Arguing in good faith

[Ernie]

It struck me this morning that many of the pages of debate on MN are the result of people not arguing in good faith.

Poisoning the well, oversimplification, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, false attribution, hollow man arguments, nutpicking, cherry picking, quote mining, caricature and distorting what someone says in order to build a case against someone that doesn't exist, results in huge amounts of wasted time both in reading and writing.

Poisoning the well = Discrediting a person before addressing their argument.
Oversimplification = Removing important nuance from an argument.
Mischaracterization = Describing someone's position incorrectly.
Misrepresentation = Presenting someone's position inaccurately.
False attribution = Claiming someone holds a view they do not.
Hollow-man argument = Inventing an argument that no one actually made.
Nutpicking = Treating an extreme fringe view as representative of an entire group.
Cherry-picking = Selecting only parts of an argument while ignoring the rest.
Quote mining = Taking statements out of context to change their meaning.
Caricature = An exaggerated version of someone's views.
Distortion = Twisting or altering someone's argument.
Straw manning = Replacing an opponent's actual argument with a weaker or exaggerated version.

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

The opposite of straw manning is steelmanning—presenting your opponent's argument in its strongest, fairest form before responding to it.
If we did this, I think it would make for much better discussion on MN.

[mike]

It struck me this morning that many of the pages of debate on MN are the result of people not arguing in good faith.

Poisoning the well, oversimplification, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, false attribution, hollow man arguments, nutpicking, cherry picking, quote mining, caricature and distorting what someone says in order to build a case against someone that doesn't exist, results in huge amounts of wasted time both in reading and writing.

Poisoning the well = Discrediting a person before addressing their argument.
Oversimplification = Removing important nuance from an argument.
Mischaracterization = Describing someone's position incorrectly.
Misrepresentation = Presenting someone's position inaccurately.
False attribution = Claiming someone holds a view they do not.
Hollow-man argument = Inventing an argument that no one actually made.
Nutpicking = Treating an extreme fringe view as representative of an entire group.
Cherry-picking = Selecting only parts of an argument while ignoring the rest.
Quote mining = Taking statements out of context to change their meaning.
Caricature = An exaggerated version of someone's views.
Distortion = Twisting or altering someone's argument.
Straw manning = Replacing an opponent's actual argument with a weaker or exaggerated version.

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

The opposite of straw manning is steelmanning—presenting your opponent's argument in its strongest, fairest form before responding to it.
If we did this, I think it would make for much better discussion on MN.

If you want this information in story form, here you go.

[JohnH]

It struck me this morning that many of the pages of debate on MN are the result of people not arguing in good faith.

Poisoning the well, oversimplification, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, false attribution, hollow man arguments, nutpicking, cherry picking, quote mining, caricature and distorting what someone says in order to build a case against someone that doesn't exist, results in huge amounts of wasted time both in reading and writing.

Poisoning the well = Discrediting a person before addressing their argument.
Oversimplification = Removing important nuance from an argument.
Mischaracterization = Describing someone's position incorrectly.
Misrepresentation = Presenting someone's position inaccurately.
False attribution = Claiming someone holds a view they do not.
Hollow-man argument = Inventing an argument that no one actually made.
Nutpicking = Treating an extreme fringe view as representative of an entire group.
Cherry-picking = Selecting only parts of an argument while ignoring the rest.
Quote mining = Taking statements out of context to change their meaning.
Caricature = An exaggerated version of someone's views.
Distortion = Twisting or altering someone's argument.
Straw manning = Replacing an opponent's actual argument with a weaker or exaggerated version.

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

The opposite of straw manning is steelmanning—presenting your opponent's argument in its strongest, fairest form before responding to it.
If we did this, I think it would make for much better discussion on MN.

I have a feeling this would simply transform the forum into one where people accuse each other of arguing in bad faith instead. I can think of several of the above to accuse you of in a few contexts, but I don't think that would be particularly helpful, kind, nor would it be fair to you to do so.

In the Holdeman Mennonites thread I've dealt with almost all of those, specifically:

Poisoning the well
Mischaracterization
Misrepresentation
False attribution
Nutpicking
Caricature
Distortion

... and who knows, maybe more. Hollering "You're arguing with me in bad faith!" would not, I believe, be very fruitful, nor would it be in good faith myself.

[ohio jones]

Hollering "You're arguing with me in bad faith!" would not, I believe, be very fruitful, nor would it be in good faith myself.

Oversimplification, misrepresentation, hollow man, caricature...

I think shouting must be a fallacy too.

[JohnH]

Hollering "You're arguing with me in bad faith!" would not, I believe, be very fruitful, nor would it be in good faith myself.

Oversimplification, misrepresentation, hollow man, caricature...

I think shouting must be a fallacy too.

We could bring straw men into this.

[joshuabgood]

It struck me this morning that many of the pages of debate on MN are the result of people not arguing in good faith.

Poisoning the well, oversimplification, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, false attribution, hollow man arguments, nutpicking, cherry picking, quote mining, caricature and distorting what someone says in order to build a case against someone that doesn't exist, results in huge amounts of wasted time both in reading and writing.

Poisoning the well = Discrediting a person before addressing their argument.
Oversimplification = Removing important nuance from an argument.
Mischaracterization = Describing someone's position incorrectly.
Misrepresentation = Presenting someone's position inaccurately.
False attribution = Claiming someone holds a view they do not.
Hollow-man argument = Inventing an argument that no one actually made.
Nutpicking = Treating an extreme fringe view as representative of an entire group.
Cherry-picking = Selecting only parts of an argument while ignoring the rest.
Quote mining = Taking statements out of context to change their meaning.
Caricature = An exaggerated version of someone's views.
Distortion = Twisting or altering someone's argument.
Straw manning = Replacing an opponent's actual argument with a weaker or exaggerated version.

