Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

Arguments With Premises

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:29:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Those aren't just premises, they're constructed syllogisms.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:35:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
lol
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
G6
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 12:35:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:15:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 12:29:45 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Those aren't just premises, they're constructed syllogisms.

yeah yeah but you get what I mean.
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 3:15:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

A lot of debates have these...
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 4:57:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Is it a valid argument? (no offence).
So Systems of punishment in society -> maximize utility
All systems of punishment -> punish innocents.
There is no common element between these two arguments. So I don't believe you can conclude that punishing innocents lead to "maximize utility."
G6
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:23:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:20:36 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Heh heh. Arguments with penises

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LMAO

ROFL

PMSL

LOL

jk, wasn't funny.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:25:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:23:53 PM, G6 wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:20:36 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Heh heh. Arguments with penises

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LMAO

ROFL

PMSL

LOL

jk, wasn't funny.

Its actually an achievement that your response was worse than my initial comment.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:26:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 4:57:33 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Is it a valid argument? (no offence).
So Systems of punishment in society -> maximize utility
All systems of punishment -> punish innocents.
There is no common element between these two arguments. So I don't believe you can conclude that punishing innocents lead to "maximize utility."

Yes there is. Humans are fallible, systems of punishment are administered by humans and are therefore fallible. Societies with systems of law and punishment will be happier than societies without. Therefore, if we want to have a society with higher happiness we have to have a system of law or punishment and therefore we will end up punishing innocents to ensure this happiness.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 7:56:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:26:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/21/2013 4:57:33 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Is it a valid argument? (no offence).
So Systems of punishment in society -> maximize utility
All systems of punishment -> punish innocents.
There is no common element between these two arguments. So I don't believe you can conclude that punishing innocents lead to "maximize utility."

Yes there is. Humans are fallible, systems of punishment are administered by humans and are therefore fallible. Societies with systems of law and punishment will be happier than societies without. Therefore, if we want to have a society with higher happiness we have to have a system of law or punishment and therefore we will end up punishing innocents to ensure this happiness.

Just because societies with system of law and punishment will be happier than those without does not mean that we must have a society with a system of law. Other possibilities, such as a society with a system of high morality may also be happier than those without and your argument does not rule out such possibilities.

In essence, I don't believe one can conclude that we must do something because doing such thing will make us happier. IMHO, to make your argument valid, instead of having "All systems of punishment punish innocents," we need "only systems of punishment punish innocents." In this case, system of punishment becomes the necessary condition to "punish innocents."
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/21/2013 8:55:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 7:56:32 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:26:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/21/2013 4:57:33 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Is it a valid argument? (no offence).
So Systems of punishment in society -> maximize utility
All systems of punishment -> punish innocents.
There is no common element between these two arguments. So I don't believe you can conclude that punishing innocents lead to "maximize utility."

Yes there is. Humans are fallible, systems of punishment are administered by humans and are therefore fallible. Societies with systems of law and punishment will be happier than societies without. Therefore, if we want to have a society with higher happiness we have to have a system of law or punishment and therefore we will end up punishing innocents to ensure this happiness.

Just because societies with system of law and punishment will be happier than those without does not mean that we must have a society with a system of law. Other possibilities, such as a society with a system of high morality may also be happier than those without and your argument does not rule out such possibilities.

In essence, I don't believe one can conclude that we must do something because doing such thing will make us happier. IMHO, to make your argument valid, instead of having "All systems of punishment punish innocents," we need "only systems of punishment punish innocents." In this case, system of punishment becomes the necessary condition to "punish innocents."

This isn't the point of the thread lol
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 8:52:49 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 8:55:56 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:56:32 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/21/2013 7:26:02 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/21/2013 4:57:33 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Is it a valid argument? (no offence).
So Systems of punishment in society -> maximize utility
All systems of punishment -> punish innocents.
There is no common element between these two arguments. So I don't believe you can conclude that punishing innocents lead to "maximize utility."

