Arguments, Debates, Discussions, and how you're doing them wrong. - General

This is something I've seen a lot, not only on the internet but in real life too. The point of starting an argument is to debase the other guy's ideas, make him look like an idiot, and come out on top, right? Well, I'm not so sure about that. I'm of the opinion that arguments should be about unbiased discussion, where both sides learn something about each other, and that trying to change somebodies opinion is an enormous waste of time. Let's look at some examples. [quote] Atheist: There is no god Christian: No, you're wrong, there is a god, the bible tells us so Atheist: Well then you're a deluded moron for believing in a 2000 year old book Christian: And you're an unsaved heathen who will burn in hell. [/quote]So what's wrong with this? Neither party accomplished anything, neither side learned anything, and both people leave the argument frustrated and angry. Now, lets assume both sides are willing and open to a proper, polite discussion. In this sort of discussion, there's no room for insults, and nobody tries to prove the other side wrong. [quote] Atheist: I don't believe in a god. Christian: I disagree, the bible teaches me that there is a god. Atheist: How can you be so sure that the bible is true? What if it's not really the word of god? Christian: Well, I accept it's impossible to be 100% certain of something, but there is evidence that a fair amount of what's in the bible is historical fact. What about you? How can you be so sure there is no god? Atheist: I just can't accept that there is a higher power, it doesn't make sense based on what I know and value, although I won't rule out the possibility of a god completely, there's always a chance you're right. [/quote]Alright, so neither side had their opinion changed, both sides still think the other guy is wrong, and he's right, but at the same time they learned more about the opinion of the other side, and they had a chance to put forward their own opinion without having to worry about ridicule. Both people learn something, both people leave happy, and everybody benefits. I guess my point is, too many people try to "win" an argument, when it should be about developing an unbiased opinion to benefit both parties. What does Facepunch think? Should arguments just be about making the other guy look like an idiot? Edit: Alright, so I've learned something in this thread. Arguments need some sort of conflict, otherwise you just get two people agreeing with each other and getting nowhere. Having a conflict stimulates both parties into thinking about the point their trying to make. So I suppose, not only are you learning about what the other guy has to say, you're also learning more about your own opinion as well.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26205710] What does Facepunch think? Should arguments just be about making the other guy look like an idiot?[/QUOTE] It depends on how convince-able the other person is, as well as how much "lulz" you wish to incur.

[QUOTE=JgcxCub;26205736]It depends on how convince-able the other person is, as well as how much "lulz" you wish to incur.[/QUOTE] I don't know, I think an argument is entertaining in it's own right. I don't need any additional "Lulz" on top of it. And I don't really want to go out of my way to change somebodies opinion. What if I'm wrong and he was right the whole time?

But then the internet would be boring.

The first example is dumb because of logical fallacies, the second example is dumb because it isn't really an argument or debate.

I think the problem is that from what I've seen of facepunch a good portion of members have a sort of superiority complex

[QUOTE=Ama-zake;26205843]I think the problem is that from what I've seen of facepunch a good portion of members have a sort of superiority complex[/QUOTE] and are under 14

[QUOTE=Billiam;26205823]The first example is dumb because of logical fallacies, the second example is dumb because it isn't really an argument or debate.[/QUOTE] In the first example, both people are giving their honest opinions, logical fallacies aside. However, they've done the verbal equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming as loudly as possible. It's something I've seen countless time and time again. The second is technically a debate. Both sides disagree with each other, and they make sure the other guy knows, There's just no hostility, so it doesn't really look like a debate at first glance.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26205800]I don't know, I think an argument is entertaining in it's own right. I don't need any additional "Lulz" on top of it.[/QUOTE] It's like the difference between building a jenga tower, and knocking one over. Given the right demographic both are entertaining, but only one is constructive.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26205710][b]Opinion[/b][/QUOTE] We don't take kindly to those round here

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26205904]It still is technically a debate. Both sides disagree with each other, and they make sure the other guy knows, There's just no hostility, so it doesn't really look like a debate at first glance.[/QUOTE] It starts out as a debate, but neither side really argues each others points.

The second example is an entirely unrealistic (and frankly terrible) debate. We don't live in a world of happy unicorns and magical space overseers, we live in a world of hate and discrimination.

