When will people on the internet and on Veeky Forums realize that insulting people doesn't make their own point valid, but rather shows that they are upset and going to childish tactics to try and win an argument?
When will people start seeing that people try to confuse the majority of people on the internet with big words, while twisting sentences to make them sound smarter, make others be like "oo I never thought of it that way lemme listen to this user", because they bring in their point by confusing them with a lot of words, rather than being easy and straightforward.
Also, why do non-Christians get all defensive on who is a heretic or not? Why do non-Christians make attempts to tell Christians how to "properly interpret " scripture? It is like any Christian who has free thought and combines their ideas with science are shut down by people who aren't Christian but "defend" the "historical Christianity" even though the only Christianity is the one that started with the Christ.
Jordan Richardson
I have yet to see a single case of a debate where someone managed to changed the views of his opponent. It literally never fucking happened.
Ian Rogers
EXACTLY
I just need to credit the wisdom in your post for a second.... Thank you
Seriously, no one ever changes their ideas or even considers the other sides, and literally they only have more fuel for the fight, and each side is more "right" when they leave an argument because they just hold their belief even stronger than they did before they got online.
Noah Hughes
In real life too, not just online. I've came to the conclusion that debates are largely useless.
Noah Ross
>image macro
Right click, hide
Dylan Nelson
They would be more useful if they were more friendly and more willing to meet in the middle.
Leo Lopez
It is completely possible for people to simply not care what the truth is. I think this has mor eto do with psychology than logic.
there is usually an ounce of truth to both sides, if someone is outright BTFO they might not admit it, they might not agree with the other side, but eventually the facts will set in and they might accept a point or 2
Joshua Harris
That shit's why I prefer to ask people to elaborate. Or failing that, take their logic and see if it can be stretched further than they intend it to with some speculation. And see how they react, if their ideas hold strong to it. This is the best you can do, IMO, without slinging links at each other that neither will read.
Often when we do rant like this, we leave out crucial details. We cut mental corners and jump to conclusions which are self-evident only to us. We read the first sentence of a post and know immediately who we are arguing with, and so we prepare our script.
But when you tone it down, and ask questions, sometimes people realize they don't know enough to elaborate. Sometimes people will realize, as they try and go further, that they have less and less ground to work with. I've done it. You've done it, too. A lot of us will continue on in stubbornness, if only to push out a "full" thought.
But with a bit of criticality(not criticism) you can show where there are holes in what somebody's saying. If you ask them to complete an incomplete thought, it will show. The inconsistencies will be there, in view for all who are willing to see them.
Often, it doesn't work though. People are stubborn. But at the very least, you tease out a relatively well-thought out string of posts as you have a person go more and more into detail. And if they're blatantly wrong, but won't see it, then others will at least.
But in questioning something critically, a person might realize how shaky their foundation is. Or if they are stubborn, others might.
You tend to
Levi Cox
>Golden mean meme
Mason Foster
>It is completely possible for people to simply not care what the truth is. I think this has mor eto do with psychology than logic.
I know obviously, everyone wants people to agree with them, but it seems like there is a very apparent backwards psychology on many of these threads, the memes, the role playing, the shunning, and the "bullying" I guess..
It is more harm what people are doing to themselves than other people.
Jacob Wilson
>That shit's why I prefer to ask people to elaborate. Or failing that, take their logic and see if it can be stretched further than they intend it to with some speculation. And see how they react, if their ideas hold strong to it. This is the best you can do, IMO, without slinging links at each other that neither will read.
But sometimes, when people say "elaborate" they know in their heart that they are going to twist everything you say without even considering what you are saying
>Often when we do rant like this, we leave out crucial details. We cut mental corners and jump to conclusions which are self-evident only to us. We read the first sentence of a post and know immediately who we are arguing with, and so we prepare our script.
