how can i learn how to argue and articulate my viewpoints? i try to make sure i understand a lot of what i read and i try to make sure i get the facts straight but when a discussion turns into a debate i never can formulate a proper rebuttal, like all my knowledge turns into some vague blob of an idea in my head. am i missing a concept when it comes to debating people?
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Sounds like you're not listening to the arguments of the other side enough, debating is about singling out the flawed arguments that render their conclusion untenable, and then stating your own arguments and the conclusion that you've reached as a result. You can't rebut someone unless you understand their reasoning and the arguments that caused them to reach their conclusion. Otherwise, like that Monty Python sketch it just becomes two people shouting "it isn't!" "it is!" at each other.
Study logic.
>Study logic.
Only do this if you want to be "right", but not win any arguments.
>only do this if you want to be "right" instead of a pseud
Yes.
study logic AND philosophy
also, elocution is a skill, you train it like any other
This. If you can actually understand and find faults in what you read you can also construct a refuting argument, it's the exact same mechanism. If you can't construct a refuting argument you don't actually understand what you're reading, despite your efforts, or you do but it was a good argument so there was nothing to rebut.
>i try to make sure i understand a lot of what i read and i try to make sure i get the facts straight
Debates are not about getting facts straight or understanding what you read so much as actually preparing for them
You do this by actually thinking about what you read and thinking about it from different perspectives. Or just seeking out those different perspectives. Then you analyze deeper and deeper until you hit a roadblock, or until you stop caring about the topic I guess.
You probably don't write about what you read either. It's all gonna be a vague blob if you don't give it structure. Your brain isn't structured, thankfully. You have to write and give the information structure.
You need more training. I'd say knowing stuff and being literate does a frick all in a debate. It's pretty much a territorial fight which can trigger fight or flight responses, especially if you are very emotionally attached to your viewpoints, and send all your knowledge down the drain.
Yeah and also you could learn all the trickery and debate tactics if you just care about winning - no need for knowledge.
i definitely need more training, and i’d say more courage is needed as well. i can remember a time where a debate opponent tried to paint me in a bad light and instead of calling out an obvious ad hom attack i got rattled and crumbled, none of my ideas i could express because the opponent thought they had hit me with a “gotcha” and i played right into it like a fool. i want to express my viewpoints and be strong enough to have them hold up to scrutiny, im not particularily interested in becoming a debate monster using underhanded tactics to trip people up but instead i want my arguments to be rock solid and i do t know what i need to work on to get there. now my question is should there be a balance between calling out people’s arguments and imposing my own ideas on them?
good insight, a lot of the time other people’s arguements are moronic but so much of the time im so hung up on the point i want to make that i go off of the other persons moronic logic instead of takin the time to determine if the other person is even making an argument or just a personal attack
checked. i feel that is a major flaw in my reasoning is that im realizing i try to argue reactively instead of having set points i can elaborate on. it makes my entire reasoning structure seem to be up in the air and always keeps me on my back foot
>but so much of the time im so hung up on the point i want to make that i go off of the other persons moronic logic instead of takin the time to determine if the other person is even making an argument or just a personal attack
well it it's turning into a shitflinging personal attack session then you're not "debating" them. And if they're resorting to personal attacks, then it's clear their motivation is to "win", rather than to persuade or learn. Debating is a exchange of arguments to affirm or negate a conclusion.
Someone might be convinced they are "right", and want to persuade others to agree with them, so they will debate.
Alternatively someone might be on the fence or think they are right, but is open to being persuaded otherwise, so they will debate.
Some people however are using claiming they are "right" as an excuse to "win". That is not debating. And by the sounds of it they are not worth your time conversing with because they are not trying to persuade you through debate with arguments, they're trying to win by being a moron.
>good insight, a lot of the time other people’s arguements are moronic but so much of the time im so hung up on the point i want to make that i go off of the other persons moronic logic instead of takin the time to determine if the other person is even making an argument or just a personal attack
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity.
Okay, anon. Let's see if we can get to the bottom of this. Suppose I say authoritarian regimes have killed more people than mass shooters and gun homicides. Therefore, people should be more concerned about the former than the latter. In that case, whether you agree with me or not, challenge me somehow. If you can't, or if you try and fail, I'll do it and explain where you missed the mark.
gun homicides and mass shooters are worth more concern because there are more guns than there are people (speaking from a US point of reference). instead of a particular set of people like government agents or police unjustly taking action on you, the perpetrator could be any one at any time. its fairly trivial to get access to a firearm for anyone in the us, so anyone with a screwed up mind could make you a victim. this is why mass shooters should be more concerning to you than a tyrannical government, which are usually so inefficient you can find a way to slip through the cracks.
Right, I see the issue. You've failed to deal with my major premise. I can stand my ground on authoritarian regimes being responsible for tens of millions more deaths because it's true. To argue with me, you can't attack my walked fortresses, to borrow from Sun Tzu. Pick your battles, anon.
Like this: Be that as it may, most other first-world Western countries have less permissive gun laws but have not become tyrannical. The problem we have right now is mass shootings and gun homicides. Is it really unreasonable for me to have a less absolute view of the second amendment than you?
