How to handle circular debaters?

[RCA]

Here's just one example of conversing with my socialist/Obama voter brother:

Me: My core political belief centers around property rights.

Him: Who says you have property rights?

Me: I was born with them.

Him: Who says?

Me: The Constitiution

Him: But the Founders stole property from the Indians so why not give it back?

Me: The Constitution is the law of the land

Him: Who says so?

Me: The founders

Him: See, everything in life can't be explained, it's all essentially "gray"

Me: (Realizing this debate is pointless)

I could give countless other examples of the these "circular debates". One time I said that murdering an innocent person is wrong and he said "that's your belief but maybe not to someone else's, and they have a right to their opinion too"!!!

[t0rnado]

No one gives you rights. "Giving rights" is a contradiction in terms. You only have the rights that you're willing to defend.

You're the one with the circular argument in that debate.

[nate895]

Ignore them. Focus on your audience. These one liners aren't going to convince anybody for either side, but when you get into more detailed debates just ignore them when they start repeating themselves and the audience will go like "wow, RCA's opponent is really stupid."

[RCA]

No one gives you rights. "Giving rights" is a contradiction in terms. You only have the rights that you're willing to defend.

You're the one with the circular argument in that debate.

So you're not born with rights? What about our republic?

[heavenlyboy34]

After "Who says you have property rights?", I would've said "God" or "Thomas Jefferson", depending on who you're talking to. ;)

[M House]

Okay just walk away from a person arguing for the validity of murder. Hell I'm not religious, don't regard life as sacred but anyone who has had a biology class should have great appreciation for it. Murdering innocent people is nasty business so maybe this guy needs to enlist. Unfortunately he could probably just receive a good deal for it and some validation and with that possible I think I can only really recommend a gang membership.

[t0rnado]

So you're not born with rights?

Sure you are. You just can't defend them.


After "Who says you have property rights?", I would've said "God" or "Thomas Jefferson", depending on who you're talking to.

So your imaginary friend or a dead guy say you have property rights? You have property rights because you own yourself and your property. No one "says" or "gives" you rights. If someone gave you rights, they would be called privileges.

[RCA]

To make it a little more clear, I would say I believe property rights are essential to a free society and he would say:

"That's your opinion"

Then I would say I own my myself and he would say:

"That's your opinion"

Then I would say this country doesn't follow the Constitution and he would say:

"Based on your interpretation of the Constitution, that's your opinion"

Then I would say the meaning of the Constitution is evident based on historical documents such as The Federalists Papers/Anti-Federalist Papers and he would say:

"But those aren't the law so those are meaningless"

But then we're right back to where we started. He says it's not the law but won't agree we need to follow The Constitution. See my point? These people just don't have functioning reason glands or something, it's downright SCARY!

I'm not kidding about this one, I told him I was looking into owning a gun for self-defense/hobby purposes and he said I was turning into David Koresh!

[M House]

There is no interpretation necessary any person who has some actual verbal skills and can read a short declarative sentence can sit down and read the constitution all whopping 8 ish pages of it.

[t0rnado]

If he really said that you're turning into David Koresh, than he is an idiot. Now, I want the government to follow the Constitution but that is my opinion. It is a fact that libertarianism is the most moral form of government next to anarcho-capitalism. You should argue that.

[RCA]

There is no interpretation necessary any person who has some actual verbal skills and can read a short declarative sentence can sit down and read the constitution all whopping 8 ish pages of it.

He said "militias" have since been "outlawed" and that the Army/National Guard have legally replaced the need for a militia. I told him the militia was all able-bodied men and he said that was another time when there was no Army to protect us from other countries. I'd say what about protecting us from the Army itself and he said I was living in a fantasy Red Dawn reality that didn't exist. He also said the only purpose to own guns was to kill people and only abnormal people would want or be able to kill someone.

He also said that in order to have any form of government you must concede some of your property away via taxation and if your willing to be taxed, then you can't complain about other forms of property loss.