Yes there is. Humans are fallible, systems of punishment are administered by humans and are therefore fallible. Societies with systems of law and punishment will be happier than societies without. Therefore, if we want to have a society with higher happiness we have to have a system of law or punishment and therefore we will end up punishing innocents to ensure this happiness.

Just because societies with system of law and punishment will be happier than those without does not mean that we must have a society with a system of law. Other possibilities, such as a society with a system of high morality may also be happier than those without and your argument does not rule out such possibilities.

In essence, I don't believe one can conclude that we must do something because doing such thing will make us happier. IMHO, to make your argument valid, instead of having "All systems of punishment punish innocents," we need "only systems of punishment punish innocents." In this case, system of punishment becomes the necessary condition to "punish innocents."

This isn't the point of the thread lol

Merely curiosity. =)
I must be reading too much symbolic logic recently....totally get confused with those faceless symbols...
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 9:01:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Because a lot of disagreements here are fueled by disagreements about fundamental premises. The problem is, you really can't get anywhere unless you start in agreement with those premises, otherwise, there isn't any point in talking at all.

So, rather than simply acknowledge that there is not enough common ground to even have a conversation or take the monumental effort to try and change someone's position on their fundamental premises, it's simply more gratifying to dive right in arguing to the conclusion.

It usually ends up in arguing backward from the conclusion to the premises, as the opponents pick apart the underlying support for the conclusion, but it either ends up going in circles or peters out before you get to the fundamental premises.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:22:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 9:01:41 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Because a lot of disagreements here are fueled by disagreements about fundamental premises. The problem is, you really can't get anywhere unless you start in agreement with those premises, otherwise, there isn't any point in talking at all.

So, rather than simply acknowledge that there is not enough common ground to even have a conversation or take the monumental effort to try and change someone's position on their fundamental premises, it's simply more gratifying to dive right in arguing to the conclusion.

It usually ends up in arguing backward from the conclusion to the premises, as the opponents pick apart the underlying support for the conclusion, but it either ends up going in circles or peters out before you get to the fundamental premises.

Ostensibly this is why it's extremely important to put all operating premises in round #1, so they are not subject to the debate.

Many of the better debaters on this website realize this necessity, but far too many people do not. Then they get all pissy because they were arguing what they wanted to argue (i.e. the conclusion), instead of arguing what they stated in the resolution.

Debates are ostensibly all about formal logic - almost all the technical rules of debating (especially the fallacies) all stem from formal logic. Lawyers are required to understand how it works, and lawyers typically make the best debaters.

Supposedly only after formal logic has been addressed would persuasion begin to matter. Of course that simply is not the case on this website, since most people here simply have never been exposed to formal logic.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 10:27:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:22:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:01:41 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Because a lot of disagreements here are fueled by disagreements about fundamental premises. The problem is, you really can't get anywhere unless you start in agreement with those premises, otherwise, there isn't any point in talking at all.

So, rather than simply acknowledge that there is not enough common ground to even have a conversation or take the monumental effort to try and change someone's position on their fundamental premises, it's simply more gratifying to dive right in arguing to the conclusion.

It usually ends up in arguing backward from the conclusion to the premises, as the opponents pick apart the underlying support for the conclusion, but it either ends up going in circles or peters out before you get to the fundamental premises.

Ostensibly this is why it's extremely important to put all operating premises in round #1, so they are not subject to the debate.

Many of the better debaters on this website realize this necessity, but far too many people do not. Then they get all pissy because they were arguing what they wanted to argue (i.e. the conclusion), instead of arguing what they stated in the resolution.

Debates are ostensibly all about formal logic - almost all the technical rules of debating (especially the fallacies) all stem from formal logic. Lawyers are required to understand how it works, and lawyers typically make the best debaters.

Supposedly only after formal logic has been addressed would persuasion begin to matter. Of course that simply is not the case on this website, since most people here simply have never been exposed to formal logic.

True. Though I had the more informal forum debating in mind, this does apply to the actual debates that happen here.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:13:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 10:22:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/22/2013 9:01:41 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Because a lot of disagreements here are fueled by disagreements about fundamental premises. The problem is, you really can't get anywhere unless you start in agreement with those premises, otherwise, there isn't any point in talking at all.