Now I'm fricked, because even if I disagree with you, I can't argue much against that. That's how you make a breach in my defenses where you can advocate for anti-gun policy changes if you like.
At least, if I'm not being an butthole and hearing you out.
Other western govts that have not fallen into despotism YET.
To go a step further, authoritarian regimes are not the issue. Rather, it is about despotic accountability. Guns keep power in the hands of the people, which puts pressure on the deracinated elites who owe no allegiance to the people's wellbeing or carry any responsibility for their frickups.
Currently, accountability for systematic frickups is distributed across the legal system and neutered into large macro terms. This functions somewhat like a bulletproof vest. Leaders have names, addresses and families, which acts as a safety net for the populace because things will not get too bad without complete structural upheaval.
An authoritarian regime is the natural response from a state in which it has lost the divine right to rule. It is a natural period of late stage empires. "How do I remove this looming threat?" asks the king under the sword of Damocles.
Mass shootings are dealt with be isolating childhood cat killers, and homicides are dealt with by creating walls around city "folk" and not letting them out.
Now we're getting somewhere!
I won't continue this argument, but I will point out that you managed to deal with my major premise and agree with me, which is challenging. Debates like that are beneficial to everyone involved. I feel good just reading this.
On the other hand, by going a step further, we've relegated the counterparty who wants to suggest less permissive gun laws to the outer darkness. We could discuss whether that's beneficial or dangerous. I'm ambivalent on the issue but tend toward being the useless academic who hears everyone out.
>have not become tyrannical
yet
You assume the people care about the quantity of murder in a given situation.
More specifically, in this hypothetical, I think less murder is better than more murder, and want to strive toward that ideal.
>I think less murder is better than more murder, and want to strive toward that ideal.
Why?
Because that's what accords with my values. Social harmony depends on a shared understanding of better/worse, peaks/valleys, etc. Obviously, if you don't care whether there's more or less murder, or prefer a more violent society, your conclusions will differ. It's up to you to ground your arguments wherever seems right to you.
>It's up to you to ground your arguments wherever seems right to you.
I don’t have to ground anything because I’m not making any claims. At this point I would just continue to question your axiomatic assumptions until one of us gives up.
I know what you're doing, I just don't find it compelling. I've stated what I value, and don't need to argue against your lack of a contrary position. Put differently, that was an invitation for you to make a claim so that debate would be possible.
>I've stated what I value, and don't need to argue against your lack of a contrary position.
Well, you wouldn’t convince me of anything. Perhaps the people would be more sympathetic if they share your values, but they could just as easily disagree. Do you have a reason for them except the fact that you find them emotionally appealing?
As I said, the meta-argument game isn't that compelling to me. You can keep asking why, why, why, while others debate the issues. And I really mean that, you can.
Why?
Yes, like I said, I know why you're asking why. I used to do that all the time. It's about as interesting as the issue of determinism: you have about as much control over the next thought that pops into your head as you do the rising and setting of the sun. Interesting, but that's about all.
I have a hard time lying to people and trying to argue points that I know are bullshit in the first place. My advice to OP would be to gain some distance from his beliefs so that he can argue them from a distance and switch them around as he pleases. Also read the sophists.
>I have a hard time lying to people and trying to argue points that I know are bullshit in the first place.
WTF are you doing on IQfy, then?
forgive me, i am going to bed. if this thread is alive tomorrow i will reply
both of those arts are fugly
probably SF. I hate SF
Suomi Finland is reggae okay.
Has anyone ever read an online debate where LAWGIC prevailed and the losing side admitted they were wrong.
arguably Victor Aguilar vs. Robert Murphy, although it's probably not interesting or even comprehensible to someone not versed in Austrian Economics
https://axiomaticeconomics.com/rebuttals.php
The only people who win arguments and debates are those with the loudest voices, cutting in while another person already speaks, and winning the crowd opinion through some idiotic sentiment.
>winning the crowd opinion
televised debates reduced the craft of rhetoric into audience pandering.
Arguing isn't about being right. Its about manipulating your opponents with sheer charisma, gravitas and authority.
I'd unironically say hit the gym, because a shredded, good looking person can get further, just on the virtue of those two.
>a shredded, good looking person can get further, just on the virtue of those two.
until you're paired againt a taller person
Call him a lanklet and tell him tall concubines are cool.
Various tricks have been invented.
Winning arguments is for short sighted homosexuals and women.
Care about finding the Truth, and it will set you free.
just be smarter. peace.
Write stuff down more. Do it right now, get into imaginary arguments and write out how you'd respond to them.
It's tedious, but it works. As you start writing along you'll discover contradictions within your statements that you'll be able to preempt next time you have to have the discussion in real time.
Trivium
>am i missing a concept when it comes to debating people?
I think debating people at least in here is just a dick contest. Debating people IRL is all about making friends.
t.knower
Study logic.
This is the only good advice in this thread. Lots of women giving emotional shit advice. Also OP is clearly a homosexual. Herbs in the field.
practice speaking in discussions and WITH EVERYONE think through why they say what they do before "responding". it takes a lot of practice so keep at it for at least a few months anon