Another circular argument he uses a lot is that I get all my "information" from crazy websites and message boards. I told him that we should follow the Constitution to the T and if we don't like it as country we should amend it and he said "you read that somewhere didn't you". I said what, the law? He said, "no that quote about following the Constitution and amending it later, you read that somewhere right?, that's not your own idea right?".

WTF???

[M House]

What is this your girlfriend? Having somebody argue for the validity of murder and then be against guns for the same reason is a total contradiction in itself. National guard should be the militia state funded not another gov't mil booster with hand me downs. The constitution gives what the government the power to form the navy and I guess follow scientific pursuits so maybe they can pass off NASA. Navy has the marines and an air force as well. WTF do we really need an army or air force for. Just to bomb and piss off people with bases the way I see it.

[RCA]

What is this your girlfriend? Having somebody argue for the validity of murder and then be against guns for the same reason is a total contradiction in itself. National guard should be the militia state funded not another gov't mil booster with hand me downs. The constitution gives what the government the power to form the navy and I guess follow scientific pursuits so maybe they can pass off NASA. Navy has the marines and an air force as well. WTF do we really need an army or air force for. Just to bomb and piss off people with bases the way I see it.

It's my younger socialist brother who was raised by my socialist father. I'm actually not quite sure how I wound up libertarian. The ironic thing is as a child I was treated much more harshly than my brother was. (scratches head)

[RCA]

I'm also not kidding, my brother claims that humans are by nature "social creatures" and it's in our nature to share. He said by nature we aren't individuals.

:eek:

[danberkeley]

Here's just one example of conversing with my socialist/Obama voter brother:

Me: My core political belief centers around property rights.

Him: Who says you have property rights?

Me: I was born with them.

Him: Who says?

Me: The Constitiution

Him: But the Founders stole property from the Indians so why not give it back?

Me: The Constitution is the law of the land

Him: Who says so?

Me: The founders

Him: See, everything in life can't be explained, it's all essentially "gray"

Me: (Realizing this debate is pointless)

I could give countless other examples of the these "circular debates". One time I said that murdering an innocent person is wrong and he said "that's your belief but maybe not to someone else's, and they have a right to their opinion too"!!!

Ask him again if he believes in private property rights. If he says "no", punch him in the face. Then, if he says "why did you punch me in the face?", say "what difference does it make? it is not as if you own yourself. you have no right to dictate what happens to your body."

Anyway, if the "Indians" did not believe in private ownership of land, how was it that the "white man" stole their land? How can someone steal something that is not ownable? How can Person A steal a widget from Person B, if Person B does not nor cannot own the widget?

[M House]

Yeah some people aren't gonna get the irony there, seeing as murder boy doesn't sound particularly social. A libertarian style view if you even wanna degrade something as simple as this as a political agenda seems infinitely more social. Just make him a USSA t-shirt on cafepress.

[danberkeley]

I'm also not kidding, my brother claims that humans are by nature "social creatures" and it's in our nature to share. He said by nature we aren't individuals.

:eek:

What a paradox. How can you share something you do not nor cannot own?

[klamath]

You are born with freedom and will die with freedom. No government or person has ever taken that away from any man in the history of the world. Governments may physically force your body to do certain things but your mind is still free. Governments or others may get you to voluntarily do certain things because you chose to do their bidding because you didn't wish to be killed, hurt or humiliated, but the choice was still yours to take that path of least resistance.
Rights to not have these actions pushed upon you are only gained through force or the threat of force.
Even an election is a veiled threat of force by the majority. Either you fought for those rights or someone fought and gained them for you. In a civil society physical blood letting force is said to be moved many levels away from the first step to get control but when it all boils down the savage violent heart of men still lays deeply and not so deeply buried.

[M House]

And no we didn't treat the indians very fairly at all, but neither did we treat slaves very well. I don't like to use the term we there, more like some idiot old people. But I think it comes down to people just not being able to make their government follow their rules. And once again idiots who can pass off 3/5s a person definition shit.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sure you are. You just can't defend them.



So your imaginary friend or a dead guy say you have property rights? You have property rights because you own yourself and your property. No one "says" or "gives" you rights. If someone gave you rights, they would be called privileges.