So, rather than simply acknowledge that there is not enough common ground to even have a conversation or take the monumental effort to try and change someone's position on their fundamental premises, it's simply more gratifying to dive right in arguing to the conclusion.

It usually ends up in arguing backward from the conclusion to the premises, as the opponents pick apart the underlying support for the conclusion, but it either ends up going in circles or peters out before you get to the fundamental premises.

Ostensibly this is why it's extremely important to put all operating premises in round #1, so they are not subject to the debate.

Many of the better debaters on this website realize this necessity, but far too many people do not. Then they get all pissy because they were arguing what they wanted to argue (i.e. the conclusion), instead of arguing what they stated in the resolution.

Debates are ostensibly all about formal logic - almost all the technical rules of debating (especially the fallacies) all stem from formal logic. Lawyers are required to understand how it works, and lawyers typically make the best debaters.

Supposedly only after formal logic has been addressed would persuasion begin to matter. Of course that simply is not the case on this website, since most people here simply have never been exposed to formal logic.

True. But people tend to attack the premises instead of the logic that connects the premises to the conclusion.

Lawyers are the master of deceptions. Although all debates are originated from the formal logic, a subtle change in concepts or even a single word (is -> should or should -> is) would make a huge difference. Formal logic type of arguments may be too technical to be enjoyable. Debates, along with many other activities, derive their power from deceptions, not merely truth.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 11:58:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 9:01:41 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it. I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility
II. All systems of punishment punish innocents
Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

Because a lot of disagreements here are fueled by disagreements about fundamental premises. The problem is, you really can't get anywhere unless you start in agreement with those premises, otherwise, there isn't any point in talking at all.

So, rather than simply acknowledge that there is not enough common ground to even have a conversation or take the monumental effort to try and change someone's position on their fundamental premises, it's simply more gratifying to dive right in arguing to the conclusion.

It usually ends up in arguing backward from the conclusion to the premises, as the opponents pick apart the underlying support for the conclusion, but it either ends up going in circles or peters out before you get to the fundamental premises.

Yeah that's true. I didn't think of it that way.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 2:50:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/22/2013 11:13:51 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 5/22/2013 10:22:31 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Debates are ostensibly all about formal logic - almost all the technical rules of debating (especially the fallacies) all stem from formal logic. Lawyers are required to understand how it works, and lawyers typically make the best debaters.

Supposedly only after formal logic has been addressed would persuasion begin to matter. Of course that simply is not the case on this website, since most people here simply have never been exposed to formal logic.

True. But people tend to attack the premises instead of the logic that connects the premises to the conclusion.

This is prevented by making your premises round #1 stipulations that your opponent must accept before the debate begins.

Lawyers are the master of deceptions. Although all debates are originated from the formal logic, a subtle change in concepts or even a single word (is -> should or should -> is) would make a huge difference. Formal logic type of arguments may be too technical to be enjoyable. Debates, along with many other activities, derive their power from deceptions, not merely truth.

lol, the hate begins.

Although debates are ostensibly all about logic (like I stated above), what typically determines the winner of a debate is persuasion, which is not bound by logic. This goes into jury-rigging in the courtroom, or the DDO equivalent of politicking for votes.

It's not necessarily deception though. That's IMHO too strong of a charge.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
SuicidalManiac
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2013 6:51:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/21/2013 11:53:47 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
In my philosophy class today we had to do an assignment in which we defended points using formally formatted arguments with structured premises and I really liked it.

Cool story, bro.

I am surprised that there is very little of this type of debate here and I would like to see more.

No one cares.

For example we had to defend punishing innocents in utilitarianism using this type of argument and I came up with this:

Good for you.

I. Systems of punishment in society maximize utility

Prove it.

II. All systems of punishment punish innocents

Prove it.

Therefore, punishing innocents maximizes utility.

Cool story, bro.

I've never really done this style of argument before formally and I really enjoyed it.

That's nice to know.