If they're effective, they're legitimate. Usually they are irrelevant but ultimately it's a matter of taste. — Zophie
If done well, I think they can be very effective. But as noted, most of the time they aren't a good idea. There are degrees of insults too. — Manuel
'm not expert on "debate" and I'm not even sure I really know what it means. I once saw a few seconds of a moderated high school debate on TV, using rules. I was flummoxed. I always thought debate was logical argument. Boy was I wrong. — James Riley
So, insults may be legitimate debate tactics. But insults are legitimate logical argument tactic in the the same way that shucking a gun and shooting your opponent in the face is a legitimate logical argument tactic. — James Riley
For fuck's sake... — schopenhauer1
Is unnecessarily poisoning the well a legitimate argument tactic? — schopenhauer1
I lose it sometimes. It is very rare when that was appropriate. Never in a dialectic. — Valentinus
gaining approval of others who view an argument negatively — Valentinus
More of a war tactic though. You make more mistakes when you're angry and not in a state of calm levelheadedness. Then again, iron sharpens iron. If there's no truth to the statement what merit does it hold? That said, as a prominent and influential figure one should be hesitant about lowering the social bar as it were even further. Of course, this is precisely what some set out to do. — Outlander
There is a quality Socrates exemplified while he bobbed and weaved with those who assigned malign motives to his process. He never answered in kind. The method looks easy until one holds themselves to the rules. I am not an advanced student of the art. — Valentinus
Is this sand available only to you? Have you become resistant to such sand? If either of these are true you have a clear advantage. — Outlander
The difference between a real debate of importance and a boxing match is that the latter is purely for entertainment and ticket sales while the former is what allows/determines/or dictates something far greater. One would hope at least. — Outlander
This implies that it would be okay to throw the sand if people can do it.. Shouldn't they both just not throw the sand? — schopenhauer1
I meant the boxing match as something of importance.. We can make the analogy to whatever suits your sense of important. — schopenhauer1
I suppose the counterargument would be "if candidate B is so smart, correct, confident, and faithful in how his beliefs would hold in true chaos, yet he mentally and emotionally retreats under controlled scrutiny, what torch or rather for how long would he be able to hold it against the views of candidate A", etc. — Outlander
People like a guy who can take a punch. Or who don't abandon their beliefs under pressure, especially low pressure. — Outlander
Fair enough, so the burden lies in silently taking the insults... is your answer mainly? What does it say about the insulter though? We keep addressing the insulted. — schopenhauer1
I don't recommend "silently taking insults." What Socrates did was turn them into propositions the interlocutor either owned or disowned. — Valentinus
I am not on board with classifying people in this way. — Valentinus
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.