- Joined
- Apr 28, 2015
- Messages
- 85,622
- Reaction score
- 72,333
- Location
- Third Coast
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
I not so humbly chose the "virtue" option, because there was no choice of "this does not occur always".
I'll let others decide if my posting history displays adequate examples.
It's really not so hard to try to not do this comparison behaviour though, but there may be a self-serving interest in my case. When I believe I'm right, I hope to convince my debate opponent of that. To do that, I need to debate him properly. Zoning-in on the direct topic at hand is debating 101. And it's how you win debates.
But referring to a previous negative political incidences as justification for a current negative instance, is a logical fallacy. So why waste my time, and my opponent's? I'd rather get straight to his argument's defect, and hopefully have him concede and learn something.
And even better, by trying to debate properly, I sometimes learn something.
I'll let others decide if my posting history displays adequate examples.
It's really not so hard to try to not do this comparison behaviour though, but there may be a self-serving interest in my case. When I believe I'm right, I hope to convince my debate opponent of that. To do that, I need to debate him properly. Zoning-in on the direct topic at hand is debating 101. And it's how you win debates.
But referring to a previous negative political incidences as justification for a current negative instance, is a logical fallacy. So why waste my time, and my opponent's? I'd rather get straight to his argument's defect, and hopefully have him concede and learn something.
And even better, by trying to debate properly, I sometimes learn something.