• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

How to Argue

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I could teach a seminar on this. In fact, I could probably develop an entire collegiate course on "Logical Discourse on the Internet."

Why is this in Hot Topics? Simple: It's what I and most of the most common posters here do each and every day both here and elsewhere for the preservation of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here's a recent transcription involving a **** who who said, "churches should be banned from doing this. they just take them down and sign up for a welfare check, food stamps, medical care. christians gave us obummer and now giving us more enemies."

Here's my response. Please note the plentiful mix of logical and emotional appeal, while ending solidly on logic:

Note to all Friends: This is the kind of "conservative" we do NOT need in our ranks. Quite frankly, he sounds like a liberal or Demoncrappic plant fumblingly intended to stir the pot with mud (nonsense), i.e. traitor to the cause of restoring our nation to it's rightful Constitutional foundation.

Dear X: Christians did NOT "give us obummer."

I'm a born-again Christian, conservative, and proud of it. If you think I had ANY affinity for "obummer," I respectfully request you peruse my Facebook wall until you conclude otherwise. Most (4/5 i.e. 80%) of the Christians I know voted for the other guy. My anecdotal observation, however, in no way reflects the Christian population at large, as belief in Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior isn't the only criteria I use in selecting friends. In fact, while it's preferred, it's not paramount. I have more than a handful of good friends who are not Christians, and to be perfectly honest, one's belief in God or faith in Jesus Christ is largely independent of their conservative vs liberal beliefs, at least on a world-wide basis. Here in America, however, there is a strong correlation, one which counters the hard-won lessons we learned throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, and it's strongly correlated with one's in-depth understanding of both the nature of humanity as well as our history.

What's required to either substantiate or disprove your claim is readily available, if you know where to look for it, and I'm not talking about the tabloids. Rather, I'm talking about highly-qualified statistical research into voting behavior. If you can find me an objective study along these lines, I'll say, "You are correct." If you bring me a river of ****, I'll throw it back in your face while citing the stats that prove you're either an idiot, or at the very least, you haven't a clue as to what the hell you're talking about.

In the meantime, comments like "christians gave us obummer" merely reflect a level of stupidity that fall well below the criteria I set long ago as to who I might count as a friend, and if you think I'm talking about either "intelligence" or "Christian affiliation," then you fail on both counts.

If you don't like my post and/or approach, then prove me wrong, and get it right.

So... "Why is this a 'Hot Topic' in either the Open Carry or our more superlative category of our right to keep and bear arms? Simple: Depending on your audience, sometimes logic works. Other times, however, it does not, and emotional appeal definitely has it's place. The best approaches to win over the masses, however, delivers both barrels, such that the recipients have no recourse of thought left. After all, our goal isn't to ridicule them. They're still voters and can vote against the Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land," weigh down our system with massive idealism, and generally ruin our day, if not our entire country.

No. Our goal is to help them understand the hard-won lessons of history, that human nature really hasn't changed since the dawn of civilization, and help bring them into the time-worn and proven understanding that some elements of humanity will never submit to reason, unless it's their "reason," regardless of how much damage, destruction, and death they visit on others, that the more civilized members of human society abhor such mayhem, and are working together to eradicate it NOT under "one UN rule," but under the millennial-proven mechanism of cooperative sovereign states.

When exercised, this approach has resulted in the LEAST loss of life on our planet.

When exercised, the Islamic approach has resulted in the GREATEST loss of life on our planet.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, folks, to figure out...
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
hope you have tenure, otherwise not sure you'd be employed...

ipse
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Oh, I don't know, fellas. On a quick skim of the OP, it seemed to me to have a certain level of applicability. Lets say a lurker is kinda new to internet debate. While the data in the OP would not stand up to Cicero, it may well be stuff with which the lurker is unfamiliar. Thus, the lurker profits.

Now, I do understand there would be no point for a lurker to profit--he's a lurker; he don't post so he cannot possibly profit if he ain't gonna use the data. I simply use a lurker as an example of a newbie who has not yet bled in the trenches of internet rhetorical combat.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--

Now, I do understand there would be no point for a lurker to profit--he's a lurker; he don't post so he cannot possibly profit if he ain't gonna use the data. I simply use a lurker as an example of a newbie who has not yet bled in the trenches of internet rhetorical combat.
One need not register or post to qualify as a lurker nor be restricted thereby from gaining usable data/knowledge.

Point of fact we know little to nothing about such lurkers.....except that which some would seem to w/o basis attach to them.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
After reading the OP's post on how to argue triggered my inner most self; discovering a piffany causing an emotional realization of self worth. No less an epiphany of a sudden insight or intuitive understanding that arguing builds a mosaic of fragmented thoughts that creates cognitive dissonance. Yes, a tension or clash resulting from the combination of two disharmonious or unsuitable elements. In other words, is the argument the right or wrong argument? Which is to say, that after all the fall-out, who is to say what is up with all the bickering over the proper context of resultant disagreement.
The answer I will save for another day.....
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
After reading the OP's post on how to argue triggered my inner most self; discovering a piffany causing an emotional realization of self worth. No less an epiphany of a sudden insight or intuitive understanding that arguing builds a mosaic of fragmented thoughts that creates cognitive dissonance. Yes, a tension or clash resulting from the combination of two disharmonious or unsuitable elements. In other words, is the argument the right or wrong argument? Which is to say, that after all the fall-out, who is to say what is up with all the bickering over the proper context of resultant disagreement.
The answer I will save for another day.....


ok, time time to return to the home for your meds...

ipse
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
I could teach a seminar on this. In fact, I could probably develop an entire collegiate course on "Logical Discourse on the Internet."

