Another tried and true debating technique is brought to the gallows:
Proof by repeated assertion is repeating something over and over, without any actual proof, until everyone accepts it as fact.
Well, suppose
for the sake of argument that we accept this self-serving "
definition". Obviously this definition is
loaded; an
impartial definition such as
proof by by repeated assertion is a logical method of proof which proves a point many times by stating its veracity
would have been a better
starting point for
rational debate.
But we can go along with the first "straw{berryFrog, man} definition" if we're careful to avoid
propaganda. And we'll reach the expected conclusion: that PBRA is a
perfectly good method for describing
the truth, and one which cannot contradict itself.
Note that StrawberryFrog never states why PBRA is so bad, only that it is bad. E does this around 7 times, on top of an appeal to authority (that of the noted logician Charles Lutwidge Dodgson). Note in particular the deliberate association of PBRA with such "neutral" words as "propaganda", "big lie", "advertising" and "proprietary". But not a word on why PBRA is wrong. If PBRA were such a puddle of toxic sludge, we'd have seen arguments for that. But since PBRA is a perfectly good method for describing the truth, we're instead treated to propaganda poor enough to get its author kicked out of any advertising agency in the land, if only for the strange perception that one can argue against PBRA by using PBRA (as StrawberryFrog does).
Along the way, StrawberryFrog makes numerous other unsubstantiated claims. But that's OK -- after all, we've all heard zillions of times that open space, airline travel and vinyl are all bad, not to mention the "fact" that it is legitimate debating technique to accept a method only in order to invalidate it.
In other words, the only way StrawberryFrog manages to "debunk" (in e's followers' eyes, at least) PBRA is by resorting to PBRA hirself. Briefly put, the logical argument is this:
PBRA is bad. PBRA is bad. PBRA is bad. PBRA is bad. PBRA is bad. PBRA is bad. PBRA is bad.
Naturally, you can't use a logical technique against itself, as by doing so you'd deny yourself the capability to use it in the first place! So, while it may or may not be permissible to use PBRA to prove its own validity, it is
definitely not permissible to use PBRA to deny itself. This
truth is
self-evident.
Evidently also to StrawberryFrog: e concludes by claiming that PBRA is akin to numerous invalid debating techniques, by prefixing them with a "noncommittal" "see also:". This part of the argument is another invalid variation on PBRA:
- PBRA is like logical fallacy
- And the proof of that?
- PBRA is like proof by assertion
- A syntactic tautology. OF COURSE a proof by repeated assertion will be like a proof by assertion, only better (depending on the number of repetitions)! But why is that wrong?
- PBRA is like proof by handwaving
- ... and I can just imagine StrawberryFrog gesticulating to show this. Note that I'm typing these arguments for PBRA without moving my hands from the keyboard -- so much for "handwaving"
- PBRA is like proof by intimidation
- ... and presumably I'll send goons after StrawberryFrog and e's followers?
- PBRA is like domination techniques
- but only to the extent that truth tends to be more convincing than made-up arguments.
Note that I don't even bother with explaining why PBRA is useful. Not just because that's obvious, but because StrawberryFrog has presented no case to answer against PBRA!
Which leaves only one question. If PBRA is so bad, how come the only way to disprove it is to use it?
I let the reader judge.