Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I want to lose every debate

sive.rs

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 386 posts

Re: I want to lose every debate

#311

Post by AlbertCory »

Great analysis. I'd extend it to "interview." I had a chance to do some interviews on a podcast (for a change, I'll dispense with the shameless self-promotion and not link to it), and I had a chance to practice this. I tried to remember, "the listener is not here to listen to ME; they're here to listen to the interviewee."

Also sometimes watching the old Dick Cavett show on OTA. It's a miracle that they ever let a guy like him on television. He actually talked to his guests, rather than reading off some cue cards his producers gave him.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#312

Post by qwertox »

BeetleB wrote: post #304
qwertox wrote: post #272

I don't get it. There are many sex workers which are forced to do this job, some even under threat. I also don't see an issue using analogies to explain things. Was the Hindu person poor itself? If so, how has this person dealt with sickness in the family? Any religion is a perfect recipe for peace, it just depends on the fairness and good will of those practicing it. Why should partying not be a good thing as long a…

> I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be considered a good thing. Serious question: What is the benefit of winning this debate?

It would be someone presenting me this argument, like one can assume other people were presenting the author their arguments "pro sex work" which the author apparently never considered.

Someone presenting me an argument that "murdering someone can be considered a good thing" and them wanting me to lose this argument is something which I would not want to happen.

I think the issue in that sentence was the double negative in addition to the lack of definition of who is proposing that argument.

But assuming you did not get confused: I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way the author means it.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#313

Post by xpe »

hbrn wrote: post #309
tsuujin wrote: post #21

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…

> don’t debate at all, just listen I disagree (pun intended). Debating allows you to understand your own position better, e.g. is it based on information, intuition, values, preference, experience, or bias? And it forces another party to do the same, which allows you to better decide how to handle disagreements. E.g. if their position is based on preference, we can agree to disagree and move on. If it's based on a bi…

If you perceive there is sufficient trust and interest in engaging in some kind of debate, sure, consider it. Debate, in its many forms, can have many advantages, but it is not categorically preferable.

Also consider all your other options: pure listening, mutual bonding, offering emotional support, even walking away (from a no-win situation).

If / when debate falls apart, there are many options to reconnect.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#314

Post by iinnPP »

yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #257
iinnPP wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>close relatives who are denying that killing other people is bad Nobody, except people with legitimate mental health issues, thinks killing is a "good" thing. Your close relatives believe Russia is on defense. Kind of like how the US was on defense in Iraq. So, from their perspective, the way to save lives is to negotiate an end to the war where Russia takes that tiny bit of land, and Ukraine stops being considered…

That bit of land isn’t tiny, and the russians aren’t going to stop at 20% of Ukraine. The aim of fascist russia is the total erasure of Ukraine. That means genocide. Trying to make a “peace deal” means more dead civilians, not fewer. Anyone who does not understand this is clueless, and it is quite frustrating how many Chomskys love to indulge themselves pontificating on such a serious issue with sweet fuck all real i…

I don't hold an opinion on this worth sharing, I was merely stating what I have heard from people beforehand as reasoning.

I look at maps showing between 10-15% of Ukraine being of the Donbas region from 5+ random Google-provided sources. What source do you get the 20% from?

As to the total erasure of Ukraine I am also unaware of any evidence that this is true. I always appreciate being informed and would love an authoritative source on this if you(or anyone) can provide it.

Based on the personal attacks at the end, I'm not expecting a reply. My comment is for others mostly with a small hope that you can help further my understanding.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#315

Post by BeetleB »

qwertox wrote: post #312
BeetleB wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I certainly wouldn't want to lose a debate about why murdering someone can be considered a good thing. Serious question: What is the benefit of winning this debate?

It would be someone presenting me this argument, like one can assume other people were presenting the author their arguments "pro sex work" which the author apparently never considered. Someone presenting me an argument that "murdering someone can be considered a good thing" and them wanting me to lose this argument is something which I would not want to happen. I think the issue in that sentence was the double negat…

> I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not murder others and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite, which would mean "losing the debate" in the way the author means it.

I'm going to be downvoted like crazy for saying this, but it seems you are making these statements with a feeling of safety because you are assuming the vast majority of people reading this comment (i.e. on HN) share your views. Other than that, there is nothing different in your attitude than the folks in countries I have lived in where they would say:

> I would prefer to live in a society where it's considered a good thing to not let women get a college degree and marry them off in their teens and if this were up for debate, I sure hope I would not get convinced of the opposite.

