A load of smelly fish to draw away from my argument or is this a straw man?
Thoughts: My Typical Experience with CC Debate
1. We start with vague, confusing, or poorly defined terms... which everyone will misunderstand, and therefore, there is no ability for anyone to even ATTEMPT to stay on topic.
2. I suggest we define terms, or use more clear terms, so we can all understand the main issue of the OP.
3. People get upset by my suggestion to be clear, so we can all understand what we're talking about.
4. I stare.
5. I scratch my head.
6. I wonder why people have such overwhelming need to keep their arguments as confusing as possible.
Actual Response to Enoch's comment:
His accusation that my call for "clarity" is some kind of trickery... when it is actually the exact opposite.
If I suggest that people be rational, and debate terms that are actually defined -
that is neither a red herring nor a straw man.
That is just a call to rational debate, which everyone can understand.
The opposite of this would be... IRRATIONAL DEBATE.
Problems with Enoch's accusation of me using a "red herring" or a "straw man".
1. Red Herring:
For me to use a "red herring" to pull you away from the main issue is impossible, because that would necessitate that I could actually identify a main issue from which to pull you.
- When this thread first began, there was no clearly defined main issue.
- There were only accusations against a particular word which was undefined and extremely vague, which could thereby only lead to more confusion.
- To ask for better CLARITY to overcome some CONFUSION is hardly committing a logical fallacy (both "red herrings" and "straw men" are logical fallacies).
2. Straw Man:
For me to use a "straw man" to intentionally misrepresent your main issue is also impossible, because again, that would necessitate I could actually identify a main issue.
- When this thread first began, there was no clearly defined main issue.
- There were only accusations against a particular word which was undefined and extremely vague, which could thereby only lead to more confusion.
- To ask for better CLARITY to overcome some CONFUSION is hardly committing a logical fallacy (both "red herrings" and "straw men" are logical fallacies).
Conclusion:
1. Whenever I ask for people to simply BETTER DEFINE whatever it is they're arguing about, or USE TERMS THAT ARE MORE CLEAR, they always get upset.
2. This response is entirely irrational.
A. If we're having a DEBATE, there is inherent necessity to define, precisely what we are debating -
otherwise, how can everyone know what is being debated?
B. If we're having a POLITE DISCUSSION, or TEACHING, rather than debating, there is still inherent necessity to BE UNDERSTOOD clearly by the people we're talking to.
C. CONFUSION is bad for DEBATE, and it's bad for TEACHING, and it's bad for any NORMAL DISCUSSION... it's simply bad communication.
3. People always get upset by a call to "clarifications", and I have absolutely no idea why; it isn't a rational response, so it must be something else.
A. It isn't rational to WANT your communication to be unclear.
B. If this isn't a rational response, it must be an irrational response, something purely emotional.
4.
Maybe people prefer to debate VAGUE TOPICS...
because if you never state precisely what you mean, then no one can actually prove you wrong.