Harry Potter Blaming Dumbledore or Mcgonagal for not noticing something wrong with Ginny

[TC_Hazard]

My God, it's full of idiots!

This brings back memories of time when Raine was still active poster.

Whatever happened to the guy after leaving anyway? Anyone know something?

 

[nixofcyzerra]

My God, it's full of idiots!

This brings back memories of time when Raine was still active poster.

Whatever happened to the guy after leaving anyway? Anyone know something?

Last I heard, he was frequenting the DLP forums.

...

Damn it, I feel like a smoker who vowed to quit and then later gave in to having "one last one." *sigh*

Debating 101 (Lecturer: Nixofcyzerra)

All right, students settle down. Today, we're going to discuss the fine art of Debate, including both the accepted protocol of debating and the concept of the "Burden of proof," and how definitive sources can affect, or have an effect on, both the aforementioned protocol and the aforementioned "Burden of proof.".

Also, please wait until the end of the lecture to ask any questions you may have, and also keep in mind that the first person to ask me whether I am a "Master Debater" will be taken outside and soundly thrashed. You have been warned.

The online Oxford Dictionary defines Debating as "A formal discussion on a particular matter in a public meeting or legislative assembly, in which opposing arguments are put forward and which usually ends with a vote."

This seems relatively straightforward. The individuals participating in the debate will take turns presenting evidence in attempts to conclusively prove their arguments, and attempting to refute points that their opponent has made. The debate can be said to end once one side has "defeated" the other, by proving their argument conclusively, beyond reasonable doubt.

All members of the debate can be said to bear the Burden of proof" regarding their own arguments.

The basic idea of the “burden of proof” is that a particular party has an obligation to provide proof of a claim that is being disputed.

This principle is applied in a variety of settings—in courtrooms, in science, in philosophical discussion, and in debates.

In legal settings, the burden of proof is linked to the presumption of innocence.

In a criminal case, the defendant is presumed innocent until the prosecution shows otherwise. The prosecutor thus has the legal burden of proof.

Who holds the burden of proof in philosophy?

As in science, it’s whoever is making a claim.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re asserting the existence or non-existence of Plato’s Forms, claiming the truth or falsity of a particular view of epistemology, or asserting that moral judgments are just expressions of emotion or something else.

The principle remains the same: The burden is on you to argue for your own claims.

Source: here.

This does not change when discussing the canonicity of a book, or an aspect of said book.

Take the example of the debate "Nixofcyzerra vs. Chuckg" of the subject of whether Albus Dumbledore (of the Harry Potter series by JK. Rowling) was a skilled leader. Chuckg presented arguments that Albus Dumbledore was a bad leader, and the fact that the narrative of the books presented him as a good leader could be considered a "Plot Hole."

"A plot hole, or plothole is a gap or inconsistency in a storyline that creates a paradox in the story that cannot be reconciled with any explanation."

Nixofcyzerra, on the other hand, attempted to cast doubt upon Chuckg's arguments by providing possible explanations for the inconsistencies Chuckg mentioned. If Nixofcyzerra was capable of devising rationale that would "explain away" the inconsistencies, or "Plot holes" that Chuckg had presented, then Chuckg would be unable to conclusively prove his arguments, and he would "lose" the debate.

Now, many among you may have already noticed the inconsistency between my synopsis of Nixofcyzerra' and Chuckg's debate, and the definition that I provided earlier, i.e., that both opposing parties in a debate must present conclusive evidence for their arguments.

Indeed, it is true that Nixofcyzerra neglected to make any attempt beyond the rudimentary to provide conclusive evidence for his argument that Albus Dumbledore was in fact a good leader. While he cited several sources regarding the qualities that a good leader needs to possess and did his best to have Chuckg make the distinction between "a good leader" and "a good general or tactician," he made no solid attempt to provide direct evidence from the books that Albus Dumbledore was a good leader.

Under most debating circumstances and standards, this would be unacceptable, and in fact Chuckg went as far to accuse Nixofcyzerra of "arguing from ignorance," and cited "Russell's teapot" to demonstrate the apparent logical fallacies of Nixofcyzerra's arguments.

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false.

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong.

Upon being contacted, Nixofcyzerra himself admitted that had he been participating in a standard debate, his methods would have been considered unacceptable, and that Chuckg's accusations would have been entirely correct.

