"Appealing to "proper" debating technique is going to be counter-productive here."
What!? Appealing to logical, turn based, evidence based arguments, is not relevant to this argument?!?
"getting the right answer."
And you think.... that thats going to happen without debating right? Right?
"Debates as commonly practiced train you to write your conclusion before searching for the reasons"
No it doesnt. Being for the proposition of an argument is NOT a conclusion, it is a theory.
You get points here because your actually talking about scientific method (i hope).
"You should read much more of the sequences before calling us wrong so authoritatively."
I'm willing to admit thats possible. But my last post. Is fine the way it is.
You didnt prove anything, and my later researching of "map and territory" or "belief and reality" (which i take to be a theory which is a proposed addition to the list of flaws and fallacies.) didnt lend any greater credibility to your point.
Its use of the term belief immediately characterises my argument as a belief, instead of evidenced based. Beliefs do not require evidence, they require faith. Therefore your fallacy does not apply here. Furthermore, it is very fallacious and risky to use this fallacy "belief and reality" because it can be stated, without the user ever having to prove the veracity of “belief and reality” by; disproving the evidence submitted, proving something is a ‘belief’ and based on faith, providing contrary evidence to prove that ‘reality’ is indeed different from the so called ‘belief’.
This new fallacy, "belief and reality" instead substitutes a group of different fallacies which could be used instead. They are:
appeal to authority (in the case the map/belief is issued by an authority that does not evidence that it is correct)
correlation not causation (where it is confused which is the map/belief and which is the reality)
thin end of the wedge (where the maps representatives is taken to extremes)
restricting the options (where the map omits valuable information about reality)
Of all the fallacies I expect that restricting the options is the one that is the most representative of the bias their trying to convey here.
Your highschool debate club appears to have done you a disservice. Reality is not changed by your ability to spin the opponent's words into the nearest accessible fallacy so that you can prove yourself superior to the enemy in the eyes of a judge. In my observation the more skill someone has in debating (and more importantly the more they focus on it) the more they are able to prove how unnecessary it is to update based on evidence. Whether you are too far gone to recover is yet to be seen but your arguments here remind me more of boxing than of thinking. Which is fine - epistemic rationality is a less useful skill in most situations than rhetoric.
Iksorod and I made a Google doc of intro-level training materials for rationality / critical thinking. We'll keep adding to it as we find more stuff. Please comment with your own additions.