How does one make an effective argument?
>>75311979
1. Make argument
2. Check effectiveness
3.Profit
>>75312055
>>75312607
>not smug molyneux
Potentially an argument
>>75311979
how does one install an effective air filter?
>>75314940
fucking kek
WHat does /pol/ Think of "based" Shill Whittle?
Is he redpilled?
>another stefan molyjew thread
Sage.
>>75311979
Find out what assumptions you share with other people and what criteria need to be fulfilled in order for someone to change from one belief to another, and then try to convince that person based on your shared assumptions by meeting those criteria.
And obviously make sure your argument is logically valid, though that's not hard at all.
>>75311979
not
>>75311979
There is a pic of logical fallacies on the top of this board
Observe the world, collect data, form conclusions based off data, present conclusion, defend the conclusion with the data collected, and don't use any of the fallacies listed in the list of logical fallacies. If one denies data and fails to use counter data to support his conclusion, he is an idiot that isn't worth debating.
>>75317934
What you qualify as data someone else might not though.
>>75317934
False. At least on /pol/. People do that all the time on here against trump and they're instantly just shouted down. Nobody knows how to make good arguments here, evidenced by the amount of times faggot, nigger, trumpfag, hillary shill, hernie, "ARE", "WE WUZ", etc. Nothing but lacks of coherent thoughts. Cancerous
>>75318143
They are either denying facts or see an explainable flaw or overlooked detail in the data. If it is the later, it is your responsibility to defend the data you collected with more concrete data (like getting initial data from Wikipedia and going to the Wikipedia page's sources to get more raw data)
>>75318430
Ohh no I get that. I thought he was referring to "effectiveness" in the context of intellectual integrity.
>>75318775
Well I'll give you an example.
Determine for me if the following premises are evidence for the claim that comes after it.
p1) There is a perfectly clam shaped indention in the sand
p2) A clam whose shell perfectly matches that indention sits very close to that indention
p3) You believe you saw the clam in that indention, and that you moved the clam from that indention to where it now sits
------
c) The clam shaped indention is evidence of a clam having been there
You can substitute "evidence" for data.
>>75318948
Is there opposition to this premis and on what basis would there be opposition?
Stefbots = Cultists
Make it as short as possible. Be Laconic. Don't be afraid to just let your statement hang without going on and on about it. Your opponents mind can do a lot worse with your words than your mouth can.
>>75319374
>>75319374
Not an argument.
>>75311979
1. Say some shit
2. Call the other person racist, fascist, misogynist, homophobic
3. Profit
>>75319312
There are multiple premises, but any of them can be objected to.
For instance, a person can challenge p1 on the grounds that there isn't, in fact, a perfectly clam shaped indention in the sand, arguing that there's no indention in the sand at all, that it's a perfect indention of something else, that there's no sand for there to be an indention in, or any number of other objections.
But suppose everyone agrees with all of these premises, but the *ACTUAL* cause of the indention in the sand was a clever person drawing it in the sand and duping the other people, perhaps by using a hologram and placing stones elsewhere to give them something to feel in their hands, into believing they'd seen the clam, moved it, and were seeing it next to the indention now.
>mfw I thaught OP asked a sincere question
Lile this
All men must die which is aprori
Socrates was a man
Socrates must eventually die
>>75319852
All I was saying is that one is to use the data he is awair of and his own reasoning to make conclusions. The burden of proof is then placed upon him to refute the doubt. I don't think we can truly eliminate doubt (pic related) but it appears that most humans (in an argumentative context) find that an argument's intellectual effectiveness is based off of how much doubt one can refute.
>>75320589
You can't refute the doubt though. It's logically not possible.
>>75320002
Socrates never existed though
Not an argument
>provide sufficient evidence
>posit nothing that isn't based on factual evidence
that's all there is to it
>>75311979
Not an argument.
>>75320651
Point taken
I must have misspoken as I was thinking of the term "beyond reasonable doubt" used in law
I mean in terms of the person presenting the conclusion minimalizing his opponent's basis for doubt.
You could find an accusing arbitrator finding all the evidence in the world for accusing a man of murder. Does that mean that his evidence is equally as viable as the jury being present at the crime and fully awair of all the variables that went into the killing? No but the reason why people are found guilty is because the accusing arbitrator has effectively minimalized all the reasonable basis a jury has in doubting the man committed a murder. You could say that this court case and the crime was committed in the matrix and all reality could be warped but the jury has no reason to assume this and factor it into the decision.
>>75311979
I punish my kids. They need to know I'm the boss because I know what's best for them and negotiating like this faggot commands his cult members to do is going to have the kid thinking that I'm a "friend" who is there to be walked over.
>>75321614
>>75321927
not an argument faggots
>>75311979
Keep your metaphor's tight.
>>75321614
Sure. My point is only that what people qualify as evidence or data is, ultimately, dependent on their fancy and preferences, which isn't something empiricists are generally very comfortable with.
>>75322462
I gotcha but there is a level of an "all things assuming" factor when partaking in debates and that factor changes according to the context and subject of the debate.
>>75322865
Yeah, hence that as my qualifier in >>75317348
>>75323252
Did not see that through this thread until now
