So the wiki article on socrates says that the socratic dialogues are actually reports of real conversations...

So the wiki article on socrates says that the socratic dialogues are actually reports of real conversations. If this is the case then why didnt more people contradict him? Almost every time it was "yes socrates" and "you speak the truth oh socrates"
Was he talking to plebs half the time or what?

Yes user, you speak the truth oh user

Wait so does that mean the plato has barely written any original material?

Right, they stood around and reported the entire conversations on tablets verbatim.

These people sought him out for his reputation. The professional debaters of his day might have a field day with Socrates, but there were many people who genuinely respected him and weren't going to be truly argumentative.

Lol no Plato was indeed the first to put a pen on a paper. Read Giorgio Colli.

It's because they are trying to figure things out for real, not win an argument. It's also because Socrates generally worked through someone else's viewpoint by relating the topic to another similar thing, and getting the person to think through the viewpoint in the same way he is, meaning they come to the same conclusion, and wouldn't argue if convinced.
The times when they are not convinced, it isn't because they disagree, it's because they don't understand the argument, and ask him to elaborate, instead of saying he's wrong?
Also, Plato is obviously presenting Socrates in the way he wants him to be seen,.

Socrates did get called out for his gimmickss in Charmides, or Temperance.

It's all written by Plato from memory well after Socrates was put to death.

Plato was basically writing Socrates historical fanfiction. A lot of it was Socrates' real ideas, much of it was probably Plato's ideas, but none of the conversations are expected to be precise or accurate. Plato was just trying to get the ideas across.

>The professional debaters of his day might have a field day with Socrates
But Protagoras and Gorgias were bamboozled too.

How come plato didnt go to socrates execution? What an ass.

Well, Plato didn't like sophists much, so he probably took more liberties on these ones.
On the other hand, in Parmenides, it's Sokrates who gets thrashed.

1. The wikipedia article is wrong.
2. It was a formalized way of discussing with precise roles. It was popular at the time and used - as you can see by the many passages in several dialogues (e.g. Gorgias, Republic) where Socrates' interlocutors ask if they can switch role and be the ones asking questions.

Socrates was surrounded by yes men.

Callicles roasts his ass in Gorgias. He actually calls out Socrates for being a manchild. He even compares him to an adult with a lisp. It was pretty savage, he said that he wanted to beat Socrates up.

Socrates was a former soldier and was built like a pitbull on roids. They were afraid of getting their intestines beat out of them

But what about people like Thrasymachus who just talks mad shit and insult him for his ideas and style of argumentation, but then when he starts actually arguing just say 'Yes Socrates' and 'You're right' and whatnot?

Also looked like a pitbull on roids as well, if historical accounts are true. Dude was intimidating in every way possible.

Because the wiki is wrong and with the possible significant exception of the Apology, they're not actual conversations.

Ever notice how the historical events brought up in the Gorgias become increasingly more and more anachronistic to the actual event of Gorgias's visit to Athens in 427, such that we end up with the impossible date of 405 by the time the reference to the battle of Arginusae is made? They're not, nor are they supposed to be, historical accounts.

Have you read the symposion? They were all vying for Socrates' affection.

Yes, before Socrates bamboozles him.

They don't contradict him because they are afraid he'll eat them that pig-looking fat bastard kek

My guess is Socrates is stringing him along. You ever do this with someone who is dumber than yourself? You start throwing out shit, the burden of proof being what they will believe, and most people believe pretty much retarded things. It comes down to trying to guess what they will agree with anyway, and attempting to argue from that basis. The trouble is Plato is exhibiting Socrates dance atop other's biases as eternal wisdom.

For example, with a skeptic you might start with science or by downplaying religion. For a religious person you might have to delve into theology, specifically the one they believe in. But in few circumstances will the argument of one work against the other. This is a part of salesman's training, it's called identifying the person you are talking to.

>It's because they are trying to figure things out for real, not win an argument
This is why I hate contemporary debates, it's nothing but pure rhetoric with no regards for the truth

wikipedia is never wrong