discussion.

 

[icehorse]

You asked me an an example of a debate that doesn't use logic and the one I provised are Whovians debating who the the Doctor is. It's ultimately subjective with no Natural Laws to guide the discussion.

Would you agree that during the course of a Whovian discussion / debate there will be moments when logic is used?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Would you agree that during the course of a Whovian discussion / debate there will be moments when logic is used?

Not really if it's something based in opinion, emotion and subjectivity.

 

[icehorse]

Not really if it's something based in opinion, emotion and subjectivity.

Perhaps it's just semantics, but I would say that if a conversation is all about opinions, emotions, and subjectivity, then it's not really a debate.

As another poster mentioned earlier, a debate uses evidence.

That said, I bet that if you had an ear out during a Whovian discussion, you'd discover moments when the discussion turned into a debate, even if ever so briefly.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Perhaps it's just semantics, but I would say that if a conversation is all about opinions, emotions, and subjectivity, then it's not really a debate.

Tell that to art critics.

 

[icehorse]

Tell that to art critics.

Yeah, that's probably correct

But let me ask you this, when a debater DOES use logic, do you think it's ever okay for them to intentionally misuse logic?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Yeah, that's probably correct

But let me ask you this, when a debater DOES use logic, do you think it's ever okay for them to intentionally misuse logic?

I'd like to answer this too, if people will allow it!

My answer will likely be different than @Shadow Wolf 's, but....

It depends on how logic is being misused. If people are intentionally debating in bad faith and using logic in doing this, it's a misuse of logic, most likely.

However, I've also seen really experienced debaters, who know when the rules apply, when they don't, and when they can be "bent" a bit. They often believe that not all rules of logic are created equally, as well, I think, and explore additional nuances along the way. So I'm prone to believe that occasionally bending a rule of logic might be "okay" if you both know what you're doing, and know how to explain it, using examples demonstrating how the rule of logic being "bent" is useful.

For the beginners at logic and debate that are out there, though..... It's not really something I'd recommend to a beginner, though.

 

[Heyo]

Yeah, that's probably correct

But let me ask you this, when a debater DOES use logic, do you think it's ever okay for them to intentionally misuse logic?

A part of humour is defying expectations. So, misusing logic can be a great way to create comedy.

(But be reluctant to laugh on RF, the misuse may have been unintentional and it's frowned upon to laugh at stupidity.)