Academia, debates and criticism - does T or F really make a difference?

[Lerxst]

This all depends on the debate. One or the other won't make you enjoy, or hate them any more or less.

 

[Orion]

It's a good question and like Arsal and Bird have pointed out, both feeling and thinking functions are rational in use. So when we talk about feelers in debate, we are assuming that the feeler can conduct rational arguments based on personal and ethical criteria- which is totally possible and completely logical.

 

[bickelz]

It's a good question and like Arsal and Bird have pointed out, both feeling and thinking functions are rational in use. So when we talk about feelers in debate, we are assuming that the feeler can conduct rational arguments based on personal and ethical criteria- which is totally possible and completely logical.

But not everybody sees it that way. You have to be really careful when adding ethical criteria into arguments, even if they're completely logical, people will throw them out of the argument.

I know that kind of happened to me in my English class fall quarter. It was only 101 so the TA went over our papers with us a couple of times in draft form before turning it in for grading. I watched her read my thesis twice so I know she should have caught this. She said it was a good thesis and that the rest of the paper was quite coherent and I was putting ideas together well. I got a D in the paper because I used the word "good" in my thesis by essentially asking is this "good for us". I was talking about industrialization and the environment as well as out human interaction with it. She saw on word and felt that the rest of the paper was a value judgement.

 

[Resonance]

But not everybody sees it that way. You have to be really careful when adding ethical criteria into arguments, even if they're completely logical, people will throw them out of the argument.

I know that kind of happened to me in my English class fall quarter. It was only 101 so the TA went over our papers with us a couple of times in draft form before turning it in for grading. I watched her read my thesis twice so I know she should have caught this. She said it was a good thesis and that the rest of the paper was quite coherent and I was putting ideas together well. I got a D in the paper because I used the word "good" in my thesis by essentially asking is this "good for us". I was talking about industrialization and the environment as well as out human interaction with it. She saw on word and felt that the rest of the paper was a value judgement.

Most profs seem to consider rhetorical questions to be the beginnings of a disaster, so there's that.

 

[Broken705]

But not everybody sees it that way. You have to be really careful when adding ethical criteria into arguments, even if they're completely logical, people will throw them out of the argument.

I know that kind of happened to me in my English class fall quarter. It was only 101 so the TA went over our papers with us a couple of times in draft form before turning it in for grading. I watched her read my thesis twice so I know she should have caught this. She said it was a good thesis and that the rest of the paper was quite coherent and I was putting ideas together well. I got a D in the paper because I used the word "good" in my thesis by essentially asking is this "good for us". I was talking about industrialization and the environment as well as out human interaction with it. She saw on word and felt that the rest of the paper was a value judgement.

If you changed the word "good" to "effective", "productive", or "efficient", you may have made an A. And when I think about, they really do all mean the same thing.

I remember a thinker once said to me that he believed something was "not a functional trait"- what does that mean? Simply put, it's bad. That's just a more robotic sounding way of saying that. lol

If one's goal is to persuade, then no matter how many fancy words the person uses, it is still to convince another that their viewpoint is better than any opposing ones.

But if the purpose is only to inform, then that would be a different story. If one really wants to be objective, then the person must look at all information as being neither good nor bad but only correct or incorrect.