Books on debating/logic
Posted: 2007-12-09 01:46am
This is something I could really use. I often find myself in debating using arguments I have heard before, which are often good, but as for forming my own, I'm usually at a loss.
There's lots of stuff here on logical fallacies, but what about what you should do and arguments you should use rather than ones you shouldn't and why it constitutes a good argument.
Here's what I think was a bad example that I read somewhere, but they apparently thought it was good.
1. Dragons eat people
2. I am a person
2. There is a Dragon outside
3. If I go outside, I will be eaten
Now, you can see it's not that simple and doesn't take into account the variables. What if the Dragon just ate a feast of people and is stuffed? What if it's legs are broken? What if it's dead? etc, etc. This assumes that the dragon is perfectly healthy, physically capable and ready to dine on a person. And why do you have to go outside to be eaten? Why couldn't it rip the roof off your house and chow down on you?
I think this would be a better example, kind of obvious though
1. All mammals are vertebrates, have hair, nourish their young and unless it is a monotreme which lays eggs, gives birth to live young
2. A dolphin is a marine mammal with a fishlike body, numerous teeth, and the front of the head elongated into a beaklike projection.
3. A bear is a land-based carnivorous or omnivorous animal of the family Ursidae, having massive bodies, coarse heavy fur, relatively short limbs, and almost rudimentary tails.
4. A dolphin has a few hairs around it's genital slit, gives birth to live young
and nourishes it's young.
5. A bear has lots of hair, gives birth to live young and nourishes it's young
6. Both Dolphins are bears are mammals.
So, even though they are very physically different they have the common characteristics that make them mammals. But, what if we had an automated nursery for human babies and we did not nourish them, would humans no longer be mammals?
There's lots of stuff here on logical fallacies, but what about what you should do and arguments you should use rather than ones you shouldn't and why it constitutes a good argument.
Here's what I think was a bad example that I read somewhere, but they apparently thought it was good.
1. Dragons eat people
2. I am a person
2. There is a Dragon outside
3. If I go outside, I will be eaten
Now, you can see it's not that simple and doesn't take into account the variables. What if the Dragon just ate a feast of people and is stuffed? What if it's legs are broken? What if it's dead? etc, etc. This assumes that the dragon is perfectly healthy, physically capable and ready to dine on a person. And why do you have to go outside to be eaten? Why couldn't it rip the roof off your house and chow down on you?
I think this would be a better example, kind of obvious though
1. All mammals are vertebrates, have hair, nourish their young and unless it is a monotreme which lays eggs, gives birth to live young
2. A dolphin is a marine mammal with a fishlike body, numerous teeth, and the front of the head elongated into a beaklike projection.
3. A bear is a land-based carnivorous or omnivorous animal of the family Ursidae, having massive bodies, coarse heavy fur, relatively short limbs, and almost rudimentary tails.
4. A dolphin has a few hairs around it's genital slit, gives birth to live young
and nourishes it's young.
5. A bear has lots of hair, gives birth to live young and nourishes it's young
6. Both Dolphins are bears are mammals.
So, even though they are very physically different they have the common characteristics that make them mammals. But, what if we had an automated nursery for human babies and we did not nourish them, would humans no longer be mammals?