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.