Pyramid of Debate Refutation and counter-argument seem like they should be always valid, even if moving 'down the pyramid'. Ad Hominem and Name calling should not be OK regardless of direction. Just my thoughts

submitted by Antarchomachus from self.SaidIt

all 16 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]zyxzevn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I agree that most logical fallacies should be avoided.
Usually they are used as insults, and degrade a discussion as such.

They can also be signs of low intelligence. Like "the fact-checkers say that the covid vaccine is safe".
This is wrong:,(1) because the fact-checkers are not checking any facts, but pushing propaganda.
(2) the fact-checkers are working with big-pharma.
(3) the fact-checkers often refer to news articles (from CNN or Reuters) that are fake
(3) there is no "vaccine" (dead or weakened virus), but an experimental injection. They changed the definition.
(4) the "vaccine" does not provide immunity nor reduce the spread. So it does not even come close.
(5) actual real-world data shows that the experimental injection is very unsafe
(6) there is clear evidence of a cover-up campaign to hide the deaths and injured
(7) there is no scientific literature that supports it.
(8) you can win a million or more, if you can show evidence that the experiment is safe

The logical fallacies are often used in humor or jokes, and can actually improve the joke.
By adding a logical fallacy the joke can become more ridiculous or make a caricature of a group.
Example: "If you debate with logic you are a white supremacist or an Asian.."

[–]Rah 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

If you use a poor tool to get a job done, did the job got done or not?

Calling someone fat is an ad hominem, but may reflect on someone trying to be a physical ed teacher.

[–]FlippyKing 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Would that be an actual ad hominem? It seems more like this like this:

"You're ugly and yo momma dresses you funny!"

" Sir, that's an ad hominem!"

"Ma'am, this is a beauty contest and I'm a judge."

[–]Tiwaking 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Ma'am, this is a beauty contest and I'm a judge."

I AM THE LAW!

[–]thoughtcriminal 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm a free speech absolutist so I'm fine with all of it.

The issue with the pyramid is that not everything is meant to be a debate or even civil discourse. I don't expect people in a meme or shitposting sub to be conversing in the higher tiers, and if I were browsing one that's not what I'd be looking for. Even reddit has /r/roastme which is entirely name calling.

The lower tiers are like mindless action movies. They're not good and they don't contribute to the genre or movie making as a whole. But they are fun to watch sometimes.

[–]jet199 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, sometimes I just want to insult some arsehole so they know what people think of them. I'm not doing it to win an arguement or make a point.

I could argue it's informative for their personal growth to get regular honest feedback.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

agreed.

[–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The problem with all standards of speech is that they are subjectively interpreted and an admin will likely judge harsher people he disagrees with than people he agrees with.

[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

That's why Saidit has rules against moderators removing dissenting voices.

[–]fschmidt 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I am against restricting mods because subs should have subjective policies to reflect their audience. This doesn't restrict free speech since one can just post to another sub. The real problem is admins. So SaidIt actually has this completely backwards with admins practicing censorship and mods not being allowed to moderate. That is why I am working on /s/FreedIt.

[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I fully support having as many free speech sites as possible. The more options and redundancy, the better. Saidit does give the option for mods to remove dissenting opinions by simply removing the sub from from the /all list. There are many subs on Saidit that do this. It's good to have as many free speech options as possible. A person could even choose to participate on multiple sites and get the best of all possibilities.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That's how it is. An ad hominem thrown into an otherwise solid refutation will generally be looked over. The buzz words get noticed of course.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

This seems fair, honestly I'm not overly concerned with the bottom pyramid stuff. I try to stay in the upper tiers, and the lower stuff doesn't really bother me that much

I think my real concern is that if I consistently make refutations and counterarguments to content at the top of the pyramid, I could be accused of lowering the debate. I feel like these are reasonable good faith ways to respond even if I am technically moving down the pyramid.

Not a huge concern, I'm new here, and not overly worried about aggressive banning from what I've seen, just kinda wanted to call some attention to this after reading the rules

[–]AXXA 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

The respect you have for the Pyramid of Debate is admirable. As an admin though, I only ever enforce no advocating violence and no name calling.

[–]Antarchomachus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hehe, not sure I can claim the respect for the Pyramid of Debate you attribute to me. I do respect the sanctity of good faith debate, but really I am just an idealist who doesn't like arbitrary rules. This is more about me saying, hey, I always argue in good faith, and this rule is arbitrary because I don't see how a valid counter-argument can be in bad faith, even if moving 'down the pyramid' so to speak.

From what I have seen, I am very unlikely to be banned for such an offense, just wanted people to think about this, seeing as this site places an emphasis on free expression, and good faith debate.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Free speech is free speech. Just because you think smething doesn't mean you get to do whatever you want.

I think slot of things. It doesn't make me right. Get off your high horse.