Disagreement: Rate the backroom!

I found a good article about "How to Disagree" which I'm sure many of us (myself included) would do well to pay heed to.

Here is the article, and here are the categories:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

Vote for the level you would rank the average backroom discussion at. Of course it changes depending on the topic :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Vote for the level you would rank the average backroom discussion at. Of course it changes depending on the topic :thumbsup:

---

God, u r such a :daisy:. ~;)

Anyway, on average I would say mostly 4, but if and when we derail we tumble very quickly to level 2.

I disagree with your poll. There is no "Gah!" option.

Lots of bouncing around between 3 and 4. As Adrian points out correctly we often degenerate to something lower then that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

I disagree with your poll. There is no "Gah!" option.

---

Nice DH3 you've got there :verycool:

Quote:

---

Anyway, on average I would say mostly 4, but if and when we derail we tumble very quickly to level 2.

---

Bollox you muppet :2thumbsup: is that a quick decent from DH3 to level DHO in only three words not even touching level 2 or 1

Talking of fags.......the wife puffing on one now. :embarassed: :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Bollox you muppet :2thumbsup: is that a quick decent from DH3 to level DHO in only three words not even touching level 2 or 1

---

I said on average, you midget. And you are saved merely because your usual abode of DH-1 is outbalanced by a very occasional glimpse of true brilliance. :grin:

A generous 3.5 ~:)

I choose 4 because a lot of the 1-3's are responding to statements that don't merit anything more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Lots of bouncing around between 3 and 4. As Adrian points out correctly we often degenerate to something lower then that.

---

Oh now that's rich. Oohohohooooo! Look who's talking, you ******* :daisy: :furious3: !

Sorry, I had to pinch the average a bit.

Although replying to a topic that clearly has been written by an individual who'se English is not his first language will only add undue gravitas, I did find some unexpected merit in the article which only shows that plagiarism can assist some individuals...

Right, that's enough before I get banned...

Although refuting a point by logical evidence is of course the best way to be correct in an argument, often relying on the others is the way to win the argument - most people will forget that you are playing the man and not the ball - a cavlier Senator is already damned before we've heard any evidence, and as "proper" reasoned arguments require more than the 5 second soundbyte that media requires there is often time for the following format: type 1 followed by type 2 in essence instead of refutation, then a type 3 to seal the deal...

~:smoking:

It varies mucho. :book:


PS you're all a bunch of androphiles!!

I went for 3.5, I've rarely seen things get to a 1, never a 0.

Why is there no rating for the use of smilies, they should get a 0.5 methinks. :juggle2: :idea2:

I am :furious3:, you are all :daisy:, like :wall:, :thumbsdown: Backroom!!11

:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Although replying to a topic that clearly has been written by an individual who'se English is not his first language will only add undue gravitas, I did find some unexpected merit in the article which only shows that plagiarism can assist some individuals...

Right, that's enough before I get banned...

Although refuting a point by logical evidence is of course the best way to be correct in an argument, often relying on the others is the way to win the argument - most people will forget that you are playing the man and not the ball - a cavlier Senator is already damned before we've heard any evidence, and as "proper" reasoned arguments require more than the 5 second soundbyte that media requires there is often time for the following format: type 1 followed by type 2 in essence instead of refutation, then a type 3 to seal the deal...

~:smoking:

---

There are no apostrophes in whose. Also, cavalier not cavlier, soundbite not soundbyte.

I've seen it as high as five, and as low as zero or zero point five.

I put 4.5 becuse I think we are at 4 most of the time, but there is the occassional 5. Similarly we get a fair bit of 1 and 2.

I give it a six , just to be disagreeable with all them no nothings that gave it a lower mark :yes:
But seriously you can learn a lot in the backroom and very frequently you can see peoples positions competely point for point thoroughly and irrefutably taken apart until they havn't a leg to stand on..and then you can then see it going on for a couple of pages ...then starting again with the same views on the same topic a very short time later .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

I put 4.5 becuse I think we are at 4 most of the time, but there is the occassional 5. Similarly we get a fair bit of 1 and 2.

---

Essentially my reasoning as well. Usually the first two to three pages of a thread are worth reading. After that its just bickering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

I give it a six , just to be disagreeable with all them no nothings that gave it a lower mark :yes:
But seriously you can learn a lot in the backroom and very frequently you can see peoples positions competely point for point thoroughly and irrefutably taken apart until they havn't a leg to stand on..and then you can then see it going on for a couple of pages ...then starting again with the same views on the same topic a very short time later .

---

Or followed by 8 pages of a rush limbaugh speech...oh Gawain, how I miss thee.

I think generally 4, and I prefer it that way. The article posted refers to 5-refutation-as involving quoting the person you're debating against, and I find topics where two members are quoting each others posts line-by-line extremely boring and difficult to read.

It depends on rather or not I'm banned at the time.:beam:

I'd have to say that, on average, the backroom runs 4, desperately striving for 5-6, with occasional dips to 0 and 1.

This backroom place is the locale where totalwar computer strategy gamers discuss politics, religion and current events. By definition, they will examine the tactics and strategy, not to mention the morality, of a given issue/event.

Again, by definition, the posters and readers will be folk who can afford the luxury of computers, strategy games, and monthly internet connections. As that paradigm shifts, and computers and internet connections proliferate globally, I expect the level of disagreement here to dip, then rise again, as new members learn 'our' ways.

If we were an average 6, or 1, we'd be boring... either pipe-smoking academic pedantry, or rant-raving crazyness.

3-5 is good, I think.

I would say its mostly at a 4, I would say alot of the debate/argument comes down to opinion rather than facts. (opinions based on facts though)

Some of the football forums I go to though never get past a 1, and spend 90% of the time at 0.

Especially if you go to the Old Firm section (Glasgow Rangers & Glasgow Celtic). Then everyone becomes a Hun b****** or a Tim ****. Its best I don't go into the sectarian stuff here.

Plus people actually make accounts just to post sectarian and racist comments and make it look like its coming from the other side. Where do they get rated?

Anywhere from 3-5.5. I haven't really seen a 6.

I put a 4.5

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Talking of fags.......the wife puffing on one now. :embarassed: :laugh4:

---

I'd make her brush her teeth afterwards...:beam: