Just reposting the pyramid of debate as a reminder for the new influx of users. Didn't know where else to put it.

submitted by piss from wikispooks.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Leo_Littlebook 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Irrelevant. My argument was that the addition to the pyramid of debate is false. Ad hominem already covers the fallacy of derailing a debate with calls for violence. Otherwise advocating violence isn't intrinsically fallacious. It's amusing to tack false reasoning onto a pyramid advocating sound reasoning.

[–]magnora7 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You see no benefits of having additional contrast?

Do you also think 1st degree murder and 3rd degree murder should be the same in the legal system because they're both murder? Same logic

[–]Leo_Littlebook 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You see no benefits of having additional contrast?

Irrelevant. If you wanted additional contrast rather than a logical fallacy promoting pacifism, then you would've titled it "ad hominem that promotes violence," making it clear that logically-sound promotion of violence is acceptable.

Do you also think 1st degree murder and 3rd degree murder should be the same in the legal system because they're both murder? Same logic

No it isn't. I'm impressed that you're persisting in this obviously false line of reasoning. The correct analogy in legal terms would be

  1. libel (the legal equivalent of ad hominem)
  2. hate speech (calling mean names whether libelous or not)
  3. killing (whether lawful or not, including military, criminal justice, self-defense, etc)

I just noticed that the name-calling tier is also not about dialectic. It's banning incendiary personal rhetoric, regardless of logical soundness. So you're banning some forms of rhetoric as too visceral and some dialectical topics as too aggressive. Nothing to do with debate per se. You could call it "the pyramid of nice disagreement", which is what Paul Graham was getting at. Not polite or civil, but nice.

Anyway with two tiers of the pyramid irrelevant to dialectic it's clear to me that this pyramid was originally about niceness anyway, so I'm no longer triggered. Paul Graham cares more about making money with his Silicon Valley multicultural substantially-Communist friends that he does about e.g. the heritage American nation. And Saidit must run on substantially the same infrastructure that Silicon Valley uses.