Ad hominems, etc. should be legit

[Al B. Sure!]

I never understood why ad hominems, emotional appeals, etc. are not considered legitimate debate techniques. For what reason are they not?

One's reason, one's rationale for his beliefs, are not the only issue at debate in a discussion. Reason is only the mental justification of emotional instincts. One instinctively feels that market capitalism is wrong and rationally creates marxism to mentally justify his emotions. Is this somehow not true?

That being said, ad hominems, appeals to emotion, etc. should be legitimate as they bypass the somewhat silly concept of reason and drive at the heart of one's beliefs, the emotions.

Frankly, i find this whole Platonic dialogue method of debating to be stupid as it ignores the fact that reason is just the reasoning (hence the two meanings of reason in english; which should correctly be seen as inter-related) for our emotions.

[Urban Ranger]

Maybe you can study an introductory course of informal logic first.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Ad hominems, etc. should be legit

Originally posted by Albert Speer
Reason is only the mental justification of emotional instincts.

What is the emotional instincts that drive you to choose a spherical earth over a flat earth?

[Nubclear]

Speer was just beaten in some debate I bet

[Al B. Sure!]

No, though I have always been bothered that in my debates here on apolyton, my points have often been dismissed as being ad hominems and other supposed bad debate techniques.

This idea of bad debate techniques is just a Platonic fabrication. How can logic not be anything besides the mental justification for gut instinct? Maybe I'm crossing too much into Nietzsche territory here but I can not comprehend any other alternative. How else do we have our political persuasions, etc? Why are you a communist, Tassadar? I see no alternative besides that your spirit, so to speak, believes (as in that gut instinct definition of believes) in communism and you discovered Marx to serve as a justification for your emotional belief.

Therefore, an opponent's bypassing of 'logic' and driving straight for the heart of one's opinions: the heart, is not only legitimate but is the more practical way of debating.

[Az]

You piece of ****, albert, shut the **** up. You're an idiotic son of a *****. why can't you just keep that ****hole of yours closed for just a single mother****ing time, and not ask a stupid ass question like that?

I can't even start explaining to you why it is the way it is, because you're so dumb and piss me off.

[Al B. Sure!]

Azazel:

why do you cling onto silly Platonic 'logic'?

[Az]

Whatever, idiot.

[Urban Ranger]

Speer,

Answer my question.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Azazel
Whatever, idiot.

Now is that an ad hominem or your unbiased rational estimation?

[Al B. Sure!]

Urban:

spherical or flat earth theories are due to observation, you are right. I do not see how this conflicts with, let's say, one's stance on a certain political issue.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
why do you cling onto silly Platonic 'logic'?

Logic is not due Plato.

Aristotle is the man who developed logic in classic Greece.

[Agathon]

Beat me to it, UR.

[Az]

Originally posted by molly bloom




Now is that an ad hominem or your unbiased rational estimation?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
spherical or flat earth theories are due to observation, you are right. I do not see how this conflicts with, let's say, one's stance on a certain political issue.

Albert, the point I am trying to make is this: why do you choose something backed by empirical observations over a crackpot theory?

Even a person's emotions do not fluctuate about randomly. Your emotions are reactions to outside stimuli, regulated by a set of internal filters inside your head.

Unless you are crazy.