Re: If the enemy doesn’t put up a fight, it’s a victory….

[quote=”sgtdraino”][quote=”Valdron”]What do you bring to the table? Abxolutlely nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.[/quote]

That’s largely correct. I have openly stated that I am not qualified to pass judgement on Afghanistan. The only thing I’ve argued, is that you’re not qualified either. Ultimately, what you’ve got is an opinion. An informed opinion, to be sure, but still just an opinion. Your sources of information have convinced you that your opinion is fact. They have not convinced me. That’s really the only difference between us.[/quote]

Nor are you really qualified to pass judgement on Valdron or the veracity of his sources, and yet it appears to me that you’ve done so. So ultimately does your stance boil down to “I don’t know and neither do you?” Hmm, if so, then it seems a rather long-winded way to say it. But if you don’t know, why are you apparently so dismissive of Valdron’s arguments and sources? You… don’t… know. If he had argued, for instance, that Afghanistan was a rousing success would you have been so emphatic about expressing your doubts?

A note to all on formal arguing:

Always keep in mind The Principle of Charity when debating — you should put the other’s argument into the strongest possible form and discard the irrelevant bits etc (don’t be nitpicky, and be really careful not to take out of context). This principle suggests that the arguer be given the benefit of the doubt, but remember that when you come up with a rebuttal that the burden of proof is your responsibility. The only opinion (position claim, belief, or thesis) that should be accepted is one that you can defend with a good argument (are the premises acceptable, relevant, and sufficient to support your conclusion). Here’s a simple form of an argument:

Since… (premise),
and… (premise)
and… (premise)
Therefore… (conclusion)

BTW, ad hominems are not acceptable; keep it civil. Nor is arguing from ignorance (one of the logical fallacies). Also in a rebuttal beware of the Denying the Counterevidence fallacy, straw man, red herrings, and don’t ever resort to ridicule (or humour as a way of dismissing an argument).

I tend not to get involved in these discussions anymore because so often the arguer will take portions of my posts out of context (a majorly bad fallacy in arguing).

And a suggestion, keep the various logical fallacies in mind when arguing. It would be fun to go through the posts here and try to find all the fallacies, especially in the rebuttals, but then I don’t know if this would even fit the form of a true debate at all…. One more suggestion as a general rule, try to respond to the content of everybody’s posts as much as possible (don’t ignore other people in the thread for a one-one debate… for instance, I asked some questions on p. 1 but got no response — well it was sort of covered — me so sad 🙁 ;)). A good and stimulating board discussion generally involves a few people.