[QUOTE=Billiam;26205968]It starts out as a debate, but neither side really argues each others points.[/QUOTE] Which is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't be about converting the, because then you're just spinning your wheels and getting nowhere. [QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;26206006]The second example is an entirely unrealistic (and frankly terrible) debate. We don't live in a world of happy unicorns and magical space overseers, we live in a world of hate and discrimination.[/QUOTE] That's why it's an example. I seriously doubt anybody will have a discussion like that in real life.

Besides, in some issues, there is a right and wrong. Unlike these highly subjective theology ones.

arguments aren't about making both sides feel satisfied

the second one is not a debate.

[QUOTE=Billiam;26206028]Besides, in some issues, there is a right and wrong. Unlike these highly subjective theology ones.[/QUOTE] In those cases, where there is actually a right and a wrong, yes I agree with you. But I'm talking more about political and moral issues.

[QUOTE=Billiam;26206028]Besides, in some issues, there is a right and wrong. Unlike these[b] highly subjective theology ones.[/b][/QUOTE] subjective? logic is anything but subjective.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26206023]Which is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't be about converting the, because then you're just spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.[/QUOTE] And the second "argument" is also spinning wheels and going nowhere. It's literally: "I disagree with your opinions" "I disagree that you disagree" "It's a logical fallacy" "Okay it might not be true" "That's cool"

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26206070]In those cases, where there is actually a right and a wrong, yes I agree with you. But I'm talking more about political and moral issues.[/QUOTE] political issues definitely have a right and wrong because typically only one side has actual evidence supporting it.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26206023]Which is the point I'm trying to make. It shouldn't be about converting the, because then you're just spinning your wheels and getting nowhere.[/QUOTE] If neither of the people are changing each other's opinions and none of their input is reaching the other, then that's equally unproductive. If you argue another person's point or attack their whole argument, then you're delving deeper into the issue and allowing the person to think about his/her viewpoint more. The more a person is thinking about their views, the more they can reinforce them/change them and then you're being productive.

OP is trying to win the argument about winning arguments. :irony:

See, I've learned something now. Arguments should be about trying to win, because if nobody tries to win the argument doesn't have a basis to stand on. However, even if you do put on a front of trying to win an argument, I'd like people to also consider what the other guy was saying. Being unbiased about a subject can't hurt. This is [B]exactly [/B]why I made this thread. <3 you guys.

[QUOTE=Kybalt;26206081]subjective? logic is anything but subjective.[/QUOTE] Shhhh, I secretly agree with you, but I'm trying to prove that some issues can reach a conclusive right and wrong and I feel that theology isn't the best example.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26206094]Then what if we changed the definition of what a debate is?[/QUOTE] then it wouldn't be a debate, and we'd need some new word to describe what debate is in its current state because it sure as hell wouldnt change because you changed its definition.

[QUOTE=Billiam;26206130]Shhhh, I secretly agree with you, but I'm trying to prove that some issues can reach a conclusive right and wrong and I feel that theology isn't the best example.[/QUOTE] i feel that its a perfect example :colbert:

Because shit-slinging is just more entertaining.

[QUOTE=Pythagoras;26206094]See, I've learned something now. Arguments should be about trying to win, because if nobody tries to win the argument doesn't have a basis to stand on. However, even if you do put on a front of trying to win an argument, I'd like people to also consider what the other guy was saying. Being unbiased about a subject can't hurt. This is [B]exactly [/B]why I made this thread. <3 you guys.[/QUOTE] Can I please ask you to stop retroactively changing your post? That's an awfully bad practice in the midst of a [B]DISCUSSION[/B].

[QUOTE=Inacio;26206241]I would like to see facepunchers on a religion class. Definitely the class I liked the most in my whole life. It was fun having discussions.[/QUOTE] I love debates. If people just stick to what they know, and never listen to what other people have to say, they get nowhere.

I'm pretty good at settling arguments and debates except when arguing with my brother. He has narcissism, is bipolar, and a sociopath (the last one I'm not completely sure of at all). So it goes like this: Bro: Dude "goes off on how this is right or wrong" Me: "Counterargument" Bro: Dude shut the fuck up Me: But- Bro: SHUT THE FUCK UP Me: But theres- Bro: Not talkin to you. You asshole. Yeah, he's 12.