Words, words, adjectives and declarations of victory. If both sides have their own criteria for victory, both sides can claim the win. I could use popularity, number of questions answered, biblical accuracy, or quality of the insults. Or might there an objective measure for the better argument? Luckily for me, all this has been considered before. There are rules for logic and reason.
Before I can reasonably expect a challenger to understand why I insist, for instance, on a “definition of terms”, they have to understand why I am so insistent on ground rules. It is even possible in such an environment for strong opponents to come to agreement.
I expect my opponent to have a basic understanding of logic and the fallacies to avoid, an agreement on the meaning of terms, an agreement on basic ground rules such as, no name calling, and a willingness to concede when the opponent’s argument is superior.
I’ve included some articles below to explain why I value these ground rules so much.
The Internet and the Public Sphere: Revitalization or Decay? May 1998 by Christopher D. Hunter... ingrained in the culture of the Internet is the "flame" which normally takes the form of an irrational, adhominem attack against ones character and/or physical attributes. Such irrational, and even dangerous conversation led the Dallas Morning News to shut down its "News' forums" which allow users to electronically discuss the days news. The forums were closed due to violations including obscenity, suggestive language, sexual and racial insults, and threats (Outing, 1998). This type of conversation also fails the third Habermasian ideal speech criteria, as it substitutes threats of violence for rational debate.
All of this is not to say that the Internet is completely devoid of worthy conversation. In fact, using Schudson's conception of "democratic conversation" it is possible to find a good deal of worth in Internet discourse. Schudson's conversation requires that people be willing to publicly argue and agree upon certain ground rules.
Why study how to reason incorrectly; why not just study how to reason correctly? There are two reasons:
- Even if you could count on reasoning correctly 100% of the time, you cannot count on others doing so. In logical self-defense, you need to be able to spot poor reasoning, and—more importantly—to understand it. To be able to correct others' mistakes, or to refute them convincingly, you need to understand why they are wrong.
- Studying formal logic and the rules of correct reasoning is like having a road map that shows how to get from point A to point B. However, even the best navigators sometimes get lost, and it helps if the roads that go nowhere are clearly labeled "DEAD END", "WRONG WAY", or "DO NOT ENTER".
Habermasian Communicative Rationality
1. The most basic of these idealized presuppositions is the presupposition that participants in communicative exchange are using the same linguistic expressions in the same way. This is an obvious but interesting point, which clearly illustrates what an idealized presupposition is. It’s a presupposition because communication would not proceed if those involved did not think it was at least approximately satisfied (in this case that a shared language was being used). It’s idealized because no matter how closely it is approximated it is always counterfactual (because, in this case, the fact is that all meanings are to some degree personally defined).
2. Another, basic idealized presupposition of argumentation is the presupposition that no relevant argument is suppressed or excluded by the participants.
3. Another is the presupposition that no persuasive force except that of the better argument is exerted.
4. There is also the presupposition that all the participants are motivated only by a concern for the better argument.
5. There is the presupposition of attributing a context-transcending significance to validity claims. This presupposition is controversial but important (and becomes expanded and clarified in the presuppositions of discourse, see below). The idea is that participants in communication instill their claims with a validity that is understood to have significance beyond the specific context of their agreement.
6. The presupposition that no validity claim is exempt in principle from critical evaluation in argumentation;
7. The presupposition that everyone capable of speech and action is entitled to participate, and everyone is equally entitled to introduce new topics or express attitudes needs or desires.