As a matter of fact, this logic is expedient for those who want to brainwash someone. Sure, you may have to listen to the weak people you think are "stupid," and that gives you a new perspective. But not in the case of some huge media. They just want to sensitize people with convenient political and commercial propaganda. Punch the strong and sympathize with the weak.
I want to lose every debate
161–170 of 386 posts
Re: I want to lose every debate
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
While this is good advice, it is still in a debate-mindset where, ultimately, it is about "winning" a conversation. But if you argue with someone who holds factually wrong opinions is it truly winning "if you showed them" and they think "what an asshole" and move on? That type of person is practised at brushing off a debate loss. That means if you enjoy winning such a debate it tells more about you than about the per…
Debate can be fun (for some) as a game, and force you to articulate your position well, and you can learn from it. But there are different modes of engagement which are often much more helpful. What people often don't realize is that winning a debate doesn't necessarily mean you side with the truth. A debate is aimed at winning on your existing opinions and the other losing. It is not aimed at discovery, validation o…
> A debate is aimed at winning on your existing opinions and the other losing.
That's true of the sort of debate that's practiced competitively by "debating teams", but I don't think it's always true of debate as the word is used in an everyday context. A debate can also be more like a dialectic.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#163Let's not forget the Prime Directive.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#164I’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…
"I never allow myself to hold an opinion on anything that I don't know the other side's argument better than they do" ― Charlie Munger
Re: I want to lose every debate
#165I believe I feel this way. I think many, if not the vast majority of us do. Now for a little test. When was the last time you lost a debate on a topic you felt strongly about? And not a debate that further reaffirmed your own biases (I used to believe X was bad, but wow I was wrong - it's WAY worse than bad) but actually a meaningful swap from (X is bad) to (X is not bad). In my case, the answer is never. Now I'd lik…
I've probably never changed a deeply held belief after a single conversation, but my beliefs have changed over time and those changes have been aided by discussions I've had along the way. I think it takes me a long time to form a strong view on something and, once formed, it also takes a long time to change or abandon that view. Even if I participate in a conversation where relevant new information is imparted to me or my reasoning is shown to be flawed, I'm likely to take that away and chew it over (and do my own research) before changing my position.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#166These days I try to actively confuse myself as to what positions I hold in the aim to be more objective with my reasoning. As best I can I try to block out thinking in terms of labels completely.
When I was younger I cared a lot about having very clear, well defined opinions. I adopted labels to describe my positions and would wear these labels with pride as I believed them to be correct and well-reasoned. Eg, I am a liberal. I am pro-choice. I am anti-war.
But truth was I wasn't 100% liberal, pro-choice, or anti-war. There were circumstances where I could hold more nuanced opinions depending on the context. But because I adopted these labels I was always really reluctant to acknowledge when nuances existed. This was especially true the more gray the right answer was. For example, a lot of people who are anti-war believe the US was right to join the fight against the Nazis. But what about the American civil war? What about supporting Ukraine against Russia. Are these justified positions too?
Suddenly it's difficult to claim to be anti-war while also be a supporter of many major conflicts. How can someone who claims to be anti-war be in favour of so many wars? You know rationally you can't be anti-war and also pro-war when it suites you so you might be tempted to try to rationalise why actually the American civil war shouldn't have been fought or why Ukraine should just let Russia win to preserve peace.
Equally assigning labels to others is also bad. What if you were arguing with someone you consider a racist and they make a good point? No matter how correct they are to acknowledge that point is difficult because suddenly that risks agreeing with a racist. I'm from the UK and I've seen this with the EDL here. While a lot of their opinions are awful, they also occasionally can make good points about issues like grooming gangs and Islamic extremism here in the UK. The problem as no one wanted to agree with them about anything so Islamic extremism and grooming gangs got labelled a far-right conspiracy. I suppose a more recent example of this was with Covid. In 2021 agree with any argument against mass government mandated vaccination programs was often considered being anti-vax.
My head is far more muddled these days. I believe I'm more objective and flexible in my thinking though. I'm saying this because while being happy to lose a debate and change your mind is great, no one goes into a debate to lose - especially not to someone you view as an ideological enemy in some form. As soon as you assign labels to yourself and think in terms of "winning" and "losing" it's very difficult to think rationally about anything.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#167Re: I want to lose every debate
#168When "debating" I often was presenting a point of view I disagree with as if it was mine and trying to defend it as best as I could based on the information I have to see what other people have against it, whether it makes sense and if it is similar to what I actually think about it.
It was helpful to me, as often the point I disagreed with, was actually "the right way" and I was able to keep being out of my bubble.
That being said, people often believed that what I say is what I actually believe in and so many won't even speak to me because they think I am a twt.
I guess I was good at this.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#169The stoics would say two ears, one mouth and the Buddhists would say the ears have no lids but all else do. Everyone is right in their own perspective. That’s why it is called a point of view.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Where can I learn about _Advanced Conversational Techniques_?
Sorry, in hindsight I shouldn't have capitalised that. It isn't a recognised name for something that I'm aware of.
That said I found Marshall Rosenberg's Nonviolent Communication quite eye opening because it articulated the idea that it is possible and sensible to approach conversation strategically. Then after getting a feel for a do-no-harm approach it is relatively easy to start categorising what people say into tactics and there are some things that work and others that really don't. It seems pretty obvious that effective people are very good at listening, asking questions and what sort of evidence they treat as persuasive or unpersuasive.