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

321–330 of 386 posts

Re: I want to lose every debate

#321

Post by JAlexoid »

vidarh wrote: post #56
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…

I think the important thing is to be aware that there are several different types of debates or discussions with different purpose. School debate teams focus on combative debates - debates where the goal is to convince an audience, not the other side. The type politicians tends to engage in during campaigns. But it'd be good if people got better training in "cooperative" debates, where the purpose is to learn and lis…

What we understand as debate today, is exactly the school adversarial debates that you're referring to.

The "cooperative" debate is what we call a conversation.

Throwing the word constructive in front of debate, does not change the adversarial nature of it.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#322

Post by kqr »

steveBK123 wrote: post #222
kqr wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is the real purpose of debate. It's an adversarial method of ensuring all important factors in a decision are brought up and heard by all involved, so they can go on to make the tradeoffs they think are right on their own. Nobody has to win or convince anyone of anything.

I think you need to be mindful if your "adversary" enjoys the "adversarial" method or, like many introverted software devs, is simply expediting the conversation to get away from you.

That's what a moderator/chairperson is for. They give the word to alternating perspectives and then after a few exchanges call for a decision.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#323

Post by jstarfish »

JackFr wrote: post #155
dsego wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't hate debaters, but there is a particular dismissive type that doesn't want to give you an inch or agree to disagree and theirs has to be the last word.

I have an aunt who seems to have a need to disagree at all times. The most amusing example was while she was talking politics with my father and he said “I completely agree with everything you just said.” Her response - “Well you must not have understood me.”

I have your aunt's problem. Speculations like oppositional-defiance disorder and Narcissism have been thrown at me as possible explanations.

I'd argue (heh) that what this behavior boils down to is: I'm restating what you're saying, only in terms I can understand, which makes me come across as argumentative. You're "wrong" only in that what you're saying doesn't compute with me-- I'm really shouting down my own lack of comprehension, which presents as me arguing with you (if that makes any sense). Her response "Well you must not have understood me" is classic Me, but in reality that's textbook projection, which backs me into into a corner I try to get out of...with more arguing!

Even knowing I do this, I can't ever catch myself doing it early enough to stop it; dopamine rush from outrage trumps my ability to dial it back. So I just avoid in-person debates altogether. I'm not aiming to offend anybody and can express my position more clearly in written form.

I have the same issue with understanding code other people write. I don't "get" larger architectures unless I wrote the entire stack myself (again, understanding someone else's concept by reinventing it myself). If I didn't write every goddamn class in the framework, I don't remember they exist or how they work together. Once I realized this I pivoted away from software development; nobody has time or need for another TempleOS.

Unfortunately this behavior is commonly found on the #mentalhealthawareness Narcissistic personality disorder checklists so everyone calls it out as malicious. I suspect autism though, since (for me) this always stems from information-processing difficulties. Make of it what you will.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#324

Post by JAlexoid »

actionablefiber wrote: post #318
JAlexoid wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That whole wall of text completely ignoring my point. Not only that, I now have a very negative opinion of you... simply because you completely ignored what I wrote.

What I learned from your response, is that debates in US teach you - ignore the principles of the argument, fail to follow up and say(or write) a lot of words. (to "win")

Funny, that to me you've become the caricature that you're complaining about.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#325

Post by karaterobot »

manquer wrote: post #305
karaterobot wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> her I think you're extrapolating. Author is very clearly just talking about an individual, not a group. No need to get outraged.

But he is, he characterized that person as a Hindu,he didn't say a friend or a neighbour or whatever else he could have described her by. The implication in labelling her hindu is that this a common or known position amongst Hindus?.

I have no idea why he chose that signifier to refer to the individual he was talking about, that was also confusing to me, but it doesn't follow that he means "literally everyone who is also Hindu", and I didn't jump to that conclusion.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#326

Post by hbrn »

the_af wrote: post #230
noduerme wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Derek Sivers never listened to anything, he's a narcissistic maniac who floods the email boxes of everyone on every list he's ever had with self-help advice that's never more than the most thinly disguised self-promotion. Please stop talking as if his writing is profound.

Thanks for your comment. I thought I was going crazy with all the responses to what reads essentially like a self-help quality article. Also, some of the examples are infuriating. So someone thinks poverty is not upsetting? Well, screw them. And the rest of those examples are so bland, how about "losing" every debate with these: - Nazism is right. - Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poore…

Losing doesn't have to mean you 100% agree with another party at the end. Learning something new and changing your original position is good enough.