I agree with you strongly. (Ask anyone here who I've debated about religion if ya don't believe me) I was just throwing some ideas out there.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm also not kidding, my brother claims that humans are by nature "social creatures" and it's in our nature to share. He said by nature we aren't individuals.

:eek:

WTF?? :confused:

[JoshLowry]

http://i37.tinypic.com/29kx62p.gif

[M House]

This guy just sounds weird. I'm actually a biology major and social science offends me, sometimes... okay pretty much all the time.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not kidding about this one, I told him I was looking into owning a gun for self-defense/hobby purposes and he said I was turning into David Koresh!

Next he'll claim you're turning into a Droogie.:D

Seriously, if he thinks only the abnormal and unbalanced would use a gun, then ask him why he would want all those abnormal people having all the power as well.

[M House]

The short stroke gas piston operated firearm was designed by an imprisoned moonshiner who shot a cop in a US prison. There is literally nothing more american than that.

[damania]

Put them in Walmart lines in ghetto areas on Black Friday.

[idiom]

Any argument where you try to defend a miscarriage of justice with justice will fail.

The founders should probably have to gone to jail for a few things. They were pronouncing ideas they didn't yet fully understand. All white men are equal was a big step, it was a leap to far for them to understand that all men included women, slaves and natives.

BTW:

The law of the land is the constitution

Says Who

Says the guns of the people of today.

[LibertyEagle]

So your imaginary friend or a dead guy say you have property rights? You have property rights because you own yourself and your property. No one "says" or "gives" you rights. If someone gave you rights, they would be called privileges.

You can keep your rude little comments about "imaginary friend(s)" to yourself. :mad:

[LibertyEagle]

RCA,

He's your little brother. He's not going to say you're right, even if he knows you are. I'm not sure what age you guys are, but you may need to wait until he grows up a bit to talk sense into him.

[danberkeley]

RCA,

He's your little brother. He's not going to say you're right, even if he knows you are. I'm not sure what age you guys are, but you may need to wait until he grows up a bit to talk sense into him.

Or he can go about using my method. :D

[yaz]

we have unalienable rights. as in we're born with them.

[Conza88]

Here's just one example of conversing with my socialist/Obama voter brother:

You: My core political belief centers around property rights.

Him: Who says you have property rights?

Ypu: I was born with them.

Him: Who says?

You: The Constitiution

Me: Logic & Humans ability to reason. (He lacks this ability... :eek:)

;)

Would love to see his reply to that. Principle of Self Ownership... :cool:

[Conza88]

I agree with you strongly. (Ask anyone here who I've debated about religion if ya don't believe me) I was just throwing some ideas out there.

What you should have said was "Natural Law". :)

[Jeremy]

If they're Christian you could use the Bible... talk about God-given rights etc etc

[RCA]

He's 29 and I'm 31. He and most of his friends are part of the new-age, trendy, sex & football, Obama-be-cool, guvment-is-our-friend crowd. He's a carbon copy of my dad. I think what's holding them back are two main areas. They feel comfort in going with flow, my brother even told me if things get worse I'm going to suffer too. The other lack of reason is not being able to visual a bad government/fake government/nwo. Without being able to get past these two concepts they're lost and I think this is our problem with the rest of the masses as well.

[RCA]

http://i37.tinypic.com/29kx62p.gif

classic!

[RCA]

Whenever someone keeps saying, "that's only your opinion" to every thing you say (like the Constitution is the law of the land), is this considered circular reasoning? Or just lack of reasoning?

[Truth Warrior]

The question ultimately all boils down to, "Who owns you?".<IMHO> The correct response to any answer other than yourself is, "Who says, and by what legitimate authority?" ;)

[ShowMeLiberty]

Whenever someone keeps saying, "that's only your opinion" to every thing you say (like the Constitution is the law of the land), is this considered circular reasoning? Or just lack of reasoning?

It's Pee Wee Herman reasoning. Next time fire back with, "I know you are but what am I?" to everything he says. ;)

[libertea]

I'm also not kidding, my brother claims that humans are by nature "social creatures" and it's in our nature to share. He said by nature we aren't individuals.

