I'm adressing the rabid Twilight fans if they would listen. I'm also adressing the common fans of both sides of this debate.
There are some things one may and may not do in a formal debate unless one wants to look like - pardon the language - a freaking donkey.
Nr 01: One may not argue against the debaters points by attacking him or her. This is called argumentum ad hominem and is a fallacy. For example: If I am to argue that free elections is wrong and states that the arguer is an imbecile that does not deserve the right to vote, then I have committed a severe personal attack and will be frowned upon in future debates. Do. Not. Attempt. This (Unless one wants to be disrespected).
Nr 02: One may not bring up a point repeatedly on a non-stop basis until every one else is tired and gives up, giving the person an easy victory. This also applies to a group of arguers. This is defined as argumentum ad nauseam and is not good for ones side if ones opponents gets tired and leaves. The person may have won but the audience is gone. Much pointless, right?
Nr 03: Respect is not freely given, it is Earned by virtue of the persons ability to argue civily and coming with witty arguments. This is a debate, not the persons own bubble where every one likes him or her. To quote Herbert Spencer: “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." If one cannot debate civily, one will not gain the upper hand in it and will almost certainly be trampled over by other debaters in the struggle for victory.
Nr 04: Grammar. Proper grammar and spelling will go a long way in helping one earn his/her fellow debaters respect. Spelling ones argument in all upper case letters makes the person look - pardon me again for the language - a whiny, screaming child. This Is irritating.
Alternatives for emphasising are: Using. Periods. Like. This. Spelling the first letter in a word in uppercase adds emphasis too, like the examples above. Italising and bolding or underlining will serve the same purpose.
Nr 04.I: Leetspeak. I cannot emphasise enough that Leetspeak and it's kind is a irritation to Some people. If some are to decipher others messages using up their precious time, they will not respond to it, instead, that person will probably met with ignorance.
Nr 05: Argument from silence. This occurs when one person is asked why he/she dislikes something and tries to divert the subject or keeps quiet. The questioner will then assume almost certainly that the person has not experienced what he/she is being asked, again making the questioned person look like a - pardon - fool.
Nr 06: Non sequitur. When proposing an argument, ones conclusion Must follow from ones statements, otherwise the persons argument is unsupported and may be torn down like bare scaffolding. Example below:
The term [Non sequitur] is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An example might be: "If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me." However, there is no actual relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.
Nr 07: One must always support their opinion with Facts. Failure in doing so will make the person look like he/she must resort to - pardon me - SHOUTING and cavemen tactics (clobbering others) to win debates. This will not be acceptable (unless one wants to look like a caveman).
I hope that this will improve some of the "debaters present"'s appalling lack of reason in their arguments and I thank you for taking your precious time in reading this. I hope it helped.
There are some things one may and may not do in a formal debate unless one wants to look like - pardon the language - a freaking donkey.
Nr 01: One may not argue against the debaters points by attacking him or her. This is called argumentum ad hominem and is a fallacy. For example: If I am to argue that free elections is wrong and states that the arguer is an imbecile that does not deserve the right to vote, then I have committed a severe personal attack and will be frowned upon in future debates. Do. Not. Attempt. This (Unless one wants to be disrespected).
Nr 02: One may not bring up a point repeatedly on a non-stop basis until every one else is tired and gives up, giving the person an easy victory. This also applies to a group of arguers. This is defined as argumentum ad nauseam and is not good for ones side if ones opponents gets tired and leaves. The person may have won but the audience is gone. Much pointless, right?
Nr 03: Respect is not freely given, it is Earned by virtue of the persons ability to argue civily and coming with witty arguments. This is a debate, not the persons own bubble where every one likes him or her. To quote Herbert Spencer: “This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life." If one cannot debate civily, one will not gain the upper hand in it and will almost certainly be trampled over by other debaters in the struggle for victory.
Nr 04: Grammar. Proper grammar and spelling will go a long way in helping one earn his/her fellow debaters respect. Spelling ones argument in all upper case letters makes the person look - pardon me again for the language - a whiny, screaming child. This Is irritating.
Alternatives for emphasising are: Using. Periods. Like. This. Spelling the first letter in a word in uppercase adds emphasis too, like the examples above. Italising and bolding or underlining will serve the same purpose.
Nr 04.I: Leetspeak. I cannot emphasise enough that Leetspeak and it's kind is a irritation to Some people. If some are to decipher others messages using up their precious time, they will not respond to it, instead, that person will probably met with ignorance.
Nr 05: Argument from silence. This occurs when one person is asked why he/she dislikes something and tries to divert the subject or keeps quiet. The questioner will then assume almost certainly that the person has not experienced what he/she is being asked, again making the questioned person look like a - pardon - fool.
Nr 06: Non sequitur. When proposing an argument, ones conclusion Must follow from ones statements, otherwise the persons argument is unsupported and may be torn down like bare scaffolding. Example below:
The term [Non sequitur] is often used in everyday speech and reasoning to describe a statement in which premise and conclusion are totally unrelated but which is used as if they were. An example might be: "If I buy this cell phone, all people will love me." However, there is no actual relation between buying a cell phone and the love of all people. This kind of reasoning is often used in advertising to trigger an emotional purchase.
Nr 07: One must always support their opinion with Facts. Failure in doing so will make the person look like he/she must resort to - pardon me - SHOUTING and cavemen tactics (clobbering others) to win debates. This will not be acceptable (unless one wants to look like a caveman).
I hope that this will improve some of the "debaters present"'s appalling lack of reason in their arguments and I thank you for taking your precious time in reading this. I hope it helped.