How fortunate for Nixofcyzerra then, that the debate he participated in with Chuckg could not be considered to be "standard" or "conventional" due to one simple factor. Nixofcyzerra cited and presented a piece of evidence that supported his position from a source of "Ultimate Authority." In this case, said source of "Ultimate Authority" would be JK Rowling, the author of the Harry Potter series. Quoted below is the afore-mentioned cited evidence:

During the interview - recorded ahead of the 15 year September anniversary of the original Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone (known as Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone in the UK) - Rowling was asked who she would introduce Dumbledore to if she could choose anyone in the world.

'I'm afraid I'm going to be very selfish, and if anyone gets a shot, it's me,' she said.

'It's a difficult question and I have mulled it over at length, and I've considered world leaders who may benefit from some of his calm wisdom, but finally decided there's really only one person who should meet Dumbledore and I think that's me - because, of all the other characters in the Harry Potter series, he's the one I miss the most.' Source: here.

JK Rowling reveals that she considered choosing a real-life world leader to meet Dumbledore, as she felt they could "benefit from some of his calm wisdom."

JK Rowling is of the opinon that Albus Dumbledore possesses wisdom (the "ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight," according to the Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition of the Collins English Dictionary,) that would be of benefit to world leaders. As the vast majority of the world leaders today also serve as the "Commander-in-chief" (the "person or body that exercises supreme operational command and control of a nation's military forces or significant elements of those forces") of their respective nations (see here for a current listing,) it can thus be easily concluded beyond reasonable doubt that Dumbledore possesses the qualities of a leader in such abundance that leaders of whole nations would benefit from his advice.

In other words, Nixofcyzerra presented "Word of God" that Albus Dumbledore was a good leader.

"A statement regarding some ambiguous or undefined aspect of a work, the Word of God comes from someone considered to be the ultimate authority, such as the creator, director, or producer. Such edicts can even go against events as were broadcast, due to someone making a mistake." Source: here.

Nixofcyzerra having cited a direct source from the "Ultimate Authority" of Harry Potter, the author herself, that was aligned with his position, fundamentally altered the nature of the debate itself, as well as entirely shifting the Onus of Proof to Chuckg.

Essentially, it could be said that Nixofcyzerra had already proven his argument to be correct (beyond reasonable doubt) by supplying conclusive evidence, and that the only way for Chuckg to now "win" the debate was by conclusively disproving the validity of JK Rowling's statement. He had to prove that the Author of the Harry Potter series was either lying or wrong when she stated that Dumbledore was a good leader, or at least that it was highly probable that she had lied/was wrong.

This complete "lifting" of the burden of proof off of Nixofcyzerra's metaphorical shoulders also allowed him to change his debating style. As he was no longer required to prove his position, he could instead allocate his time to invalidating Chuckg's arguments, either directly by disproving them through presenting evidence that contradicted them, or introducing reasonable doubt that rendered Chuckg's presented arguments and evidence inconclusive.

The introduction of the "Word of JK" also completely invalidated Chuckg's claims of Nixofcyzerra "arguing from ignorance," and his claim that Nixofcyzerra was inappropriately shifting the burden of proof to him (which he did by citing "Russell's teapot.")

Chuckg's claim that Nixofcyzerra was asserting that his proposition was "true because it has not yet been proven false" is invalid, due to Nixofcyzerra already having provided "Word of God" that his proposition was true.

Chuckg's citing of "Russell's teapot" was also invalid, as, to follow the analogy, Chuckg was claiming it was nonsensical for Nixofcyzerra to expect others to believe him when he claimed that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong, when Nixofcyzerra had already presented evidence that the "teapot" had been found.

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that Chuckg apparently holds the position that the seven books in the Harry Potter series, and only the seven books, should be considered canon. However, he failed to make this entirely clear (which was his responsibility, seeing as the vast majority of Harry Potter fans do consider supplemental material such as interviews and Pottermore canon,) instead only utilising abrasive statements such as "books or go home!" and "I have no interest in talking about your damn fanon."

Indeed, even when Nixofcyzerra realised that Chuckg apparently held wildly different views from him regarding the canonicity of supplemental materials (which admittedly took some time, as the idea that Chuckg would hold such a wildly different opinion and yet still engage Nixofcyzerra in debate initially failed to occur to him,) and directly asked him to clarify his position, Chuckg failed to respond.

Apparently Chuckg considers interviews of JK and works that JK have given a "seal of approval" to fanon. Which, considering that the term "fanon" is defined as ideas that "may become influential or widely accepted within fan communities," seems somewhat illogical, as JK Rowling is the author and ultimate authority of the Harry Potter series, and is no mere fan.

