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

331–340 of 386 posts

Re: I want to lose every debate

#331

Post by randomdata »

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…

> When was the last time you lost a debate on a topic you felt strongly about?

Why would you talk about something you feel strongly about in the first place? If you are sure you have got it all figured out, there is nothing left to talk about. Discussion is only useful when you recognize gaps in your understanding and are able to learn more about it.

> it's never really possible to lose a debate

It is. If you cannot compel the other party to offer you information that you can successfully learn from, you've lost. A debate is only won if you've learned something from it. Which, again, is why it would be rather illogical to debate something you feel strongly about. What can you learn if you already have it figured out? If you truly know it all you are guaranteed to lose every time, and at that point why waste your time?

Re: I want to lose every debate

#333

Post by hbrn »

paganel wrote: post #214
glogla wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to believe that the people who are against sex work are actually thinking of the good of the sex workers and because of human trafficking. Yet there is a lot of human trafficking in other areas, like farmwork or maids in the Western world, and the non-Western world is filled with sweatshops and literal slaves. And you never hear them mention it. Which makes me convinced these people are just anti-sex work fo…

> Which makes me convinced these people are just anti-sex work for religious or moral reasons If it matters I'm an atheist. I'm against "sex work" because women (it's women in the majority of cases) are trafficked and taken advantage of, in both a material and a direct physical way. I see this "sex work" non-sense mostly coming from people who have had no direct contact with the reality/materiality of it all, i.e. mo…

> I'm against "sex work" because women (it's women in the majority of cases) are trafficked and taken advantage of, in both a material and a direct physical way.

That's a very naive and harmful take.

Criminalizing sex work means that only criminals would be involved in it, hence the trafficking.

Given that you can't do anything about supply and demand, the only sane solution to trafficking is decriminalizing sex work. Not being "against it".

Re: I want to lose every debate

#336

Post by the_af »

hbrn wrote: post #326
the_af wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

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

Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material things" is something only those who have their basic necessities covered have the possibility to contemplate.

> 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?

"Yes", "yes", "no", and "no".

> Poor in US are among most wealthy people in the world

That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer. Engage with that.

(Also, poverty is not "a law of nature" and it's not true that every poor person in the US is among the most wealthy people in the world).

> Unequal rights doesn't necessarily mean someone is being taken advantage of.

Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit.

PS: you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me. I don't care to debate with you about those awful, made-up and purposefully stupid statements. I don't want you to "teach me" anything, either.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#337

Post by hbrn »

JAlexoid wrote: post #320
hbrn wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You're supposed to both attack your opponent's position and defend yours.

What you're describing is a lack of debate culture. A good example of that was already referred here (the infamous "so you're saying" interview).

Re: I want to lose every debate

#338

Post by red-iron-pine »

nibbleshifter wrote: post #49
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…

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…

Awful lot of projection goin on here, mate.

You're not wrong but I think you're overstating things. Honestly if you're that miffed about these conversations maybe it's you.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#339

Post by anthonypasq »

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…

Debates are for the audience, not for you.

No one changes their mind in real time. Even if they know they are wrong their ego digs in in the moment.

Truly consequential shifts in your thinking happen gradually over time.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#340

Post by hbrn »

the_af wrote: post #336
hbrn wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

> Someone was able to find happiness in non-material things. Good for them. Poverty is not having to eat. Poverty is a self-compounding problem: you cannot eat, you cannot work (or not enough), you get sick, so you cannot work, etc. Every accident impacts someone living in poverty way more than someone who is not. "Find happiness in non-material things" is something only those who have their basic necessities covered…

> Poverty is not having to eat

No, that's famine.

Poverty has many definitions, but generally it's not being able to meet a certain standard of living. It may include nutrition standards, but again, malnutrition in US is very different from malnutrition in Africa. Again, if someone is "poor" by US standards, but lives a happy life - good for them. I could learn a thing or two from them. You could too.

> "Yes", "yes", "no", and "no".

Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset. The exact opposite of what the post is about.

> That doesn't address the worldview I mentioned, it's complete misdirection. The view is that the rich should get richer and the poor should get poorer.

But it does. Rich are getting richer is the natural effect of positive feedback loops. You are rewarded for the value you produce, which allows you to produce more value. Streamlining those loops allowed us to create enormous amount of wealth in the last century.

The only way to fight it is to create an artificial compensating negative feedback loop, i.e. punish people for creating value. Evidently, not a good idea if you look at famine in USSR (google for "Dekulakization").

People like you seem to focus on a few outliers without recognizing that "rich getting richer" has benefitted billions. If having a few billionaires is the cost of moving billions out of poverty, I'll gladly take it. So yeah, rich should be getting richer, because the only alternative is everybody being poor.

> Yes it is. Your proposed experiment is bullshit.

Is this really your best argument?

Post reply on HN