Get yourself over to reddit, the best debaters ion the world. Appeal to authority almost every time.
I want to lose every debate
341–350 of 386 posts
Re: I want to lose every debate
#342I’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’d like to offer an alternative framing: don’t debate at all, just listen. There are two wanys of looking at this. Doing nothing means you lose the opportunity to possibly correct an innocent mistake or to set the record. But it's also possible you may have no clue what you are talking about.
ObXkcd: 386
"Debate" and "listen" are not the only two options.
Debate, specifically, comes from a mode of communication called rhetoric, or persuasive argument.
There are other forms of communicating, including simply narrating or relating an event or position, entertainment, and others, one of which is dialectic.
As I've commented a few times over the years here, confusing dilectic and rhetorical conversation is one of the oldest confounding points of conversations in the book --- it's what Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle wrote on at length (particularly Plato railing against the Sophists, that is, rhetoriticians, and Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations, a/k/a "bullshit arguments that must die" to put a contemporary spin on it.
Derek's entire premise strikes me as ... extraordinarily blinkered here. If you find you want to impart your own wisdom, it's possible to do so other than through raw debate. In particular, the mode of simple discussion or Socratic Method, in which you ask questions which (might) lead your interlocutor to reach the conclusion you're suggesting on their own seems especially valid.
"Had you considered X" or "How would you address Y" being possible entry points for that.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#343I’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…
Charitably, I get what you and the author of the article are describing, but I would make at least this comment. The point of listening is ultimately to know the truth. The fact that listening to others is ipso facto social means that we learn a great deal in community. But it's one thing to learn about what someone else believes. It's another to accept those beliefs as true. The person you are listening to could be…
We listen to a great many things that we objectively know aren't true. Or which have no specific bearing on truth.
Listening is critical to all communication (there's at least one speaker and one listener to any conversation involving one or more sentiences). I'd suggest that the goal of listening is to understand the other party, at least within the universe of their story or experience. You don't have to believe, agree, sympathise, or even empathise. You may have entirely selfish reasons for doing so (is this person a threat / kook / messiah / ...?). If we choose to listen, though, the principle goal is only occasionally seeking truth.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#344Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, that's famine.
No, that's poverty. Poverty is a self-reinforcing loop, this is well studied. Malnutrition is malnutrition, you die from it in North America, Africa or whatever. I don't care for your new age "find happiness where you can" mumbo jumbo.
I don't live in the US nor anywhere close to the US, so stick your assumptions where the sun don't shine!
> Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indication of a closed mindset
I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is boring.
> "rich getting richer"
You conveniently forgot "the poor must get poorer".
> (google for "Dekulakization")
I'm puzzled, is "assuming people don't know a term I'm using and need googling it" part of your "just listen, do not try to win debates" strategy of TFA? Thanks for teaching me though, I didn't know anything about the history of the USSR!
It must be that I am not "producing value", haw haw haw!
I wrote a longer post to your bullshit reply, but I won't bother, since you decided to ignore this: "you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me". Since you failed to engage with pretty simple instructions, and instead you chose to go your own way -- funnily enough, breaking the premise of TFA, which was "to listen"; instead of doing so you launched into an attempt to refute what you guessed were my objections -- I'll bid you adieu.
Good luck with your debate tactics!
Re: I want to lose every debate
#345I’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…
Very much this, I was going to comment similarly.
Every discussion is not a debate. Perhaps this is what Sivers was trying to communicate, in which case, he did so rather poorly.
The examples offered all revolve around lived experiences, lifestyle preference (taste), and articles of faith, for which there really isn't much of an objective truth, let alone one which can be demonstrated through evidence and reason.
There's something to be said for simply choosing to absorb a story, to bear witness, even to validate a person's view or choices (though that last isn't necessarily always appropriate).
From my experience, some years back I encountered a ... local character ... who was known for accosting strangers on the street and ranting about various topics, generally rather fantastical. I'd seen this happen several times over the years, and one day it was my turn. After the tirade slowed, and unsure how to respond, I simply said "thank you". The transformation was immediate and profound: they were immensely grateful and their entire demeanor changed.
I don't pretend that this is universally applicable. I do know that there was no point in rational argument with the person. The circumstances were such that there was no obvious danger to myself or those around me. But I've thought more than once over the years of how a simple acknowledgement might often be an excellent choice of response.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#346When your goal is simply to learn, then you can listen instead of debating.
Sometimes the outcome matters, though. Sometimes there is justice, well-being, or kindness at stake.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#347Earlier 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.
The irony of someone arguing about high school debate being bad and then making piss poor arguments of zero substance is not at all lost upon me although it looks like it whizzed past you. I think someone like you would've benefited more debate than anyone else.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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, that's famine. No, that's poverty. Poverty is a self-reinforcing loop, this is well studied. Malnutrition is malnutrition, you die from it in North America, Africa or whatever. I don't care for your new age "find happiness where you can" mumbo jumbo. I don't live in the US nor anywhere close to the US, so stick your assumptions where the sun don't shine! > Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indicati…
> I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is boring.
Evidently, simply denouncing and rejecting does nothing to prevent it from emerging again. All the raping and murdering in Ukraine is currently done in the name of denouncing Nazism, yet it looks very much like Nazism.
> you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me
Turns out debates don't always happen on your terms. Despite your best effort, you still learned something today.
Re: I want to lose every debate
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Feels like the Republican vs. Libertarians issue. Like the author accidentally noticed that there are other valid point of views. "Maybe those LGBT groups do make a point and should be accepted and integrated just the way they are."
But honestly, there are just facts which are settled in the larger community and trying to negate them just doesn't lead anywhere, when the fruitful discussion is in "the smaller issues".
We (as in "we from the West") don't have anything to gain from entertaining thoughts like reconsidering the banning of women from any type of education. That's a settled topic. And luckily in my country the murdering issue is also a settled topic, specially if put in contrast to what is currently happening in Iran.
Maybe what triggered me was his title and his cheering about his enlightenment. "The benefits of listening to other people's opinions" vs. "I want to lose every debate".
Re: I want to lose every debate
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, that's famine. No, that's poverty. Poverty is a self-reinforcing loop, this is well studied. Malnutrition is malnutrition, you die from it in North America, Africa or whatever. I don't care for your new age "find happiness where you can" mumbo jumbo. I don't live in the US nor anywhere close to the US, so stick your assumptions where the sun don't shine! > Absolutist views are rather boring and a clear indicati…
> I'm sorry you find denouncing and rejecting Nazism is boring. Evidently, simply denouncing and rejecting does nothing to prevent it from emerging again. All the raping and murdering in Ukraine is currently done in the name of denouncing Nazism, yet it looks very much like Nazism. > you also misunderstood my prompt, which was to debate with people who believe what I listed, not debate with me Turns out debates don't…
> All the raping and murdering in Ukraine is currently done in the name of denouncing Nazism.
Ah, yes, I guess if we had debated the "good parts" of Nazism then the invasion of Ukraine wouldn't have happened.
> Despite your best effort, you still learned something today.
Do you really think that's an honest debate tactic? Do you think that, when reading your last line, I will think "gee, this guy truly taught me something!" or rather dismiss your remark entirely? And do you feel your way of debating is in line with what TFA proposes, or is it possible that you are trying to "win" here, therefore rejecting the whole article?
I guess I learned this conversation is futile?