Debate and manipulate on a level that most people are completely unaware of, would anyone read it?

EDIT: Btw, will edit according to response.

1.Argument Construction
2.Signification and Definition

I would.

I probably would.

I wouldn't because it would most likely be way longer than anything I would commit myself to.

I'd do it in chapter form if anything. It's pretty concise, so far. All I have is badly organized notes in a folder on my desktop as of right now, though.

I would

Perhaps :hmm:


plz teach me to raep minds

I'm gonna do this in baby-steps. Too busy to devote to writing epic chapters:

First things first. Before you're going to be able to debate or figure out when somebody is saying something incorrect, you're going to have to know how logic is made.

Don't leave room for error. If somebody asks a question or makes a statement, do not sit there trying to figure out what was implicit about what they were saying. Ask for further details if necessary, or, if possible, just answer it straight-forward. This leaves a lot less room for error and the ever so popular red herring (a reply that does not reference the original issue).

An argument must have all of these to be complete:

Stated thesis (arguing can go on forever if somebody doesn't know what they're arguing against, FES members seem to always misinterpret my thesis statements... refer to the last paragraph)
One or more premises (otherwise you're simply stating a conclusion. Make sure your premises are logical or concrete facts, and if necessary have premises for your premises)
Conclusion (Your premises need to lead to something. Kinda ridiculous not tell the opposing views _what_ it leads to)
Acknowledgment of opposing views (Otherwise you're kinda just stating information)

Unless it's explicitly incorrect, logic is usually correct. However, somebody may make an argument that assumes incorrect logic that (with that assumed incorrect logic) is correct. When this happens and you know it, question them, then point out their incorrect logic.

I'll get on to all the different types of incorrect logic next time I feel like writing.

Closed from lack of response.

I said I'd get into different types of logic this incorrect time, but I lied. I'm gonna go over signification and definition because it's much shorter and I'm feeling particularly lazy right now.

Signification:

Not everyone will assume the same mental image or thought to the same words. Environmental development is different for pretty much everyone, so not everyone will be relating in the same exact way. For example, if I say "Soup Bowl", not everyone is going to be able to picture the same soup bowl in their head because not everyone has seen the same soup bowls.

That brings us to

Definition:

When you use a term, be sure to define exactly what you mean by it. Not everyone will define the same term the same way unless the person who introduces the term sets exactly what it's supposed to mean for the discussion. Arguing over the definition of a term is also rather ridiculous because the presenter of the term and thus the presenter of related data concerning use of the term is ... well, presenting a term. A set variable that holds information that is being discussed. If you want the term to mean something different, just present a _different_ term.