Debating etiquette: If you assert that X is “obvious”, “blatantly obvious” or “so fucking obvious you’d have to be an evil, low-status person not to see it” then you are not allowed to provide any arguments or evidence for X unless you first concede that X is not obvious. None of this “Anyone with half a brain can see why X is true, but here’s for paragraphs arguing for X anyway” nonsense.
People who do this are trying to double dip. By claiming their point is obvious they can shame their opponents for being too stupid to understand the plain truth. But since what they’re saying isn’t actually obvious, they layer arguments to make X look more obvious. If X is obvious, you should say “X” and everyone will know you are right. But if you find the need to defend X with arguments, don’t try and shame the people who disagree that X.
That seems like a great norm… under assumption that the goal of the debate is to speak meaningfully, as opposed to trying to get more power to one’s group. Because, if the true goal is more power to the tribe, then declaring all opponents stupid or evil and repeating the party line in a situation where it cannot be opposed is obviously the winning strategy.
But this could be a funny game—be the first person to declare that some applause light of the given group is “obvious”, and then support it with a wrong argument. The goal is to calibrate the level of wrongness precisely so that someone within the group will recognize the wrongness, but they will be a very small minority and afraid to speak loudly against the applause lights. (And if they speak, then attack them and let them feel the wrath of the group.)
Uhm, to excuse this evil game, I should probably find some positive purpose. So… let’s say that it teaches people to examine the arguments critically even if they already agree with the conclusion.
Here is an (imaginary) example:
At a meeting of Amnesty International: “Everyone knows that racism is evil and unscientific. I don’t want to hear any more of this bullshit of innate racial differences in IQ. Cognitive science has proved that intelligence is not a function of brain, but of kidneys, and all races have exactly the same kidneys. So I ask all racists to please shut up.” A wave of applause. Then, a silent trembling voice: “Are you sure intelligence is in the kidneys? I never heard about such research and I am a cognitive scientists...” Acting offended: “Shut up, you nazi, how dare you!”
Debating etiquette: If you assert that X is “obvious”, “blatantly obvious” or “so fucking obvious you’d have to be an evil, low-status person not to see it” then you are not allowed to provide any arguments or evidence for X unless you first concede that X is not obvious. None of this “Anyone with half a brain can see why X is true, but here’s for paragraphs arguing for X anyway” nonsense.
People who do this are trying to double dip. By claiming their point is obvious they can shame their opponents for being too stupid to understand the plain truth. But since what they’re saying isn’t actually obvious, they layer arguments to make X look more obvious. If X is obvious, you should say “X” and everyone will know you are right. But if you find the need to defend X with arguments, don’t try and shame the people who disagree that X.
That seems like a great norm… under assumption that the goal of the debate is to speak meaningfully, as opposed to trying to get more power to one’s group. Because, if the true goal is more power to the tribe, then declaring all opponents stupid or evil and repeating the party line in a situation where it cannot be opposed is obviously the winning strategy.
But this could be a funny game—be the first person to declare that some applause light of the given group is “obvious”, and then support it with a wrong argument. The goal is to calibrate the level of wrongness precisely so that someone within the group will recognize the wrongness, but they will be a very small minority and afraid to speak loudly against the applause lights. (And if they speak, then attack them and let them feel the wrath of the group.)
Uhm, to excuse this evil game, I should probably find some positive purpose. So… let’s say that it teaches people to examine the arguments critically even if they already agree with the conclusion.
Here is an (imaginary) example:
At a meeting of Amnesty International: “Everyone knows that racism is evil and unscientific. I don’t want to hear any more of this bullshit of innate racial differences in IQ. Cognitive science has proved that intelligence is not a function of brain, but of kidneys, and all races have exactly the same kidneys. So I ask all racists to please shut up.” A wave of applause. Then, a silent trembling voice: “Are you sure intelligence is in the kidneys? I never heard about such research and I am a cognitive scientists...” Acting offended: “Shut up, you nazi, how dare you!”
Clearly you have not spent much time on teh interwebs… :-D