Comment on For when arguments go off the bottom of The Debate Pyramid
Digit@lemmy.wtf 3 weeks ago
I ask, because, I’m not sure if the 2nd from bottom level was called “suppression”, nor am I sure (at all) what was the elaboration in the “violence” layer. … But I hope I’ve at least remained faithful to the spirit of it. Eager to hear any corrections. Or even, if anyone finds the original extended version, that would be great to compare to.
sem@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 weeks ago
I just did this today in another thread. Currently at name calling, hopefully stops there.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
Mods - please ban this
Digit@lemmy.wtf 3 weeks ago
Hope better, higher.
Hopefully you can raise it to centrally refuting the point.
Or at least to counterargument, above mere contradiction.
meco03211@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The problem is if the other person doesn’t go higher. You can completely refute the central claim of their argument. But if they simply respond by essentially shoving their fingers in their ears yelling “I can’t hear you!” the argument will go no further.
Digit@lemmy.wtf 3 weeks ago
Yup, it is problematic when others keep their arguments nearer the bottom. But at least your argument will have been valid. Even if they do attempt childish suppression.
One can even reference Graham’s Hierarchy of Disagreement, and some will still remain on the attack at the bottom. As just happened to me on another thread on lemmy. It harms their credibility, and their cognitive ability.