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

The opposite of straw manning is steelmanning—presenting your opponent's argument in its strongest, fairest form before responding to it.
If we did this, I think it would make for much better discussion on MN.

Wrestling with pigs is a bad idea because you get dirty/muddy. And besides, the pigs like it.

[JohnH]

It struck me this morning that many of the pages of debate on MN are the result of people not arguing in good faith.

Poisoning the well, oversimplification, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, false attribution, hollow man arguments, nutpicking, cherry picking, quote mining, caricature and distorting what someone says in order to build a case against someone that doesn't exist, results in huge amounts of wasted time both in reading and writing.

Poisoning the well = Discrediting a person before addressing their argument.
Oversimplification = Removing important nuance from an argument.
Mischaracterization = Describing someone's position incorrectly.
Misrepresentation = Presenting someone's position inaccurately.
False attribution = Claiming someone holds a view they do not.
Hollow-man argument = Inventing an argument that no one actually made.
Nutpicking = Treating an extreme fringe view as representative of an entire group.
Cherry-picking = Selecting only parts of an argument while ignoring the rest.
Quote mining = Taking statements out of context to change their meaning.
Caricature = An exaggerated version of someone's views.
Distortion = Twisting or altering someone's argument.
Straw manning = Replacing an opponent's actual argument with a weaker or exaggerated version.

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

The opposite of straw manning is steelmanning—presenting your opponent's argument in its strongest, fairest form before responding to it.
If we did this, I think it would make for much better discussion on MN.

Wrestling with pigs is a bad idea because you get dirty/muddy. And besides, the pigs like it.

What human beings made in the image of God are being compared to pigs here?

Isn’t this dehumanising language?

[Ernie]

It struck me this morning that many of the pages of debate on MN are the result of people not arguing in good faith.

Poisoning the well, oversimplification, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, false attribution, hollow man arguments, nutpicking, cherry picking, quote mining, caricature and distorting what someone says in order to build a case against someone that doesn't exist, results in huge amounts of wasted time both in reading and writing.

Poisoning the well = Discrediting a person before addressing their argument.
Oversimplification = Removing important nuance from an argument.
Mischaracterization = Describing someone's position incorrectly.
Misrepresentation = Presenting someone's position inaccurately.
False attribution = Claiming someone holds a view they do not.
Hollow-man argument = Inventing an argument that no one actually made.
Nutpicking = Treating an extreme fringe view as representative of an entire group.
Cherry-picking = Selecting only parts of an argument while ignoring the rest.
Quote mining = Taking statements out of context to change their meaning.
Caricature = An exaggerated version of someone's views.
Distortion = Twisting or altering someone's argument.
Straw manning = Replacing an opponent's actual argument with a weaker or exaggerated version.

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

The opposite of straw manning is steelmanning—presenting your opponent's argument in its strongest, fairest form before responding to it.
If we did this, I think it would make for much better discussion on MN.

Wrestling with pigs is a bad idea because you get dirty/muddy. And besides, the pigs like it.

What human beings made in the image of God are being compared to pigs here?

Isn’t this dehumanising language?

The Bible uses similar analogies.

"As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion"

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

"Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and, 'A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.'"

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."

"Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh."

[temporal1]

Wrestling with pigs is a bad idea because you get dirty/muddy. And besides, the pigs like it.

What human beings made in the image of God are being compared to pigs here?

Isn’t this dehumanising language?

The Bible uses similar analogies.

"As a jewel of gold in a swine's snout, so is a fair woman which is without discretion"

"Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces."

"Of them the proverbs are true: 'A dog returns to its vomit,' and, 'A sow that is washed returns to her wallowing in the mud.'"

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly."

"Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh."

i don’t believe anyone i know of is capable of outdoing scriptures in jarring language.
it’s intentionally jarring, and serves His purpose.

[Soloist]

It struck me this morning that many of the pages of debate on MN are the result of people not arguing in good faith.

Poisoning the well, oversimplification, mischaracterization, misrepresentation, false attribution, hollow man arguments, nutpicking, cherry picking, quote mining, caricature and distorting what someone says in order to build a case against someone that doesn't exist, results in huge amounts of wasted time both in reading and writing.

Poisoning the well = Discrediting a person before addressing their argument.
Oversimplification = Removing important nuance from an argument.
Mischaracterization = Describing someone's position incorrectly.
Misrepresentation = Presenting someone's position inaccurately.
False attribution = Claiming someone holds a view they do not.
Hollow-man argument = Inventing an argument that no one actually made.
Nutpicking = Treating an extreme fringe view as representative of an entire group.
Cherry-picking = Selecting only parts of an argument while ignoring the rest.
Quote mining = Taking statements out of context to change their meaning.
Caricature = An exaggerated version of someone's views.
Distortion = Twisting or altering someone's argument.
Straw manning = Replacing an opponent's actual argument with a weaker or exaggerated version.

I think if we would call these sorts of things out rather than responding to such posts, it would save a lot of time, and be more helpful in the long run.

The opposite of straw manning is steelmanning—presenting your opponent's argument in its strongest, fairest form before responding to it.
If we did this, I think it would make for much better discussion on MN.

If you want this information in story form, here you go.

Wife: Groovy story, Mike!