If someone repeatedly posts inflammatory responses?

[Lionspoint]

Some background... I joined back in Jan 08, posted several comments and was systematically ruined. So I quit posting for a while while I shored up my knowledge. And about a week ago I began to post again...

A few days ago I posted something to which I received a response that I found to be too short and unintelligent as a good argument. No problem there, I simply reposted and added even more information. Which ended up with a response that was along these lines: "Okay, so we both agree I am right..."

At that point I sent an PM to this person telling them that I don't want to debate them and to not respond to anything I post to which I got the response, in effect, "Afraid to debate?" I am not in the least afraid to debate, but I don't want to play any games, something that newbies are commonly guilty of. But this person has a fairly long presence here, which in-of-itself is disturbing. And now I feel I have created a rift with this person that I shouldn't have.

My question is: What is the preffered method or acceptable approach to letting someone know that civil debate includes rejecting ad hominems, ad populum and so on?

I recognize this question might be better placed in the comments and suggestions thread, but is this not a very widely used tool by those that are less informed?

Maybe even a second question: Is ad populum and ad hominem and the ilk used in debate too often? Honestly, I am guilty of it from time to time... Shame on me.

[McCulloch]

My question is: What is the preferred method or acceptable approach to letting someone know that civil debate includes rejecting ad hominems, ad populum and so on?

One way is to state that in civil debate, ad hominems and other logical fallacies are rejected. If the logical fallacy is not plainly evident, it might be advisable to point out the fallacy and in some cases why it is a fallacy. If the ad hom is insulting or personal, report it to a moderator.

Maybe even a second question: Is ad populum and ad hominem and the ilk used in debate too often? Honestly, I am guilty of it from time to time... Shame on me.

I always look upon them as an admission from the person making them that they have run out of good arguments and must resort to bad ones.

[Lionspoint]

I always look upon them as an admission from the person making them that they have run out of good arguments and must resort to bad ones.

Thanks for that info. I am fairly new to debating and am not sure of the recourse to such things.

I will not name the person in question, and the only reason I wrote this thread is because they (in question) have so many posts here. I am a student, or fairly new, and I don't want to go round and round on some sub-logical tangent. At the same time I don't want to allow them the pleasure of seeing me appear "defeated" simply because I refuse on entertaining their infantile methods of non-debate.

I hope the person in question (you know who you are) will PM me so we can achieve some understanding on this matter. In retrospect I think I was too harsh but before I rescind my decision, I would like some clarity. I do not have much time to debate here, so the only responses to my posts should be devoid of nonsense. I will gladly accept a PM from you so we can resume healthy debate.

Hoping you will forgive my rash decision to end communication and at the same time demanding reasoned, backed up debate,

Douglas V Burgeson
Lionspoint

[OnceConvinced]

Why don't you just put the person on ignore?

[byofrcs]

Some background... I joined back in Jan 08, posted several comments and was systematically ruined. So I quit posting for a while while I shored up my knowledge. And about a week ago I began to post again...

A few days ago I posted something to which I received a response that I found to be too short and unintelligent as a good argument. No problem there, I simply reposted and added even more information. Which ended up with a response that was along these lines: "Okay, so we both agree I am right..."

At that point I sent an PM to this person telling them that I don't want to debate them and to not respond to anything I post to which I got the response, in effect, "Afraid to debate?" I am not in the least afraid to debate, but I don't want to play any games, something that newbies are commonly guilty of. But this person has a fairly long presence here, which in-of-itself is disturbing. And now I feel I have created a rift with this person that I shouldn't have.

My question is: What is the preffered method or acceptable approach to letting someone know that civil debate includes rejecting ad hominems, ad populum and so on?

I recognize this question might be better placed in the comments and suggestions thread, but is this not a very widely used tool by those that are less informed?

Maybe even a second question: Is ad populum and ad hominem and the ilk used in debate too often? Honestly, I am guilty of it from time to time... Shame on me.

I find ad populum and ad hominem attacks fun as I like a little edge to my reply and a nice ad hominem attack against me allows me to sail closer to the wind in a response without moderator intervention.

A number of approaches to ad populum and ad hominem attacks,

- Sometimes you can try to get a sympathy vote with a poor-me response to an ad hominem. That feels nice but only if the other person can be made to feel guilty.
- If they don't empathise then you can try sarcasm if you don't feel empathy for them (warning on moderators here),
- But the real winner is the "moral-high ground". This is where you set the standards, you draw the line in the sand. Be careful you don't step over it though else you look silly falling off your perch.

It is essential to read up on the many fallacies that someone can use in a debate.

Mention the fallacy and then follow with a counterpoint and the other party ends up running around like a headless chicken. If they bat the fallacy accusation they miss the counterpoint. They have to let one or the other ride else they'll look stupid.

[Lionspoint]

Thanks for your responses, they make a lot of sense.

Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers have given up the argument against religion and I am beginning, even as a child in the debate, seeing their point. But I will continue here because this is only one person and I know that there are intelligent theists here that are very worthy as fellows of logical debate. I would like this thread to be concluded and I hope the one that caused it would PM me so we can navigate to civil and rational debate. Hoping the best for you,

Doug

[otseng]

This is not a debate topic so I've moved it to general chat.