They too make these statements because they are in a community where the majority share their views.

A better way of knowing you are right is to allow the possibility of being wrong. If you are going to go in with the mindset of "Of course I'm right and I need to win", chances are you will process the other party's arguments very differently compared to "I think I am right but I'd like to see why other people think differently."

Re: I want to lose every debate

#316

Post by xpe »

nibbleshifter wrote: post #142
hgomersall wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you talk about if not these issues? What is a conversation to you? It feels like you've successfully eliminated any disagreement from your conversations. Or is that just relevant to "shooting the shit with the lads down the pub once or twice a year"? When can we have discussions that might show disagreement?

There is still usually some disagreement, but in many social settings (eg, having a few pints at the pub with people you rarely see), topics of discussion usually are what people have been up to, and other "light topics". In most social situations "heavy" discussion or "debating" is entirely unwarranted and brings the overall mood down. There are plenty of discussion groups and meetups if you want to hotly debate pol…

There are also "third ways", so to speak, ways to have people feel comfortable without resorting only to least-common-denominator "harmless" topics.

I have been a regular at several places (sometimes coffee shops) across the country where I can sense very real substantive conversations. Sometimes people just need a little nudge to get out of their comfort zone.

Such interactions can help bring people even closer. It takes intention and some experimentation.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#317

Post by JAlexoid »

hgomersall wrote: post #91
nibbleshifter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing more tedious in adult life than some debate club weenie trying to turn every random fucking conversation into a debate. I strongly suspect debate club has a net negative impact on peoples social skills. It teaches a bunch of anti patterns to successful social interactions. Like, you will be shooting the shit with the lads down pub the once or twice you see them per year when this dickhead (and every…

What do you talk about if not these issues? What is a conversation to you? It feels like you've successfully eliminated any disagreement from your conversations. Or is that just relevant to "shooting the shit with the lads down the pub once or twice a year"? When can we have discussions that might show disagreement?

There's disagreement and there's verbal battle. Those are not the same.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#318

Post by actionablefiber »

JAlexoid wrote: post #300
actionablefiber wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who did high school debate competitively for four years and still judges competitions nearly every weekend... I really don't think this tracks in reality. It really sounds like you're describing a caricature, and maybe it's based on someone you know, but I don't think it's really the normal outcome for people who debate. There are surely former debaters who still feel the need to prove themselves to their…

Most people love to win, that includes arguments. What a lot of people failed to learn from debates club, is that a formal "win" is a net loss of a relationship.

> What a lot of people failed to learn from debates club, is that a formal "win" is a net loss of a relationship.

In US competitive debate, debaters learn very quickly that whether you "win" or "lose" is not decided by themselves or their opponent but by the judge. You don't measure your success by whether being argumentative made you feel good or whether you felt like you won but by whether the judge evaluated what you said and what the other person said and signed a ballot in your favor. That actually involves a lot of "reading the room" and self-awareness about how other people will hear you when you talk. Good debaters solicit feedback from their judges and coaches to ask them how they can do better. And good judges look past the bluster, penalize debaters who use bad faith tactics, and reward debaters who succeed on substance. Judges are accountable for their decisions too - they have to explain to the debaters why they voted the way they did, which encourages judges to evaluate debaters carefully and give good feedback.

Again I think it is a caricature to say that a person who does debate structures their personality around it and tries to turn everything into an argument. I concede as a high schooler I went through a phase like this; then I went through college, matured a bit, got other hobbies and priorities and came to understand how to use the skills I learned as a debater in a positive-sum way.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#319

Post by zh3 »

This reminds me Bertrand Russells's "The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt".

Though in my experience a lot of very intelligent people are pretty cocksure [0] and could do with a dose of humility.

[0] Ref. the word 'cocksure', not that HN will ban me, but twitter might - cf. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-64451977

Re: I want to lose every debate

#320

Post by JAlexoid »

hbrn wrote: post #309
tsuujin wrote: post #21

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…

> don’t debate at all, just listen I disagree (pun intended). Debating allows you to understand your own position better, e.g. is it based on information, intuition, values, preference, experience, or bias? And it forces another party to do the same, which allows you to better decide how to handle disagreements. E.g. if their position is based on preference, we can agree to disagree and move on. If it's based on a bi…

That's really not how debate typically works.

Someone states their position, while you're expected to undermine their position with a retort. It is one of the least productive ways of resolving differences.

Post reply on HN