How does one use logic and reason to overcome an argument when the other person actually just skips over all the logic...

how does one use logic and reason to overcome an argument when the other person actually just skips over all the logic and reason that you tried to provide?

I'm talking in the philosophical sense.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty
youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

read wittgenstein's on certainty. you're at least half the problem.

Logic and reason are void absent a logical and reasonable audience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Certainty
>its main theme being that there are some things which must be exempt from doubt in order for human practices to be possible

this is very very interesting.

>muh logic
>muh reason
Git gud.

Also, don't mistake "refusing to admit that you're right" with "not realising that you're right."

I've been in plenty of arguments where I've realised I'm wrong and they're right. That doesn't mean I'm going to admit it. You don't win a debating contest by standing up and saying "Yeah, after listening to their speech I think they're right and so I forfeit."

You're a fucking moron, OP.

Don't even bother to argue if they're not going to listen to anything you have to say.

>That doesn't mean I'm going to admit it.
then that's a character fault on your behalf, not mine

I don't seek to win the debate, I ask questions to expand my knowledge on a subject.


~"I seek the truth, which never hurt anyone."

this is true.

psychologically 'reason' is just what you believe to be your most sensible beliefs. It's like telling someone that they need to adhere to your standards of sensibility over theirs, that's ridiculous in my mind.
There's different values, and when you value something more you are willing to sacrifice other things to protect that precious thing. That's all there is to it, and yet people will go on endlessly about how the other person isn't seeing the 'logic' or 'reason' when what they really mean is that the other person hasn't shut up and accept their beliefs aren't as awesome as yours.

>then that's a character fault on your behalf
You don't get to choose which side you're on in debating you fucking cunt.

In a formal debate you argue the case you're given, not "the truth".

If you want to git gud at arguing, you need to approach it like a debater and not like an idealistic undergraduate fuckwank who can't handle the truth that's being given to him because it offends his delicate sensibilities.

>b-b-b-b-but i'm talking about arguing in the wild, not a formal debate
Yeah, and if you choose to conduct yourself like a fuckwank in the wild while your opponent chooses to conduct himself like an actual debater you're going to get fucking steamrolled.

>"I seek the truth, which never hurt anyone."
Nice sentiment, but some people aren't seeking the truth and bringing a pen to a gunfight ends with you as a footnote of history, an interesting political thoughtbubble that never actually impacted the world even though it showed a lot of promise, one of millions.

>I've been in plenty of arguments where I've realised I'm wrong and they're right. That doesn't mean I'm going to admit it.
what the fuck?

>hiding the posts where he gets called out for samefagging
What's the logic there, OP?

>I've been in plenty of arguments where I've realised I'm wrong and they're right. That doesn't mean I'm going to admit it.

>what is debating on the affirmative when you actually believe the negative

youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8
>muh emotions are better than a compelling argument
Reminds me of that NPR about how a black team won a debate championship about climate change by talking about being black and being emotional.
If it's just a persuasive job, then go into sales or marketing, that's not debate to me.

>emotions aren't a compelling argument
Brainlet detected.

unhidden posts

one was responding to the other
the other was calling same fag on the first. look at the post numbers.

they were outside of the realm of the discussion.


>It's like telling someone that they need to adhere to your standards of sensibility over theirs, that's ridiculous in my mind

but surely theres sensibility that we can both agree on? do we need to specify it each time?
>if I have a cup of water, and turn it upside down, water will pour out under normal gravity.

do I really need to specify that each time?

>You don't get to choose which side you're on in debating you fucking cunt.
yes I do, what?

if I'm debating X because I believe in it. I want reasons to why X is false, if it is false I will stop beliving in X

>idealistic undergraduate fuckwank who can't handle the truth that's being given to him because it offends his delicate sensibilities.
are you saying I should accept "truth" against reason,or "sensibilities" without asking why those sensibilities are indeed false?

2+2=5 is the "truth"
my sensibilties is that 2+2=4
can I ask what causes 2+2 to not equal 4?
legitimate question.

fuck forgot picture

actually to turn it around

my sensibilites is that
2+2=5
you give me truth that
2+2 = 4
can I not ask what sensibilities are incorrect to assert that 2+2 does not = 5 ?

