Is The Use Of Logical Fallacy Part Of Debate?
If we use Hegel's interpretation of dialectic debate, then he believed debate serves an actual purpose which can be incredibly useful. However, that was on the basis that a thesis would be presented, a logical antithesis would follow, and in turn this would produce another refined thesis, and so on ad infinitum, until the truth was eventually obtained and could be defended against all genuine objections. Hegel did not view debate as a battleground for ideology, where truth would be twisted beyond all recognition in order to justify preconceived biases of the individual. In this instance I argue that debate serves no useful function in society. If one is unprepared to adhere to reason and logic when one argues, then I do not believe that can be considered debate. It's just propaganda.
Yes
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No
Side Score: 4
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
|
1
point
..... If one is unprepared to adhere to reason and logic when one argues, then I do not believe that can be considered debate. Correct glad you agree you’re uselsss at debating It's just propaganda........ Yes. you do it a lot don’t you ? BTW mentioning Hegel in a thread doesn’t make you “clever “ it makes you look desperate as in you’re constantly seeking approval from your betters as in me ......... Sorry buddy you’re still a prize cabbage Side: No
|
