By the OP's reasoning, John Lott's book More Guns, Less Crime cannot be used in a debate because it is based on statistical analysis and peer-reviewed scientific methodology rather than emotional and anecdotal responses from victims of gun crimes.
Only victims of gun violence can have valid opinions on gun laws
- Thread starter jstaylor62
- Start Date
- Status
Having spent the better part of the last 6 months in Illinois and Chicago in particular I can tell you that most people there on the street HATE their guns laws and object to the restrictions that are placed upon them. I'm not up there talking to gun people per say, but I'll start conversations at bars, restaurants, hotels or where ever I may be and usually that's the reaction I get.
I find it a pity that they have not managed to overturn them based on the strong feelings of those I talked to. Especially outside of Chicago that viewpoint is rampant. Illinois, as I have come to understand, is divided as "Chicago" and "Everywhere Else".
Most people there understand that the violence on their streets is not from the law abiding. They understand the violence on their streets is not diminishing or going away based on their gun laws. They understand that guns themselves are not the problem at all.
Last time I was there I was watching a morning news report talking about the subject as a news report came on that someone had been murdered and left on the side of the Stevenson Expressway. I looked up at the other person and said "Well, that's not right...there aren't any guns in the city of Chicago" and they got pissed but admitted I made my point pretty clear. Especially when I followed up that "Good thing it wasn't you since you couldn't have defended yourself".
How can you have a reasonable debate with anyone using intellectually dishonest debate tactics? That's what I'm having a hard time understanding here...
Please explain what you mean by "intellectually dishonest debate tactics".
"Different" ... not more valid or authoritative.
I don't have a problem with death sentence itself - I do have a problem that people get to literally vote who gets to die (regardless of circumstances).
I don't have a problem with gun control per se - some individuals should not have access to guns; however I believe that the same individuals should not have access to any weapons and should be supervised - aka locked-up criminals and dangerously insane.
As a young adult I was held at gunpoint by a law enforcement officer. I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. My reaction to the experience was completely irrational - I thought it was dangerous and wrong for the police to have guns. Luckily I came to my senses after a few weeks. My personal experience had pushed me to a completely wrong and illogical conclusion.
I still think it is incredibly elitist and entitled to believe my status as a victim would give me special privledges to dismiss the opinions of others. I don't need to try penis to know I like women. I don't need to live I a community country to know I disagree with that method of rule. That is the great thing about knowledge. We can learn and grow.
For starters in this context:
Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating. (ever see Chris Wallace, Piers Morgan or ANY of the other anti-gun mouthpieces let a gun advocate finish a statement without interrupting?)
Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2 changing the subject; as stated above, it is prohibited by Roberts Rule of Order 43; a typical tactic used against critics is to say, Theyre just trying to sell newspapers. Questioning motives is not always wrong; only when it is used to prove the opponents facts or logic wrong is it invalid.
Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2 changing the subject.
False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it assumes facts not in evidence.
Sloganeering: Debater uses a slogan rather than using facts or logic. Slogans are vague sentences or phrases that derive their power from rhetorical devices like alliteration, repetition, cadence, or rhyming; Rich Dad Poor Dads Dont work for money, make money work for you is a classic example. In sports, coaches frequently rely on clichés, a less rhetorical form of slogan, to deflect criticism.
Cult of personality: debater attempts to make the likability of each debate opponent the focus of the debate on the grounds that he believes he is more likable than the opponent. (in this case, Gabby Giffords vs. Wayne LaPierre)
Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present.
Playing on widely held fantasies: debater offers facts or logic that support the fantasies of the audience thereby triggering powerful desires to believe that override normal desire for truth or logic.
Stereotyping: debater proves his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of; dismissing criticism by academic researchers by citing Ivory Tower stereotypes is an example of this debate tactic (i.e. "gun nuts")
Scapegoating: debater blames problems on persons other than the audience; this is a negative version of playing on widely-held fantasies; it plays on widely-held animosities or dislikes. ("assault weapons")
Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes. (again, "Assault Weapons")
Citing over-valued credentials: debater accurately claims something about himself or something he wants to prove, but the claim made is one that attempts to get the audience to over-rely on a credential that is or may be over-valued by the audience; for example, some con men point to registration of a trademark or corporation as evidence of approval by the government of the con mans goods or services. (i.e., surrounding yourself on a dais with law enforcement officers in uniform, like wrapping himself in a cloak)
Claiming membership in a group affiliated with audience members: debater claims to be a member of a group that members of the audience are also members of like a religion, ethnic group, veterans group, and so forth; the debaters hope is that the audience members will let their guard down with regard to facts and logic as a result and that they will give their alleged fellow group member the benefit of any doubt or even my-group-can-do-no-wrong immunity. (you don't see pro-gun groups posing as anti-gun and saying additional gun laws aren't needed)
Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.
Rejecting facts or logic as opinion: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact. (OMG, anti-gun "facts" are appalling!)
Argument from intimidation: [from a reader] The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: "Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea." This is reminiscent of the McCarthy era loyalty oaths or groups that demand that candidates take a yes or no position on complex issues. (tired of the "common sense" argument yet?)
All of these have been used by the anti-gun crowd. I'm not saying that our side is squeaky clean on this subject, but it's a drop in the bucket in comparison. If I hear "but why do you NEED an assault rifle" or "more than 10 rounds", I think I'll puke. It's an intellectually dishonest debate tactic to put us on the defensive. We're not the ones trying to justify taking away an honest, law abiding person's ability to have something, they are.
This illustrates my point exactly. Someone who ate at that restaurant has experience at that restaurant, but that doesn't invalidate the opinion of someone who did not eat at that particular restaurant - especially if the person who did not has some other insight into this particular restaurant (they might know the staff, read online reviews, have friends who ate there with similar tastes that gave their opinion, etc.).
I think I see where this is getting off-base though. Your original point (about opinions being valid or not) seems sort of absolutist in nature - opinions are valid to the individual who deems it valid, so you're trying to push an absolute onto something subjective (in a very broad generalizing way - that's why so many folks think you're trolling).
At the end of the day, no opinions on gun violence (or human violence with whatever tool that particular human chooses) are valid to those who ignore them. The most important part of the gun-rights/ gun-violence / gun-control debate are are facts - and those facts paint a picture that should make opinions even less valid.
Facts are facts and even starting a thread over who's opinion is valid or not isn't accomplishing much other than making the majority of folks on OSA view your opinion as invalid (mostly because you're "closing your ears" to the opinions of those whose experience doesn't match yours - this is how MSNBC and Fox News act, not regular folks who can converse and debate openly).
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
I told myself to wait at least a week before I started to crack election jokes. Here goes.- Latest: OK Corgi Rancher
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
