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

381–386 of 386 posts

Re: I want to lose every debate

#381

Post by pattisapu »

the_af wrote: post #232
pattisapu wrote: post #209

Vigorous debate is a good thing. It's about learning to turn it off afterwards. Debate at its best is where the issues are at stake -- not the relationship. Getting clear on that is an important communicative and emotional skill. The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions. If both sides can put their cards on the table, that's a mo…

> The problem with "wanting to lose" in this post is how fake and sentimental that attitude can become, against our best intentions. Yes. Plus it can seem condescending. I wouldn't want to debate anything with someone adopting some sort of "philosophical master" stance that "through losing" will achieve enlightening. I prefer the other person gets angry if need be, which at least is honest, rather than trying to play…

Good point. People smell condescension, and then check out.

The whole thing cools. They'll say just enough to get to the next topic gracefully. The dispute is patched up with something like "we'll agree to disagree" or something like that, in the interest of polite conversation, rather than square-on debate.

In that scenario one does not receive the full force of an opponent's argument. It never got ventilated. An opponent only brings that energy to a debate between earnest people who see themselves -- not their arguments -- as equals.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#382

Post by aflag »

midasz wrote: post #244
paganel wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It's just when I pragmatically think about solutions to the very real problem of human trafficking, banning sex-work seems like the least effective thing to do. And what constitutes sex-work? Any sex where payment is involved? Any sex act outside of marriage? Human trafficking is already illegal. Fund investigators and get rid of traffickers. Empower sex-workers instead of banning the practice, because it will still…

Why would sex outside of marriage be considered sex work? For something to be work you need to receive some sort of material compensation. Usually it's just money. But I guess if someone gives you a car or some jewelry in exchange of sex it could classify too. I don't see how having sex with someone in a party where both people wanted it could conceivably be considered sex work

Re: I want to lose every debate

#383

Post by actionablefiber »

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.

I wrote what I wrote because I thought you had some sense of curiosity about the people you complained about and I thought this was an appropriate space to talk about each other's beliefs and experiences. I did not expect your hostility!

Re: I want to lose every debate

#384

Post by etothepii »

Supermancho wrote: post #280
etothepii wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is what I dislike most about Jordan Peterson. He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not something he wants to agree with. IMHO, you haven't understood someone if you can't repeat it back to them in your own language, and there's a good probability that this is the fault of the explainer not the explainee.

> He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not something he wants to agree with. I don't think that's unique to JP. Most people are very bad at paraphrasing without veering into misrepresentation. I'm still working on getting better.

That's not what I said. ROFL

Re: I want to lose every debate

#385

Post by Supermancho »

etothepii wrote: post #384
Supermancho wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He appears to behave as if it's your fault if when you paraphrase what you think he's said back to him is not something he wants to agree with. I don't think that's unique to JP. Most people are very bad at paraphrasing without veering into misrepresentation. I'm still working on getting better.

That's not what I said. ROFL

> That's not what I said.

Yes, it is. I quoted you and the source post is unmodified.

Ironically, my interpretation may not be what you meant, despite it's simplicity.

>> IMHO, you haven't understood someone if you can't repeat it back to them in your own language, and there's a good probability that this is the fault of the explainer not the explainee.

So I guess we just talk past each other. Sounds good.

Re: I want to lose every debate

#386

Post by etothepii »

Supermancho wrote: post #385
etothepii wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not what I said. ROFL

> That's not what I said. Yes, it is. I quoted you and the source post is unmodified. Ironically, my interpretation may not be what you meant , despite it's simplicity. >> IMHO, you haven't understood someone if you can't repeat it back to them in your own language, and there's a good probability that this is the fault of the explainer not the explainee. So I guess we just talk past each other. Sounds good.

The internet is not the best medium for satire I suppose. Hence the ROFL for emphasis.
Post reply on HN