Russell,Chad

I am a math major who appreciates the value of an argument based on logic. If an argument is not logically consistent with itself, the entire thing is called into question. If an argument is logically valid, then only the axioms must be checked in order to ensure its truth. To this end, I will look most favorably upon arguments based only on true facts, and arguments for which the synthesis of these facts comes from rational thought.

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument at all but rather a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent's agreement without actually saying anything. It is a method of bypassing logic in favor of psychological pressure. It consists of threatening to impeach an opponent's character by means of his own argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate or original thought. Example: "Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X's argument is false." The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily without evidence, and then offered as proof of his immorality. This type of argument is obviously not to be accepted.

I also try (to the best of my ability) to not get caught up in arguments by poetic language, which are the kind of reverse of this. Rather than arbitrarily assert that their opponent's argument is false and use that to attack their character, a person will attempt to improve their own character in the eyes of their audience by using flowery words and nice language. None of this helps support their argument, however, and if properly dissected it is almost always the case that the logical basis of their argument is nonexistent.

Overall, l simply enjoy listening to people debate one another about interesting topics, and hearing different points of view. I try to judge in the most objective, impartial manner that I can.