:eek:

Then why do we need the gov to share for us?

[danberkeley]

He's 29 and I'm 31. He and most of his friends are part of the new-age, trendy, sex & football, Obama-be-cool, guvment-is-our-friend crowd. He's a carbon copy of my dad. I think what's holding them back are two main areas. They feel comfort in going with flow, my brother even told me if things get worse I'm going to suffer too. The other lack of reason is not being able to visual a bad government/fake government/nwo. Without being able to get past these two concepts they're lost and I think this is our problem with the rest of the masses as well.

Everything was fine and dandy during the 1920s until the stock market crash. I think it was the people who acted as if there was no tomorrow who got hit the most since they had no (privately produced) safety net to ride out the Great Depression. If Obama actually does what He says he wants to do concerning the economy, expect the Great Depression II. Things wont be fun & games for long.

[micahnelson]

Whenever someone keeps saying, "that's only your opinion" to every thing you say (like the Constitution is the law of the land), is this considered circular reasoning? Or just lack of reasoning?

Its a lack of understanding.


The law is the law.

Well that's your opinion. I'm going to steal this car because I believe I have a right to it.

-you are under arrest for grand theft auto.

Well that's your opinion. I believe I am free to take all that I am able to obtain.

-You are resisting arrest I am going to tazer you.

Well, thats your opinion, I believe I am --- BZZZZT thmp thp thp aya aya ya


And there is the answer, government is the enforcement of the will of the people with power. According to the constitution, the government is made up of people who represent the interests of their constituents in the Federal Government (This is not opinion, this is fact. You may choose to ignore the constitution- but this is what the words say.)

We collectively choose representatives who make laws that are, in theory, for the benefit of the people. The purpose of this, or any valid government is to maximize peace, prosperity, and liberty.

The alternatives are to let the government decide everything and limit growth of one element, to the benefit of another. For instance, we have had governments sacrafice peace and liberty for prosperity. I believe Obama is going to limit liberty for prosperity. I would ask your commie brother if he would trust a corporation to run all the details of his life, and then ask him what the difference is when a government that does not subject itself to the will of the people runs his life.

Another alternative is for there to be no government, and might makes right. This would mean cartels, gangs, syndicates, and conglomerates would be in total control. This is similar to now in some ways, when one group of people is above the law, and another group is subject to it. Government is a weapon wielded by these barbarians.

[danberkeley]

Your brother is using an ignoratio elenchi (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoratio+elenchi). Unfortunately, it is difficult to deal with people who fall into that fallacy and it would be un-libertarian of you to force him to be otherwise. Education is key in the fight for freedom. Teach those not yet infected by the statist bug.

[RCA]

Your brother is using an ignoratio elenchi (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ignoratio+elenchi). Unfortunately, it is difficult to deal with people who fall into that fallacy and it would be un-libertarian of you to force him to be otherwise. Education is key in the fight for freedom. Teach those not yet infected by the statist bug.

Thanks! This was what I have been searching for! You gave both the explanation and the solution! My life just got easier. (bows, in appreciation)

:D

Also, maybe I'm being too simplistic, but the general public is a dynamic population that is flowing freely along and occasionally, some will fall into a hole called ignoratio elenchi. Once in that hole, they have the choice to remain there or come out. However, once they've fallen down that hole, my ability to educate/convince them has ceased, until they crawl back out again, but most will probably remain there for life. It would be hypocritical of me to attempt to pull them out of that dark place if they wanted to stay there forever.

BTW, I just had an argument with my brother and dad who tag-teamed me about wanting to own a gun. They said only terrorists and hunters would have a need for one. I got offended (my mistake) and told them it was ludicrous that they brought up the suggestion in the first place. I now know that they are in that hole at least for the time being and I have no right to try to pull them out. Maybe I can enjoy my dinner now.

[M House]

Sex is trendy? Well whatever u guys need to move beyond the trendy stage, it's like my 30 something cousin asking me to join his facebook page. Education, I guess but I can think how highly educated my parents fail too at these concepts. Just reminds me constantly that the only difference between ignorant people and old people is experience. Well whatever nothing like seeing them ask me how to use a computer and treat it like something amazing new. Seeing since computers have been around for like over 20 years and they use their cell phones fine which just took off in less than a decade.