Then they pick apart every sentence green texting, just like this, because they want every detail responded to
Hunter Edwards
>But sometimes, when people say "elaborate" they know in their heart that they are going to twist everything you say without even considering what you are saying Which is true, and fine. We're pretty big on academic laziness and dishonesty here. You have to hope that what you're saying speaks for itself
>Then they pick apart every sentence green texting, just like this, because they want every detail responded to now that's just exhausting, if you want to refute them at all. Takes way less effort to do this, than to respond to it. I haven't really figured out a way to deal with it yet, other than being selective about replies. But in that case, you just risk hugboxing it up.
Jaxson Reed
>We're pretty big on academic laziness and dishonesty here.
I know it's just an Internet board for people to have "fun" but I mean there are big losses of honest soul searching on here for the "dishonesty"
That's a heavy price to pay for the "lel meme"
Oh here's a good example..
>now that's just exhausting, no it isn't kek
>if you want to refute them at all. Takes way less effort to do this, than to respond to it.
Nope, you're wrong on that because I don't agree with you
>I haven't really figured out a way to deal with it yet, other than being selective about replies. Well than maybe you should instead of being so stupid trololololol
>But in that case, you just risk hugboxing it up.
Look like another case of me being right mhmm as always hope door doesn't hit you on way out Lolo lol
^ That's like every thread
Kevin Rivera
I changed my mind about first past the post voting when I was arguing with someone.
I was under the impression that it was more fair than proportional representation, but it turned out I'd misunderstood how proportional representation worked.
>Or failing that, take their logic and see if it can be stretched further than they intend it to with some speculation.
hmm, I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Just because you can justify something in one case doesn't mean you can in another, but that doesn't make the original any less legitimate.
Nolan Anderson
Some guy actually changed my mind in an argument, sort of. It was about economic inequality in the antebellum South compared to the industrializing North and the rural North beyond the Appalachians; he showed me some reputable academic sources that suggested the divide was not so stark as I had believed. My sources were older than his were, and didn't really reflect the latest scholarship on the topic, so while it didn't refute my beliefs, it certainly opened my mind up about my past preconceptions.
We seemed to mutually agree that it is hard to do legitimate research on income inequality from a time when people really didn't care about that.
Ian Morales
this is the same case in formal debates, that doesn't mean formal debates are completely pointless. some of your points might be convincing to the other side but they won't admit it out of pride or it may sink in over time. moreover you aren't just trying to convince your opponent, but the "audience", other posters more on the fence with less knowledge of the topic
Adrian Thomas
...
Brandon Clark
user BTFO
Xavier Bailey
I don't understand
why doesn't the admins require a citation for every post like they do captcha? Or have it optional but if you leave it blank the post ends with "I speak complete nonsense"
that and flags we need flags here.
Thomas Gutierrez
because that's fairly autistic for a discussion board
Colton Moore
>I speak complete nonsense
Robert Thomas
it's the autism we need
>When discussing history, please reference credible source material, and provide as much supporting information as possible in your posts.
People completely ignore this sticky only way to enforce it is citation additions.
Andrew Rodriguez
Reminder that in 100 years the argument from fedora will be taught as a valid argument in philosophy classes
>Also, why do non-Christians get all defensive on who is a heretic or not? Why do non-Christians make attempts to tell Christians how to "properly interpret " scripture? It is like any Christian who has free thought and combines their ideas with science are shut down by people who aren't Christian but "defend" the "historical Christianity" even though the only Christianity is the one that started with the Christ.
Why do christians think that le funny reddit hat may may makes them right?
Christian Reyes
They were trained from birth to accept pat answers from an authority figure as incontestable.
Josiah Jones
Veeky Forums recommend me a babies first debate or reasoning book. I need to improve my skills.
Samuel Cruz
To argue better you should be better informed than your oponent. Muh rhetoric is just a shitty debate club meme.
Ian Walker
When will people realize that argumentation nearly never changes anybody's mind and that people who have their minds changed were already predisposed to those ideas in the first place.
Debate is pointless.
Benjamin Richardson
That only really happens in controversial topics that by nature are unanswerable. But debating over the interpretation of new historical data can bring interesting and rich opinions. The problem is that only history faggs will attend them while everyone is watching bill nye vs ken ham.
