|Kaj_Sotala||v1.14.0Jan 18th 2021||(+473/-85)|
|Grognor||v1.13.0Mar 11th 2012||(+12)|
|Vladimir_Nesov||v1.12.0Jun 20th 2011||(-550) used standard template, removed an extra Yudkowsky|
|Paul Crowley||v1.11.0Jun 15th 2011||(+550) Quote the key passage in [http://lesswrong.com/lw/gz/policy_debates_should_not_appear_onesided/ Policy Debates Should Not Appear One-Sided]|
|Zack_M_Davis||v1.10.0Nov 17th 2009||(+42/-21)|
|bogus||v1.9.0Oct 4th 2009||(+342) conceptual metaphor, lk to adversarial system|
|bogus||v1.8.0Oct 4th 2009||(+19) +related|
|PeerInfinity||v1.7.0Sep 28th 2009||(+73/-73)|
|Vladimir_Nesov||v1.6.0Jul 23rd 2009||(+9) /* See also */|
|Vladimir_Nesov||v1.5.0Jul 23rd 2009||(+17) /* See also */|
Arguments as soldiers is an alternate label for a conceptual metaphor which is more commonly stated as "Argument is War/Battle". This metaphor is at the core of the adversarial system of debate which is widespread in politics, law and academia.
immatureto hold onto this framework for private or deliberative decision making: Arguments are soldiers. Once you know which side you're on, you must support all arguments of that side, and attack all arguments that appear to favor the enemy side; otherwise it's like stabbing your soldiers in the back - providing aid and comfort to the enemy. People who would be level-headed about evenhandedly weighing all sides of an issue in their professional life as scientists, can suddenly turn into slogan-chanting zombies when there's a Blue or Green position on an issue.