[danberkeley]

Thanks! This was what I have been searching for! You gave both the explanation and the solution! My life just got easier. (bows, in appreciation)

:D

You're welcome! :cool:


Also, maybe I'm being too simplistic, but the general public is a dynamic population that is flowing freely along and occasionally, some will fall into a hole called ignoratio elenchi. Once in that hole, they have the choice to remain there or come out. However, once they've fallen down that hole, my ability to educate/convince them has ceased, until they crawl back out again, but most will probably remain there for life. It would be hypocritical of me to attempt to pull them out of that dark place if they wanted to stay there forever.

Yeah. This is what I fear the most with Obama's presidency. He wants to give free college "education" to everyone. He wants "qualified" teachers. The guv'ment is going to use this to further discredit the libertarianism and free-marketism. College students will be the future of this country but they will be infected by the statist bug. Is it too extreme for me to say that we are seriously heading towards Russian/Chianese-style communism? Afterall, capitalism failed. The future of this country is gloomy. :(


BTW, I just had an argument with my brother and dad who tag-teamed me about wanting to own a gun. They said only terrorists and hunters would have a need for one. I got offended (my mistake) and told them it was ludicrous that they brought up the suggestion in the first place. I now know that they are in that hole at least for the time being and I have no right to try to pull them out. Maybe I can enjoy my dinner now.

So why do cops have guns? :D :rolleyes:

[fr33domfightr]

Thanks! This was what I have been searching for! You gave both the explanation and the solution! My life just got easier. (bows, in appreciation)

:D

Also, maybe I'm being too simplistic, but the general public is a dynamic population that is flowing freely along and occasionally, some will fall into a hole called ignoratio elenchi. Once in that hole, they have the choice to remain there or come out. However, once they've fallen down that hole, my ability to educate/convince them has ceased, until they crawl back out again, but most will probably remain there for life. It would be hypocritical of me to attempt to pull them out of that dark place if they wanted to stay there forever.

BTW, I just had an argument with my brother and dad who tag-teamed me about wanting to own a gun. They said only terrorists and hunters would have a need for one. I got offended (my mistake) and told them it was ludicrous that they brought up the suggestion in the first place. I now know that they are in that hole at least for the time being and I have no right to try to pull them out. Maybe I can enjoy my dinner now.


Regarding the gun, tell them to go f*ck off. It's in the Constitution baby, 2nd Amendment. Your brother says, "who says," then you say, "I say, so now I'm going to excercise my rights, as written in the constitution, just to prove it's within my rights!!" Later, when you get the gun, show your stupid brother and say "see, there it is mother f*cker!! I excercised my rights as written in the constitution and the 'state' agreed with me and now I've got a gun!!!!" Then ask him, "do you understand your rights are written in the constitution?!?!"

Btw, if you do get a gun, make sure you get a trigger lock. Your brother sounds a little unstable. I don't think I would trust him with a gun, or having one in a house where he might have access to one!!" Also, regarding your brother, it sounds just like he doesn't want to admit you're right. He just wants to be take the devils advocate route. Maybe you're putting too much pressure on him. I say, give him some easy to read book, maybe he'll learn something.

Also, if you do get a gun, get some instruction at the local indoor our outdoor shooting range. I've got many guns and I love them all!! All American brotha!!



FF

[Imperial]

To make it a little more clear, I would say I believe property rights are essential to a free society and he would say:

"That's your opinion"

Then I would say I own my myself and he would say:

"That's your opinion"

Then I would say this country doesn't follow the Constitution and he would say:

"Based on your interpretation of the Constitution, that's your opinion"

Then I would say the meaning of the Constitution is evident based on historical documents such as The Federalists Papers/Anti-Federalist Papers and he would say:

"But those aren't the law so those are meaningless"

But then we're right back to where we started. He says it's not the law but won't agree we need to follow The Constitution. See my point? These people just don't have functioning reason glands or something, it's downright SCARY!