Why is this in Hot Topics? Simple: It's what I and most of the most common posters here do each and every day both here and elsewhere for the preservation of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Here's a recent transcription involving a **** who who said, "churches should be banned from doing this. they just take them down and sign up for a welfare check, food stamps, medical care. christians gave us obummer and now giving us more enemies."

Here's my response. Please note the plentiful mix of logical and emotional appeal, while ending solidly on logic:

Note to all Friends: This is the kind of "conservative" we do NOT need in our ranks. Quite frankly, he sounds like a liberal or Demoncrappic plant fumblingly intended to stir the pot with mud (nonsense), i.e. traitor to the cause of restoring our nation to it's rightful Constitutional foundation.

Dear X: Christians did NOT "give us obummer."

I'm a born-again Christian, conservative, and proud of it. If you think I had ANY affinity for "obummer," I respectfully request you peruse my Facebook wall until you conclude otherwise. Most (4/5 i.e. 80%) of the Christians I know voted for the other guy. My anecdotal observation, however, in no way reflects the Christian population at large, as belief in Jesus Christ as one's Lord and Savior isn't the only criteria I use in selecting friends. In fact, while it's preferred, it's not paramount. I have more than a handful of good friends who are not Christians, and to be perfectly honest, one's belief in God or faith in Jesus Christ is largely independent of their conservative vs liberal beliefs, at least on a world-wide basis. Here in America, however, there is a strong correlation, one which counters the hard-won lessons we learned throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries, and it's strongly correlated with one's in-depth understanding of both the nature of humanity as well as our history.

What's required to either substantiate or disprove your claim is readily available, if you know where to look for it, and I'm not talking about the tabloids. Rather, I'm talking about highly-qualified statistical research into voting behavior. If you can find me an objective study along these lines, I'll say, "You are correct." If you bring me a river of ****, I'll throw it back in your face while citing the stats that prove you're either an idiot, or at the very least, you haven't a clue as to what the hell you're talking about.

In the meantime, comments like "christians gave us obummer" merely reflect a level of stupidity that fall well below the criteria I set long ago as to who I might count as a friend, and if you think I'm talking about either "intelligence" or "Christian affiliation," then you fail on both counts.

If you don't like my post and/or approach, then prove me wrong, and get it right.

So... "Why is this a 'Hot Topic' in either the Open Carry or our more superlative category of our right to keep and bear arms? Simple: Depending on your audience, sometimes logic works. Other times, however, it does not, and emotional appeal definitely has it's place. The best approaches to win over the masses, however, delivers both barrels, such that the recipients have no recourse of thought left. After all, our goal isn't to ridicule them. They're still voters and can vote against the Constitution, "the supreme Law of the Land," weigh down our system with massive idealism, and generally ruin our day, if not our entire country.

No. Our goal is to help them understand the hard-won lessons of history, that human nature really hasn't changed since the dawn of civilization, and help bring them into the time-worn and proven understanding that some elements of humanity will never submit to reason, unless it's their "reason," regardless of how much damage, destruction, and death they visit on others, that the more civilized members of human society abhor such mayhem, and are working together to eradicate it NOT under "one UN rule," but under the millennial-proven mechanism of cooperative sovereign states.

When exercised, this approach has resulted in the LEAST loss of life on our planet.

When exercised, the Islamic approach has resulted in the GREATEST loss of life on our planet.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, folks, to figure out...

I've seen better arguments in a can of alphabet soup.

You've nailed the emotional appeal, and mastered the ad hominem, but I find your lack of logical persuasion disturbing.

2/10 noodle letters.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I could teach a seminar on this. In fact, I could probably develop an entire collegiate course on "Logical Discourse on the Internet." ...

I'm a born-again Christian, conservative, and proud of it. ... If you bring me a river of ****, I'll throw it back in your face while citing the stats that prove you're either an idiot, or at the very least, you haven't a clue as to what the hell you're talking about.

In the meantime, comments like "christians gave us obummer" merely reflect a level of stupidity that fall well below the criteria I set long ago as to who I might count as a friend, and if you think I'm talking about either "intelligence" or "Christian affiliation," then you fail on both counts.

If you don't like my post and/or approach, then prove me wrong, and get it right. ...

No. Our goal is to help them understand ...

When exercised, the Islamic approach has resulted in the GREATEST loss of life on our planet.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist, folks, to figure out...
"Logical discourse", oh-kay...not civil discourse...oh, and how did we get to the "Islamic approach"?
 
Top