I was expecting something more profound than that. Frankly I'm not enthusiastic about the second from the top, "quotes," by which I presume I mean citations. Citations are good for settling a factual argument but as a debate tactic I do't have a lot of enthusiasm for them; one can find citations supporting any position you want, and debates that just exchanges of dueling citations are little better than name-calling. They end up as quibbles over whose citations are more authoritative.
Debate by citation frankly strikes me as decadent, and the people who use them most tend to be those who can't make their own case.
Not to mention that a lot of people who post them are just trying to appear scholarly, like an inept film director who tilts the camera because he's seen tilted cameras in films by real directors but doesn't understand how and when.
There's a guy all over the substacks, goes by steersman, who promotes an idiotic position that prepubescent children and postmenopausal women are neither male nor female. He's been at this for at least eight years, posting the same citations to obscure journals that don't support his idea at all if anyone actually reads them. He can't make his case (how could he? It's absurd), so he posts his links and he has his insults all lined up. The citations don't help at all, but he's been working at this a long time and it appears to be his life.
I prefer debating people who can make a case, not dig up people with credential-lettuce who appear to support.
Are you familiar with Graham's Debate Triangle? Seems to fit nicely here:
https://themindcollection.com/revisiting-grahams-hierarchy-of-disagreement/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
This is great! Yes, it fits nicely. I think Mikael was using a far simpler version though:
Does he agree with me? > No > MaGa LuNaTiC!!!
I was expecting something more profound than that. Frankly I'm not enthusiastic about the second from the top, "quotes," by which I presume I mean citations. Citations are good for settling a factual argument but as a debate tactic I do't have a lot of enthusiasm for them; one can find citations supporting any position you want, and debates that just exchanges of dueling citations are little better than name-calling. They end up as quibbles over whose citations are more authoritative.
Debate by citation frankly strikes me as decadent, and the people who use them most tend to be those who can't make their own case.
Not to mention that a lot of people who post them are just trying to appear scholarly, like an inept film director who tilts the camera because he's seen tilted cameras in films by real directors but doesn't understand how and when.
There's a guy all over the substacks, goes by steersman, who promotes an idiotic position that prepubescent children and postmenopausal women are neither male nor female. He's been at this for at least eight years, posting the same citations to obscure journals that don't support his idea at all if anyone actually reads them. He can't make his case (how could he? It's absurd), so he posts his links and he has his insults all lined up. The citations don't help at all, but he's been working at this a long time and it appears to be his life.
I prefer debating people who can make a case, not dig up people with credential-lettuce who appear to support.
Very useful Web site! Thanks for bringing it to my attention.