I just figured out the problem you are having. In any situation, it is far easier in competitive debate to destroy your opponent than to create your own ground.

In this case, he continually attacks your position. What you need to do then is to get him going. Tempt him into a rant about some liberal position. Then, you start pointing out the logical fallacies he makes. However, when you do this so that you are not following his flawed debate style pull in your own ground in brief snippets during the debate...however, make sure the focus is always on how stupid his policy is.

For example, I find it easiest to win a debate on the free market. So, you can tempt him into making really generic and obvious condemnations of how regulation brought us to the point of economic collapse. Let him keep ranting until his fallacies become obvious. Every now and then, mention obvious positives of your ideas.

The other point I would do is impact calculus. Ultimately, two lines of thought are going to produce two ultimate scenarios for society. Argue comparatively to your side and his. You can decry his scenario while propagating your own.

For example, on the free market. A centralized economic system will ultimately yield the Soviet economy and lead to a collapse. Meanwhile, free trade will increase prosperity for all and create financial stability. While those are HUGE generalizations, the point of impact calculus is to pull on pathos and logos to force your point into the minds of onlookers. Like Patrick Henry's Give Me Liberty speech(one of the greatest rhetorical speeches of all time)

[mediahasyou]

debating is a waste of time..

[danberkeley]

I just figured out the problem you are having. In any situation, it is far easier in competitive debate to destroy your opponent than to create your own ground.

In this case, he continually attacks your position. What you need to do then is to get him going. Tempt him into a rant about some liberal position. Then, you start pointing out the logical fallacies he makes. However, when you do this so that you are not following his flawed debate style pull in your own ground in brief snippets during the debate...however, make sure the focus is always on how stupid his policy is.

For example, I find it easiest to win a debate on the free market. So, you can tempt him into making really generic and obvious condemnations of how regulation brought us to the point of economic collapse. Let him keep ranting until his fallacies become obvious. Every now and then, mention obvious positives of your ideas.

The other point I would do is impact calculus. Ultimately, two lines of thought are going to produce two ultimate scenarios for society. Argue comparatively to your side and his. You can decry his scenario while propagating your own.

For example, on the free market. A centralized economic system will ultimately yield the Soviet economy and lead to a collapse. Meanwhile, free trade will increase prosperity for all and create financial stability. While those are HUGE generalizations, the point of impact calculus is to pull on pathos and logos to force your point into the minds of onlookers. Like Patrick Henry's Give Me Liberty speech(one of the greatest rhetorical speeches of all time)

That is your opinion.

[Athan]

Him: Who says you have property rights?

Response: Obviously not Hitler, Stalin, and every other fucking tyrant in existence.

[SLSteven]

I'm also not kidding, my brother claims that humans are by nature "social creatures" and it's in our nature to share. He said by nature we aren't individuals.

:eek:

Sharing is good. Stealing bad.

[DFF]

In order to handle a circular debater, you need to become a master debater. :rolleyes:

[fr33domfightr]

Or a Cunning Linguist. ;)

[freedom-maniac]

I'm also not kidding, my brother claims that humans are by nature "social creatures" and it's in our nature to share. He said by nature we aren't individuals.

:eek:


Where there in lies a fallacy with your brother's argument. If we were naturally social, and liked sharing, we wouldn't need a government to redistribute wealth. That statement just supports the libertarian argument that the poor can be taken care of by private charities.

[nate895]

I'm also not kidding, my brother claims that humans are by nature "social creatures" and it's in our nature to share. He said by nature we aren't individuals.

:eek:

We are "social creatures," but that simply means that we need other people around to socialize with, not that we need to share by using the government to force us to.

[FunkBuddha]

How about asking your brother if it is morally wrong for someone to put a gun to his head and demand a portion of everything he owns.

If he says it isn't morally wrong then argue that he is a sociopath because he has no regard for his fellow members of society.

If he says that it is morally wrong then ask him why it's ok for government to do so.

[libertea]

In order to handle a circular debater, you need to become a master debater. :rolleyes:

All I'm missing is the "de".