Funny because true.

>I've been in plenty of arguments where I've realised I'm wrong and they're right. That doesn't mean I'm going to admit it.

>yes I do, what?
lmao no you don't.

I'm talking about formal debating, not shitposting on the internet. I do a lot of it, and in a formal debate you don't get to choose if you're affirmative or negative.

>are you saying I should accept "truth" against reason
I'm saying that if you want to win arguments you should stop relying exclusively on reason and logic. If people aren't receptive to rational or logical argumentation then you are wasting everybody's time with them.

However, most people are receptive to rational and logical argumentation - you are simply coming at them from the wrong angle. If I am an environmentalist pressure group and I want the nationalist conservative government to stop logging in the national parks arguing deep green philosophy that trees have the same rights as humans to live and logging is a moral crime is likely not to work - but if I make the argument that our national parks are a part of the intrinsic ecological character of our nation, and a heritage that we should leave to future generations, and part of our self-concept of rugged outback culture that we are supposed to be protecting, as well as vital breeding grounds for outdoorsman programs to teach our youth strength and self-reliance, and so on, I am making arguments that are just as rational and logical as my deep green arguments, but far more persuasive.

>but what if i believe deep green philosophy is objectively true and thus cannot stomach arguing on any other basis than that
Firstly you're wrong because it's not, and secondly even if it is objectively true it's not necessary that everyone believe that all the time in all aspects anyway for desirable outcomes to occur, as the above example shows. There's no point pressing your deep green cock in where it's not relevant as it only makes it harder to achieve your objectives. And that's not very rational.

>2+2=5 is the "truth"
>my sensibilties is that 2+2=4
>can I ask what causes 2+2 to not equal 4?
>legitimate question.

If you honestly believe that 2+2 = 4 when it equals 5 then there's nothing that can be said, it's literally that fundamental. Bad example, this is the problem with all of your arguments in the original screencap and this thread: your reading comprehension is extremely low and you misunderstand everything.

Kill yourself.

Patrician.

I now understand. thank you.


>then there's nothing that can be said, it's literally that fundamental

I admit it is a bad example, but surely if you were to logically show me how 2+2=5 then I would believe it.

I think I'm starting to understand.

You give too easily mate. Actually every post in this thread I made was to troll you.

No one explained anything int the original post and you were right. The problem is you actually fucking made a thread about something so trivial. Learn to pick up on when other people are being disingenuous.

that's what I'm starting to understand
:^)

>debating
I think op here is trying tohave a philosophical debate not a rethorical one.

>it's a pre-law freshman explains babby rhetoric principles episode
wew lad
>I'm talking about formal debating, not shitposting on the internet.
and the OP post wast about shitposting on the internet, you fucking dunce.
>If people aren't receptive to rational or logical argumentation then you are wasting everybody's time with them.
the only relevant sentence in your post

kys for making me read all that empty wank

>how does one use logic and reason to overcome an argument
You don't, you wish them luck and walk away.

>all this ressentiment
How dare somebody reject your false god?
muh will to truth

>look at all the meme words I know
Go play in the ""philosophy"" thread with other 13 year olds.

As much as I like 13-year-olds, I'd rather not.
>meme words
How DARE people use terms that I dislike?

>how does one use logic and reason to overcome an argument when the other person actually just skips over all the logic and reason that you tried to provide?
>skips over all the logic
>it's another episode of babby philosophers not realizing what logic is
Odds are you're doing the same thing, but to a lesser degree.

1. No, Your not (actual Philosopher) 2. Constructive critism & 3. CommonSense added with a mix of (own words) using Logic

What about logical concepts like causality, you sound awful close to a relativist...

Also what about logic rooted in maths? Is nothing objective in your eyes?

>common sense
Doesn't exist

socratically

>that's not debate to me
Too fucking bad 'cause it is.

>how does one use logic and reason to overcome an argument when the other person actually just skips over all the logic and reason that you tried to provide?
I'm talking in the philosophical sense.