Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site wucs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!wucs!esk
From: esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Debating Tactics
Message-ID: <380@wucs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 28-Sep-84 16:02:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: wucs.380
Posted: Fri Sep 28 16:02:15 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Sep-84 09:10:16 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Washington U. in St. Louis, CS Dept.
Lines: 20

[]

> It would be a great service if some knowledgable person would compile and 
> post a fairly comprehensive list of other such bad debating tactics.  "The 
> Big Lie", "Proof by Repetition", "Ad Homien"[sic - Hominem], various logical
> fallacies, etc.  Unfortunately, most people on this net (myself included) 
> seem to suffer from an insufficiently liberal education to be very familiar 
> with such things.  Please educate us, rather than exploiting our 
> ignorance! :-)  --Tom Craver	hou5a!trc

Actually, there is something that fills this bill pretty well:  an essay 
called "The Ethics of Controversy".  I don't remember the author, but I
think the book was called *The Ethics of Controversy and other essays*, which
should make it easy to find.  "Always address your opponent's arguments
*before* impugning his character. ..."

			--Your loyal opposition, the aspiring iconoclast,
			Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.