One must even wonder as to Chuckg's opinions of the canonicity of the other published works by J.K. Rowling that take place in the Wizarding world of Harry Potter, such as the "Tales of Beedle the Bard," "Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them," and "Quidditch Through the Ages."

It should also be pointed out that, had Chuckg explicitly defined his interpretation of the canonicity of supplemental materials and requested that Nixofcyzerra disavow any and all "Word of God" at the start of the debate, Nixofcyzerra either would have elected to not engage in debate with Chuckg entirely, feeling that there was simply no way that they could ever come to an agreement when divided over such an important presupposition, or, had he agreed, utilised an entirely different style of debating, ensuring to actually provide conclusive evidence to support his arguments.

If it turns out that my understanding of Debate is flawed in some way (which is perfectly possible, seeing as I have yet to become omniscient,) feel free to post on this thread (or PM me) and let me know.

 

[Amberion]

During the interview - recorded ahead of the 15 year September anniversary of the original Harry Potter And The Sorcerer's Stone (known as Harry Potter And The Philosopher's Stone in the UK) - Rowling was asked who she would introduce Dumbledore to if she could choose anyone in the world.

'I'm afraid I'm going to be very selfish, and if anyone gets a shot, it's me,' she said.

'It's a difficult question and I have mulled it over at length, and I've considered world leaders who may benefit from some of his calm wisdom, but finally decided there's really only one person who should meet Dumbledore and I think that's me - because, of all the other characters in the Harry Potter series, he's the one I miss the most.' Source: here.

Maybe my tiredness level is to high. But the most that points to, is that he would be a good adviser.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

Perhaps, but isn't the only real difference between an adviser and a leader that the leader bears the responsibility for the direct consequences of his choices? So the Captain of a ship can have his first mate come up with a plan, but the responsibility to decide whether to use said plan still falls on the Captain.

So as far as I can see, unless you argue that Dumbledore can't take responsibility for his actions, the WoG still holds true.

Plus, seeing as Wisdom is about the "ability to think and act using knowledge, experience, understanding, common sense, and insight," JK's statement implies that he has plenty of knowledge and experience of the topic of "leadership."

 

[Cynical Kyle]

Perhaps, but isn't the only real difference between an adviser and a leader that the leader bears the responsibility for the direct consequences of his choices? So the Captain of a ship can have his first mate come up with a plan, but the responsibility to decide whether to use said plan still falls on the Captain.

So as far as I can see, unless you argue that Dumbledore can't take responsibility for his actions, the WoG still holds true.

While your argument is technically correct about authority of WoG, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit. If you're going to resort to fundamentalism and interpret Rowling's material as flawless truth, you would also have to provide explanation for her atrocious math and various inconsistencies such as Hermione's changing middle name. If she is ultimate authority without flaws as you imply with the whole "I think Dumbledore could give good advice to world leaders" quote, care to explain those errors I pointed out?

 

[nixofcyzerra]

Perhaps, but isn't the only real difference between an adviser and a leader that the leader bears the responsibility for the direct consequences of his choices? So the Captain of a ship can have his first mate come up with a plan, but the responsibility to decide whether to use said plan still falls on the Captain.

So as far as I can see, unless you argue that Dumbledore can't take responsibility for his actions, the WoG still holds true.

While your argument is technically correct about authority of WoG, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit. If you're going to resort to fundamentalism and interpret Rowling's material as flawless truth, you would also have to provide explanation for her atrocious math and various inconsistencies such as Hermione's changing middle name. If she is ultimate authority without flaws as you imply with the whole "I think Dumbledore could give good advice to world leaders" quote, care to explain those errors I pointed out?

Wait, wasn't Hermione's middle name changing from Jane to Jean an intentional retcon due to JK not wanting Hermione to share a middle name with Delores Jane Umbridge?

As for the rest, well... I'm not sure that I'd call accepting a WoG statement about a character resorting to fundamentalism, and I'd argue that there is a world of difference between accepting JK's opinion on Dumbledore the character as truth, and having to explain any math/date-related inconsistencies she made.

I mean, I'd expect an author to be the uncontested authority on one of their characters (and their favourite at that,) but that doesn't mean that I would expect them to be a Maths* Whizz.

*I actually prefer "Math" as a shortened term for Mathematics, but I'm British, so...

