Discussion in 'Classic Opie & Anthony General Discussion' started by SOS, Feb 13, 2013.
What type of argument is valid? One based in cold hard facts or one based in appeals to emotion?
Whichever one the President tells us is valid.
Obviously facts are the most valid but they use
emotion to push agendas that the facts don't support.
Everybody loves children and puppies.
Given the fact that we are 'Baggers...
Every argument is based on emotion once something is agreed upon as fact. So I'd say arguments based on emotion are more valid.
Nothing beats emotional facts.
Facts if you are a man, emotion if you are a woman or a liberal...which is pretty much the same thing.
The "or I'll beat the piss outta you" argument works well on children
Nothing is more valid than my emotion-based arguments... and if you don't accept that, you're worse than Hitler.
Ad hominem arguments are for cunts
Debate like Spock. Leave the emotions to the bitches.
Yay! *wags tail*
I prefer arguments full of hearsay and conjecture.
So you are part of the clergy?
nothing better than hacky conservative jokes.
well,except them hanging themselves...
Almost every argument based in emotion is horseshit. In business you never make a decision based on how you feel, you go with the facts and maybe a touch of intuition. Why would you treat your personal life any differently?
Both. A good lawyer will get his client off by playing to the emotions of the jury when the facts are muddled enough.
Get it right. It's not a hack joke, it's a stereotype. And as we all know, all stereotypes are based in truth.
The one based in fact. But you still need to properly define a fact, before that statement means anything of substance. Ohterwise, you'll just have people like fandango86 tell you that a fact is just something everyone agrees about. Like this:
But he's wrong. In reality, a fact is a statement about reality, established using direct observation of reality and logic. Whether anyone (or everyone) agrees with it or not is irrelevant.
P.S. You might also want to define "based", for the retarded portion of the audience: "based in A" means that it can be deduced from A using the rules of logic.
The question was about valid arguments, not arguments that will work if the jury is incapable of differentiating between valid and invalid arguments.
Well sure, it is "almost", because emotions are a part of reality. So yeah, if the topic of the conversation is emotions, then an argument might be based on someone observing those emotions and making a statement about them. For instance: I'm feeling sad because my mother's plane crashed, therefor I'm not a psychopath. Logical conclusion, and it's technically based on an emotion.
The problems start when someone starts observing emotions to make statements about minimum wage or the laws of physics. Then they're making an error, because they're not using logic to draw conclusions from their observation of reality. "people with no skills making 8 bucks an hour is wrong" is not the logical consequence of "I feel sad because people with no skills are making 8 bucks an hour", just as "it's wrong for a plane to crash when it runs out of fuel" is not the logical consequence of "I feel sad when a plane crashes". In fact, it is RIGHT that a plane crashes if it runs out of fuel, and it is RIGHT that someone with no skills makes very little money. It's Physics and Economics, both logical systems of thought based on the observation of reality.
So you're saying conservatives only use facts and logic when arguing for bans on gay marriage, teaching Intelligent Design, or stem cell research?
It's valid if it gets his client off.
The purpose of a criminal trial is to establish guilt or innocence, not to randomly assign guilt or innocence based on our feelings.
So no, whether it gets his client off or not, emotional arguments are not valid. As whoever gets raped and murdered next by the freshly acquitted client will no doubt soon find out.
Maybe they were asking for it?
Depends on the argument. In certain situations emotions are irrelevant, and in others facts are irrelevant.
For example, if someone calls your mother a whore and you kill him, the great emotional distress he caused you is irrelevant because even if he insulted you, you still can't kill him.
Conversely, cheating on your wife is totally legal, but most people would think you were an asshole for doing it based purely on emotions. The fact that you broke no laws is irrelevant.