I just saw this link posted on another thread and found it very thorough. Might be worth directing people's attention to in the future, so I will post it here in the Debate Forum for future reference.
Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
Notice any of this stuff going on around here?
These are the ones I seem to deal with most often:
27. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.
48. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Enron was famous for using this one when people said their business model made no sense. Actually, the critics were right. Enron went bankrupt and its CEO, who claimed he got it, got 24 years in prison for conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, and securities fraud.
64. Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty.
3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong "because..." but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.
Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics
Notice any of this stuff going on around here?
These are the ones I seem to deal with most often:
27. Rejecting facts or logic as mere opinion, preference, personal taste, or like: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Nor is anyone allowed to characterize a factual/logical argument as merely the opinion, preference, personal taste, or like of the opponent.
48. Dismissing your failure to abandon your position because you “just don’t get it.” Enron was famous for using this one when people said their business model made no sense. Actually, the critics were right. Enron went bankrupt and its CEO, who claimed he got it, got 24 years in prison for conspiracy, insider trading, making false statements to auditors, and securities fraud.
64. Conclusory statements. This is a conclusion statement masquerading as evidence to prove the conclusion in question. You don’t prove a defendant is guilty by merely saying he’s guilty.
3. Stating WHY you are wrong without stating WHERE you are wrong. In other words, they say you are wrong "because..." but what follows is not identification of errors or omissions in your facts or logic, but rather deficiencies in your background or possible bias.
