Comments on: What Evidence Dry One-sided Arguments?

By: D. Fumo

D. Fumo — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:39:11 +0000

Robin’s intuition is bang-on. It is somewhat absurd to suppose that we would be strengthening an argument by intentionally weakening it. How many great essays can you think of that do that? What would Orwell have done?

There are always people to present other views in a debate, or else there wouldn’t be a debate. A strong argument is strong independent of advancing or exploring other hypotheses. Yet sometimes people do feel suspicious of good arguments, as though weakening them is somehow more honest. I think this doesn’t have a logical explanation but rather an emotional one. In the postmodern west making value judgments is viewed suspiciously. Truth in general is suspect, especially if crystal clear. By presenting two or more sides to an argument we are suggesting that one argument is not better than another, just different. Descriptive, not prescriptive, if you will…

It’s a nice sentiment, but it has little to do with making a case for or against something. Cohen’s visceral reaction against a clear (if mundane) argument shows his own bias, not the book’s authors’. Had the book been balanced in a way satisfactory to him, would it really have made a difference to his opinion about Israel?

By: Hopefully Anonymous

Hopefully Anonymous — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:34:41 +0000

“Isn’t it reasonable to assume that we might be predisposed to being biased in favor of whichever argument we have heard most recently, and that we should withhold final judgment until we have heard both sides?”

The concept of “both sides” may be the mother of all biases. Primate social groups, in my understanding, often make leadership decisions by an alpha male and a challenger male battling for supremacy. This bias of decision-making by weighing 2 sides (as opposed to considering there may be n-th possible ’sides’) warps a significant amount of decision making, it seems to me.

By: Trevor Hughes

Trevor Hughes — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:27:33 +0000

I think this is an example that is not very applicable to analyzing issues other than Israel/Palestine. In America people are very irrationaly attached to Israel and can not, for whatever reason, accept any argument critical of it. They will argue back when they can against these arguments, they will try to avoid them at time, but when they can’t, they will come up with something stupid like what Cohen came up with along the lines of “I know I’m wrong, but I want to be wrong. I can’t defend my position or argue with yours, but I’m sticking to it.”

People will spend all their lives looking for evidence that confirms their biases, and when confronted by incontrevertible evidence to the contrary, the last line of defense is to do what Cohen did. Kudos to him for actually having the bravery to admit his intellectual cowardice in a national newspaper, whereas almost everyone else avoids the topic, but continues with their biases.

By: J Thomas

J Thomas — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:35:51 +0000

G, if you want to pitch an argument for people who care 60% about practicality and 40% about morality, then you should use your skills to make arguments that are 60% practical and 40% moral. Or perhaps you might argue that morality and practicality are aligned and there is no conflict between them. If a sneak-attack nuclear surgical strike on iran is both the most practical thing to do and also the highest morality we’re capable of, then you’re all set.

As I understand it, the discussion has been on which rhetorical technique is more peersuasive. And my answer is that it depends on circumstance and it particularly depends on your audience. Different audiences are persuaded by very different things. It depends on the audience.

By: marty Balance

marty Balance — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:56:16 +0000

Dear Me, English is not my first tongue. sorry if, I miss understood but why is the book even mentioned if is not germane to the conversation? when the topic of this site is centered around Bias. I mean one does not need to know both side of argument in order to take a stand on the side of a just cause a book like this should be commended and promoted in order to make negative issues stop regardless where they are. all it takes is common people to make common sense but who I’m to try to understand there is common sense in America that left twenty some years ago. Now the goals are so materialist it has destroyed a great nation so your arguments are baseless as the one than were said when Rome was destroyed from within yes history repeats it self. PS what is a toll?

By: g

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:59:43 +0000

Doug S: Yes.

By: Doug S.

Doug S. — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:27:50 +0000

Marty: We’re not talking about Israel here. We’re talking about arguments. We haven’t even stated any position on the issue the book discusses. If you want to argue that the book is right or that the book is wrong, go somewhere else. Also, your grammar and punctuation suck, and I’m having trouble reading your messages because of it.

Everyone else: Maybe we should stop feeding the troll?

By: Marty Balance

Marty Balance — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:35:20 +0000

Thanks “G”: Your retort is proof you rather play mind games by your judging me to be on one side or the other as a excuse to defend the un defendable as it relates to human issue which is the purpose of the book. Why does the USA citizens turn into a tribe of baboons and preen them self while other( humans )are being destroy. This book is trying on a diplomatic level to wake up people. In an true Republic, The government should not be for sale. Yes the book leans to the side of righteous ness just as much that was shown it is right to pressure South Africa. Your whole country is a target of propaganda not compare Israel to South Africa and not pass laws that will force acceptance of UN Solutions, the Book is Wake call to back no government but your own retrieve your dignity make your own decisions maybe the world will look to the USA once its considered an honest broker.

By: g

Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:21:36 +0000

matry balance: Anyone who’s using this forum to back, or oppose, any particular government is (like you) missing the point of the forum. (Note that whether something’s off-topic here has nothing to do with whether it’s true or whether it’s important. Even if your, or anyone’s, opinion of the Israeli government is perfectly correct and vastly important, this isn’t the place for it.)

J Thomas: I think one can say more than “It depends”, and indeed you’ve done so. What you haven’t done is to say anything about what “it depends” on. For instance, if your audience is composed of people who are anxious to do something that’s *both* morally acceptable *and* realistically practical, then the advice you’ve offered probably isn’t optimal.

By: matry balance

matry balance — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 15:04:39 +0000

I have a question for all you pseudo intellects how can you back a government that has a history of people who think like this
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/palestinians.html dare to answer I really what to know
Oh I know there is no answer.