 

[Cynical Kyle]

Perhaps, but isn't the only real difference between an adviser and a leader that the leader bears the responsibility for the direct consequences of his choices? So the Captain of a ship can have his first mate come up with a plan, but the responsibility to decide whether to use said plan still falls on the Captain.

So as far as I can see, unless you argue that Dumbledore can't take responsibility for his actions, the WoG still holds true.

While your argument is technically correct about authority of WoG, I'm going to play devil's advocate for a bit. If you're going to resort to fundamentalism and interpret Rowling's material as flawless truth, you would also have to provide explanation for her atrocious math and various inconsistencies such as Hermione's changing middle name. If she is ultimate authority without flaws as you imply with the whole "I think Dumbledore could give good advice to world leaders" quote, care to explain those errors I pointed out?

Wait, wasn't Hermione's middle name changing from Jane to Jean an intentional retcon due to JK not wanting Hermione to share a middle name with Delores Jane Umbridge?

As for the rest, well... I'm not sure that I'd call accepting a WoG statement about a character resorting to fundamentalism, and I'd argue that there is a world of difference between accepting JK's opinion on Dumbledore the character as truth, and having to explain any math/date-related inconsistencies she made.

I mean, I'd expect an author to be the uncontested authority on one of their characters (and their favourite at that,) but that doesn't mean that I would expect them to be a Maths* Whizz.

*I actually prefer "Math" as a shortened term for Mathematics, but I'm British, so...

Point I was trying to make was that as Author is demonstrably fallible with the mechanics of her own setting, her opinion regarding Dumbledore's utility as adviser to real world leaders isn't nowhere near as solid proof of his ability as you claim.

I do agree with you that Albus did best he could when constraints of Rowling's imagination are taken into account. His plan against Voldemort worked despite bitching from some fans and most if not all of his alleged failures can be rationally explained in a way that doesn't contradict established canon. Many things in the books could've been done in better fashion, but if that bothers someone too much they can always write fanfiction where things go like they want.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

Wait, wasn't Hermione's middle name changing from Jane to Jean an intentional retcon due to JK not wanting Hermione to share a middle name with Delores Jane Umbridge?

As for the rest, well... I'm not sure that I'd call accepting a WoG statement about a character resorting to fundamentalism, and I'd argue that there is a world of difference between accepting JK's opinion on Dumbledore the character as truth, and having to explain any math/date-related inconsistencies she made.

I mean, I'd expect an author to be the uncontested authority on one of their characters (and their favourite at that,) but that doesn't mean that I would expect them to be a Maths* Whizz.

Point I was trying to make was that as Author is demonstrably fallible with the mechanics of her own setting, her opinion regarding Dumbledore's utility as adviser to real world leaders isn't nowhere near as solid proof of his ability as you claim.

I do agree with you that Albus did best he could when constraints of Rowling's imagination are taken into account. His plan against Voldemort worked despite bitching from some fans and most if not all of his alleged failures can be rationally explained in a way that doesn't contradict established canon. Many things in the books could've been done in better fashion, but if that bothers someone too much they can always write fanfiction where things go like they want.

I understand the point you were trying to make, but I don't really agree that the comparison is valid. The fact that JK did make nunber-based mistakes regarding her setting doesn't in any disprove her competence when it comes to her characters, IMO.

 

[Amberion]

After some sleep, I thought I should add something.

Just because someone says one person is a good leader, does not make it a fact. It comes down to personal opinion of what makes a good leader.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

After some sleep, I thought I should add something.

Just because someone says one person is a good leader, does not make it a fact. It comes down to personal opinion of what makes a good leader.

OK... So JK says that Dumbledore has the qualities of a good leader, meaning that (as she's the ultimate authority on HP) Dumbledore has whatever qualities JK thinks a goods leader should have.

So... are we supposed to assume that JK's opinions on the subject of "the qualitites a good leader needs to have" are wildly different from the opinions the majority of humanity holds?

 

[Amberion]

After some sleep, I thought I should add something.

Just because someone says one person is a good leader, does not make it a fact. It comes down to personal opinion of what makes a good leader.

OK... So JK says that Dumbledore has the qualities of a good leader, meaning that (as she's the ultimate authority on HP) Dumbledore has whatever qualities JK thinks a goods leader should have.

So... are we supposed to assume that JK's opinions on the subject of "the qualitites a good leader needs to have" are wildly different from the opinions the majority of humanity holds?

I'm sure we can go through leaders in history and have different opinion on if they where good leaders or not.

