I’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. While high school debate did teach me many positive lessons and I am thankful that I spent four years of my life doing it, many years later I have come to understand that it also taught me something truly negative: that the point of a conversation is to win. I have put a lot of time in my adult life unlearning that trait, and reflecting on th…
There is a gradient of Advanced Conversational Techniques that nobody seems to ever discuss. If someone hasn't got a real grasp on the basics then just listening is certainly a great start and gets people about half way there. Life gets easier. Most people are so desperately instinctual at social tactics that anything which involves thinking about what other people think will yield great dividends. But if the goal is…
I want to lose every debate
131–140 of 386 posts
Re: I want to lose every debate
#132Re: I want to lose every debate
#133We all know the saying "It's not about the nails", where one person try to solve an appearing problem for another one who secretly just need an ear to be listen to. Yes, listening is important as a human skill to relate & connect, but ultimately living together is dancing between perspective. We hardly all be passive or let others strongly shape our shared narratives.
We know we're not right, how can we be ? we share a narrative about the world and try to make sense of it. Like the Tao symbol Yin & Yang interlacing, everything we do, we tell contains a part of truth and a part of wrong. The issue is when one identifies too strongly to one's perspective. We're always at least partly wrong but living is deciding which path to take at any moment, and accepting it's not right.
Politic is how we organize ourselves & Democracy aims to listen to everyone, the only way to do that is to share our perspective and enable true dialectic. Sure, sometimes positions are strongly held, but there is no true freedom without a bit of a fight isn't it ? how can we all relate all the time ? share the same taste, share the same vision ? it's boring and borderline dangerous. That what anarchism tell us, not as a dogma to political utopia but as a way to relate politically : we differ so we need to talk, we need to dance everytime to build a better shared perspective, with as many vision there is.
Anarchism is a dialectic of every moment, inhaling and exhaling, sharing and dancing, but we cannot dance alone, and we cannot just all listen (and say nothing), and we cannot all talk (and be deaf to others perspectives).
And this is what we are all doing just now, what the authors of the post did too. He speaks his truth and wait for people to dance with it.
(But as anything goes, what I just typed is neither completely true or false, and that's ok)
Re: I want to lose every debate
#134It bothers me that people argue so poorly. That's why debate exists. And why some people excel at podcasts Joe Rogan being an examplar. His best debates have very similar formats. "Tell me about"/"why do you think" "What about X" "So you're saying Y?" "Wouldn't that mean Z" People are bothered because he rarely ever seems to shoot others down just gets them to lay out their points and fleshout reasoning. The only tim…
You seem to be stating that Joe Rogan's 'best debates' aren't debates so much as interviews. I'm bothered that you describe that as a debate.
The problem is that the other definition of 'debate' is competitive and people have interests to appear correct more than to be correct.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#135> The sex worker explains why she loves her job. I'm not going to comment on the other stuff, but we should stop with the sociopathic neo-liberal glorification of "sex work", which in the majority of cases is just human trafficking. I come from a town in Eastern Europe where one of the local mob guys has been caught with trafficking hundreds of (I guess mostly local) girls in Spain. I'm pretty sure many of those girl…
Even if it's normalized, women will just be tossed aside when they get old (pass 30) in such environments...
Re: I want to lose every debate
#136Let me rephrase it for a second.
> The Communist explains why global USSR is a perfect recipe for peace.
> The Nazi explains why Reich is a perfect recipe for peace.
Sometimes you have to wish for an idea to die, too bad if some of its carriers have to go with it.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#1371. Wanting to understand and learn. Here you use the help of another person to figure out what the best solution or the right answer to something is, or just to understand how something works or in other ways improve your knowledge. There is no winner or loser; the only outcome is whether the discussion was successful or not.
2. Wanting to prove how much you already know or that your idea is the correct one. This is just about showing everyone that you (or your idea and therefore you) are better than the other person, not about what you learn from it. Here there is a winner and loser; you win if you appear to know the right answer from the start.
These are two very different things; you could even say that they are opposites. In number 1, the goal is to learn. In number 2, the goal is not to learn but to stay with your current idea. Why don't we have different words for these two things?
It seems like in this article, what he is talking about is doing number 1 but talking about it as if it were number 2.
Could the reason that we talk about these two things as the same thing be that people often do both at the same time? In that case maybe they want to appear as already knowing but secretly still trying to learn something. Or maybe they only try to learn but others are judging them as if they should already know everything from the start, and that way misunderstanding what they are doing.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#138Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the point of a conversation is to win I have a feeling that a lot of people think this. Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really had for some people. Sometimes there's no other option though, because both people seem to know the same facts, they just have differing opinions on how to deal with those facts. > take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response I've been paying attention to this for…
The point is you don't even have to agree to disagree — it is not mandatory to tell the other person your opinion. You can also just listen to theirs and ask questions etc. A conversation can be much, much more than a clash of opinions. Going into a conversation with the idea of "the other guy is wrong " is a sure way of never understanding how they arrived at that wrong opinion to begin with. Yet sometimes precisely…
It can be, but sometimes it isn't. Those are the cases I was talking about where agreeing to disagree can be a good outcome.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#139This is all fun until you talk to someone who is absolutely brainwashed or alien to a peaceful behavior. Do you really want to lose the debate to flat earth advocate? Do you want to lose a debate to a war aggressor supporter? Do you want to lose a debate to a serial killer? I bet you don't. PS. Maybe I didn't get something right, but I suffered a lot in conversations with close relatives who are denying that killing…
I wonder what your point of view would be if your family was killed by people who have no intention of listening to another person's point of view.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the point of a conversation is to win I have a feeling that a lot of people think this. Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really had for some people. Sometimes there's no other option though, because both people seem to know the same facts, they just have differing opinions on how to deal with those facts. > take note of how much of the time you spend formulating a response I've been paying attention to this for…
> Coming to an 'agree to disagree' is really hard for some people In many cases the person you talk to don't really disagree, but pretends to due to ideologic or some BS reason. Maybe they don't want to say the real reason they think X. The "agree to disagree" is often used as an escape hatch for hypocrisy.
Sometimes. Other times it's a great way to point out that hypocrisy by pointing out you all have the same information, yet you come to different conclusions/opinions.
Sometimes it's a conscious decision to have all the facts and ignore them. It's not hypocritical in that case.