In Depth Explanation of Blog's Philosophy Part 1

I have kind of given blurbs thus far explaining what the point of this site is.  I want to flesh out some of the details a little.  Although, to be fair I have not fleshed out all the details in my head and am still working it out.  Which is why this is a project.

I did a lot of debate in High School.  And after years of discussing both side of basically every issue I broke into a sort of nihilism.  Or disbelief that any idea could truly be logically valid, as you could make every idea sound good and sound logical if you thought about it for long enough. In fact, one time I read an article in a philosophical journal that was labeled "Resisting the Force of Argumentation" or something along those lines.  Which I found intriguing.

The reason it was intriguing to me, particularly as a debater, was that I thought that one could always be convinced by something as long as it sounded logical enough.  This article suggested that perhaps that wasn't the case, perhaps we should go with our base emotional reaction to an argument, even if we can't find flaws in it.  This brought to mind images of ignorant individuals who refuse to listen to egalitarian arguments because they just "feel" like some target group was inferior. 

Of course I could be misinterpreting the argument that the author was making.  Yet, the core concept that sticks with me upon writing this is that there is some falseness to "logic" and that perhaps solid "logic" isn't the best way to interpret an argument.  Most arguments it seem to me are logically sound, and attempts to invalidate the different premises of those arguments tend to break down into "tick for tack" (as Obama seems to like to say) arguments where nothing is accomplished but a form of intellectual exercise. 

The very intellectual act of an argument or debate (which makes up the crux of basically every piece of discourse around any topic of... well, discord) makes it impossible to develop real solutions.  Once people take sides all is lost.  So, rather, I think this mode of disagreement, pointing out flaws, leads to truth thinking is flawed.