Brother Malcolm Speaks

If someone is plain wrong and they ignore all the points and evidence brought on from the other side of the argument, they are intellectually dishonest at best. This is more of a comment on the pettiness of people rather than debates and arguments

yeah this is not how things work

I disagree wholeheartedly.

If someone is plain wrong and they ignore all the points and evidence brought on from the other side of the argument, they are intellectually dishonest at best. This is more of a comment on the pettiness of people rather than debates and arguments

It goes both ways. If I make an argument and provide facts to back it up, my opponent would just shrug it off and vice versa. Someone could say something you think is completely idiotic and provide factual evidence to support it, and most people would still shrug it off because they just can't find themselves agreeing with the statement. Which is why debate is pointless.

What's right or wrong is subjective. What I think is right you may think is wrong, which is why even most "intellectual debates" turn into dick measuring contests.

I dont argue to win my opponent over, its the 3rd parties watching.

It goes both ways. If I make an argument and provide facts to back it up, my opponent would just shrug it off and vice versa. Someone could say something you think is completely idiotic and provide factual evidence to support it, and most people would still shrug it off because they just can't find themselves agreeing with the statement. Which is why debate is pointless.

What's right or wrong is subjective. What I think is right you may think is wrong, which is why even most "intellectual debates" turn into dick measuring contests.

If the position is idiotic, yet they have facts in it most of the time they are misapplying the facts or using some type of fallacy. If your side is the one with the correct logic and in line with reality your side is the correct one. The inability of your opponent to recognize he lost does not change the fact that you are right, it just means he is an idiot and shouldn't be trying to argue. Thrawn is also right, you rarely pull your opponent on your side, debates are for the people watching. Hopefully the people watching aren't persuaded by bad logic and bad evidence.

I'll agree with the OP. People form their opinions over long periods of time, usually at private points when they don't think they are being judged (i.e., you may honestly consider things you read in a book which you wouldn't consider from a debater calling you an idiot).

Debating is a sport, and like all sports, the main goals are victory and recreation rather than intellectual refinement or coming to a common understanding.

In most circumstances, the activity will help you to better understand your own view, as you stretch your imagination to defend it; but you will not understand the other point of view until you decide to study it privately, without another man telling you what to think. No one accepts another person telling them how to think. That is the primary flaw of debating.

In a debate, the goal should be to convince the audience not the person you are debating with. Trying to win over your opponent is often futile as you have realized as well.

If the position is idiotic, yet they have facts in it most of the time they are misapplying the facts or using some type of fallacy. If your side is the one with the correct logic and in line with reality your side is the correct one. The inability of your opponent to recognize he lost does not change the fact that you are right, it just means he is an idiot and shouldn't be trying to argue.

Again, this is completely subjective. What you may think is completely baseless and idiotic, I might think makes complete sense and is completely in line with reality. I could say "all clowns are evil", and provide factual evidence to support it; most people still wouldn't believe it because of how ridiculous. Keep in mind that the other guy thinks he's right as well.

Thrawn is also right, you rarely pull your opponent on your side, debates are for the people watching. Hopefully the people watching aren't persuaded by bad logic and bad evidence.

In a debate, the goal should be to convince the audience not the person you are debating with. Trying to win over your opponent is often futile as you have realized as well.

I'll agree with the OP. People form their opinions over long periods of time, usually at private points when they don't think they are being judged (i.e., you may honestly consider things you read in a book which you wouldn't consider from a debater calling you an idiot).

Debating is a sport, and like all sports, the main goals are victory and recreation rather than intellectual refinement or coming to a common understanding.

In most circumstances, the activity will help you to better understand your own view, as you stretch your imagination to defend it; but you will not understand the other point of view until you decide to study it privately, without another man telling you what to think. No one accepts another person telling them how to think. That is the primary flaw of debating.

I dont argue to win my opponent over, its the 3rd parties watching.

So, it is a dick measuring contest?

Although it is kind of true that some people are just stupid and ignorant, I think that it's better to just walk away from such people.

Look up "what's the difference between a discussion and an arguement"

What you'll find:

Discussion is an exchange of ideas. No ego involved.

An arguement is a battle of the egos.

I don't think most people like arguments lol

Again, this is completely subjective. What you may think is completely baseless and idiotic, I might think makes complete sense and is completely in line with reality. I could say "all clowns are evil", and provide factual evidence to support it; most people still wouldn't believe it because of how ridiculous. Keep in mind that the other guy thinks he's right as well.

So, it is a dick measuring contest?

In most cases, yes arguments tend to become that.

It isn't a dick measuring contest, it is a contest of ideas. Hopefully some of the audience members are not invested in either side of the debate, or are looking for information to pick a side. I have gotten a number of PMs from people who read some of my posts in the BR and learned from them, or had additional questions on my points and were genuinely interested in them.

It is a combination of the feeling I get when that happens, and the fun of the battle of wits that keeps me coming back.

One point of argument is to test your ideas against someone. If you cannot defend your ideas you need to think again. The need to think again does not automatically mean accepting your opponents point of view-if you are arguing an orange is green against someone who insists it is blue, the fact they have demonstrated it is not green does not mean accepting it is blue.

The key to see if you have been successful in getting someone to rethink their ideas is in the next argument they may well come back with a moderated position or a different stance-those are the changes that you can actually see-people never admit they are wrong upfront.

This is often one of the hardest things to manage in a workplace-creating an environment where someone can produce an idea, have it challenged, and then accept that it is wrong and not be thought less off or be resentful that it was wrong. And on the flipside people need to feel they can raise challenges, and even if that challenge is overcome and the idea wins out they are not looked down on for having raised that challenge.

I generally enter a discussion under the assumption that we're both mostly wrong.

Haha, a wise position to take iamthey

Though, I tend to think of it as we are both right

We should argue over this

I dont argue to win my opponent over, its the 3rd parties watching.

That is the only reason to debate because it isn't about changing that one person's mind. Its about bringing others to your position or at lest getting them interested enough that they will educate themselves so they can form their own opinions on things.

But I don't see the point of trying to impress an audience. Why should I care about that.