> someone thinks poverty is not upsetting

Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them.

> Nazism is right

Ok, but was it absolutely wrong? Should we dismiss anything that even remotely resembles Nazism? Were there any good parts that Nazism had? E.g. patriotism or anti-communism? Short-term dictatorship can be better than alternatives (especially during wars). Eugenics on it's own is also not bad (e.g. most people are pro-abortion when fetus has a deadly disease, which is a form of eugenics).

> Rich people should become richer and poor people should become poorer

Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world. Instead of fighting laws of nature (a battle you cannot win), maybe it's better to focus on improving well-being of "poor"? I.e. you should be able to live a good life even if you are poor.

> Women should not have equal rights or vote

Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of. In theory, an optimal distribution of rights could very well be unequal. You can also do a thought experiment on how society would look like if only families are allowed to vote (with highest earner in the family voting, which essentially means "women cannot vote").

Re: I want to lose every debate

#327

Post by [deleted] »

JAlexoid wrote: post #324
actionablefiber wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

That whole wall of text completely ignoring my point. Not only that, I now have a very negative opinion of you... simply because you completely ignored what I wrote. What I learned from your response, is that debates in US teach you - ignore the principles of the argument, fail to follow up and say(or write) a lot of words. (to "win") Funny, that to me you've become the caricature that you're complaining about.

[deleted]

Re: I want to lose every debate

#328

Post by astrobe_ »

somenameforme wrote: post #20

I 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…

> And so long as your arguments are reasonably factually based, it's never really possible to lose a debate, unless you choose to

That's the trouble with the expression "losing a debate". There is the notion that you've been defeated. So what actually happened is not a debate, but a fight. A debate is something you can learn from, a gain.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#329

Post by yakshaving_jgt »

iinnPP wrote: post #314
yakshaving_jgt wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aut…

> What source do you get the 20% from?

The 20% figure might be outdated now after the Ukrainians liberated Khersonks'ka Oblast north of the Dnipro. The NYT most recently put the figure at 18%[0].

> 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.

The russians are only rarely going to state their aims so blatantly. It is only recently that kremlin officials admitted that the soldiers who invaded Ukraine in 2014 were indeed kremlin-backed. Until recently, they denied it.

You can see fact #2 here[1] for a more detailed explanation, but to really understand the kremlin's perspective, there's quite a lot of material you need to follow and digest.

More explanation from Carnegie[2]:

> The Kremlin’s logic appears to stem from its thesis about the “artificial” nature of Ukrainian statehood. If Ukraine was “constructed” by Lenin in 1918, as Moscow now insists, then it can be just as easily and legitimately “deconstructed”: its neighbors have the right to claim Ukrainian territory, which Russia will not oppose. Indeed, it has already made a head start by declaring the annexation of four Ukrainian regions in September.

I have Ukrainian residence and I was living in Ukraine for most of last year. I also have many personal and professional relationships in the country, so this imperialist war and the innumerable war crimes committed are of special importance to me. I have literally watched missiles fly and explode in the sky from my kitchen window.

> Based on the personal attacks at the end,

Sorry, my outrage isn't directed at you specifically. It is directed towards anyone who parrots kremlin propaganda. For some reason, this is all too common among intellectuals like Chomsky and his ilk who struggle with the painfully basic principle that the enemy of your enemy is not your friend.

---

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/world/europe/ukrain....

[1]: https://mfa.gov.ua/en/10-facts-you-should-know-about-russian...

[2]: https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/88585

More:

- https://kafkadesk.org/2022/05/08/russian-invasion-to-continu...

Re: I want to lose every debate

#330

Post by badcppdev »

psychphysic wrote: post #276
badcppdev wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To follow the spirit of the original linked article I will choose to accept that a debate can be defined as a conversation where one person presents their ideas and another person listens and asks clarifying questions in a generally non-argumentative manner. With the JRE you seem to be saying that the guest is arguing that their ideas are correct and JR is arguing the negative but only through the use of questions an…

It's not dissimilar from the socratic method. But he leaves the direct criticism to the audience. He will almost never use the phrases "I don't think that's correct" or similar. Louis Theroux?

I always thought the socratic method was where somebody (Socrates) was teaching something to a student. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that doesn't seem right for describing the JRE

But I think Louis Theroux has a not dissimilar style.

(Unless you're asking me if I'm Louis... I'm not)

Post reply on HN