Just take a recent one like Bush. Now ask people if he was a good leader or not, do you think you will get pretty much the same answer from everyone?

Then ask people what they think a good leader should be like. I think you will have a lot of different answers on that question.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

But isn't that two separate questions? So two people might have different opinions on "leadership qualities," but two other people might completely agree on that topic, but disagree of whether, to use your example, Bush actually possessed those qualities.

I would think that if you asked the entire population "What do you think makes a good leader," their answers would have a great deal of overlap.

 

[Amberion]

But isn't that two separate questions? So two people might have different opinions on "leadership qualities," but two other people might completely agree on that topic, but disagree of whether, to use your example, Bush actually possessed those qualities.

I would think that if you asked the entire population "What do you think makes a good leader," their answers would have a great deal of overlap.

Might be an overlap. But there is no formula on what makes a good leader. To me, it comes down to personal opinion.

In the example on Bush, I don't think it's if he had those qualities, but if he had enough of it. And there it is where people have vastly different opinion I think.

If there was a formula on what makes a good leader, I don't think this debate would exist.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

It's true that there's no strict, definitive formula on what makes a good leader, but I'd argue that for the vast majority of people, there is somewhat of a general consensus. Like, maybe some people would place one quality over another, and maybe some people would include lesser qualities when others wouldn't, but ultimately people would give relatively similar answers.

So I see what you're saying, but I also find it hard to imagine that JK's definition of "leadership qualities" differs that wildly from most people's.

 

[Rising Dragon]

You guys can disagree with her all you want, but ultimately Rowling is the highest authority on her characters. If you're going to throw her statements out, you might as well throw the whole series away, 'cause it might as well be "non-canon" to you.

 

[Amberion]

It's true that there's no strict, definitive formula on what makes a good leader, but I'd argue that for the vast majority of people, there is somewhat of a general consensus. Like, maybe some people would place one quality over another, and maybe some people would include lesser qualities when others wouldn't, but ultimately people would give relatively similar answers.

So I see what you're saying, but I also find it hard to imagine that JK's definition of "leadership qualities" differs that wildly from most people's.

Probably true. But we can only form our opinions from what is written.

Semi unrelated thing, didn't she say that Dumbledore was her mouthpiece?

You guys can disagree with her all you want, but ultimately Rowling is the highest authority on her characters. If you're going to throw her statements out, you might as well throw the whole series away, 'cause it might as well be "non-canon" to you.

Personally, I want things in printed form before I take it as canon. Seen to many authors have interviews saying one thing and then have it changed.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

It's true that there's no strict, definitive formula on what makes a good leader, but I'd argue that for the vast majority of people, there is somewhat of a general consensus. Like, maybe some people would place one quality over another, and maybe some people would include lesser qualities when others wouldn't, but ultimately people would give relatively similar answers.

So I see what you're saying, but I also find it hard to imagine that JK's definition of "leadership qualities" differs that wildly from most people's.

Probably true. But we can only form our opinions from what is written.

Semi unrelated thing, didn't she say that Dumbledore was her mouthpiece?

I don't think so. At least not any more than the way that every character (or every non-antagonist character) can be considered so.

IIRC, JK once mentioned that a lot of Hermione's character was based on an exaggerated version of her younger self, so I'd say that Hermione's closer to being JK's Author Avatar than anyone else.

 

[Shirotsume]

Iirc, she said all of the trio were exagerated versions of younger her, so while what you said was technically true, you were drawing everyone to another conclusion.

 

[nixofcyzerra]

Iirc, she said all of the trio were exagerated versions of younger her, so while what you said was technically true, you were drawing everyone to another conclusion.

...No? Seeing as I prefaced my sentence with "IIRC," which implies a degree of uncertainty.

Also:

Hermione from the Harry Potter books is, by J. K. Rowling's own admission, an exaggeration of herself when she was younger. Rowling says she was a bit of an Insufferable Genius in her younger days but gradually mellowed out, much as Hermione does over the course of the series (this may be why, of all the young performers in the Potter movies, Rowling is closest to Emma Watson). Rowling has admitted that each of the three main characters are aspects of herself.

So we're both right. Yay.

 

[Amberion]

Think I mixed up something in my brain there.

Think she said that she used him when she wanted information out in the books, without creating an entire story setting around it.

Read that interview pretty much at the same time I read her view on prophecies, and they where the same.

Something I wonder, how come that all prophecies in the book came true when they are supposed to be pretty much humbug?