https://theoutline.com/post/6709/debate-is-stupid?zd=1&zi=psne3ztm
Someone I follow on Twitter retweeted this and I think I agree with it. People think they're intellectuals because they watch "debates" but the current standards of amateur debate where nothing is fact checked, and zingers and logical fallacies abound, is damaging to political discourse.
Ben Shapiro TRIGGERS Liberal by SENDING them to NAZI DEATH CAMPS using pure CONSERVATIVE LOGIC and REASONING and then ANGERS SJW by GOING on a RAMPAGE literally RAPING and MURDERING every single MINORITY within a 200 MILE RADIUS then TROLLS Libtard with TRUMP DERANGEMENT SYNDROME by licking Donald Trumps MICROPENIS of all the DRIED CUM from the CONCEPTION of Barron Trump and he ANGERS democrat by FEEDING upon the FLESH of ABORTED FETUSES and the BLOOD of EVERY single LIBTARD to literally BECOME a GOD AMONG MEN which TROLLS idiot COMMIES by OPENING the seals of HELL and CAUSING the APOCALYPSE in which the DEVIL RAPES CHILDREN and TEARS OFF the heads of Liberal TODDLERS and LITERALLY setting WOMEN’s RIGHTS a THOUSAND YEARS and also Ben TRIGGERS the SOCIALISTS by RAPING the UNDEAD CORPSE of LEON TROTSKY and JOSEPH STALIN and he PISSES OFF the LEFTISTS by ESTABLISHING a NEW WORLD ORDER in which he is the SUPREME GOD EMPEROR OF ALL OF THE AMERICAS, CHINA, EUROPE, BRITAIN, TAIWAN, and THAT RANDOM ISLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN and MURDERS all POLITICAL DISSIDENTS within the government and then he LITERALLY summons CTHULHU and have home and the DEVIL FUCK HIM IN THE ASS while he CUMS all OVER the BOTTLE of LIBERAL TEARS and then he PRANKS Chink Ugayer by IMITATING him and literally dying from the ANAL WOUNDS from Literally being FUCKED IN THE ASS by SATAN and CTHULHU and then ENRAGES the COMMIES by RAPING GOD and BECOMING the NEW ABSOLUTE RULER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!!! (LIBERALS TROLLED) (NOT CLICKBAIT) (SJWs and FEMINISTS OWNED)
It all depends if the people debating are in good faith or not. And yes theses days a lot of people are in bad faith. But there's still good productive debates happening.
Modern "Debate" is stupid.
Debate with zero fallacies allowed and a moderator who does their fucking job is fine.
Fallacy policing isn't exactly conducive to information exchange either, not all fallacies are argument invalidating. "You used fallacy x so I win" is not good debating.
I think I can count the number of debates on this forum that ever changed people's minds on one hand.
99.9% of the time it's just two parties sitting in their trenches, flinging shit at one another until one side gets banned or bored, whatever comes first.
I've had my mind changed plenty of times by debates on Facepunch. The most memorable debates on Facepunch are just the ones that last for 10 pages where one side is constantly doing shit like side tracking the topic into semantics.
I've changed my mind on a large variety of subjects from discussions/debates on this site.
Can't really expect that much of a gaming focused online forum without any debating rules.
I'd say multiple threads nuanced my views on some topics by bringing more information to me, but theses threads are rare because it takes only one person in bad faith or completely ignorant to ruin an entire thread.
The difference between Facepunch debates and debates on Youtube videos is that if a fact or statistic seems funky you can ask for a source or look it up yourself. Republicans have learned that in video debates you can lie about literally anything you want to and you'll only get called out about it around 5%-10% of the time.
I see all kinds of people lately not only fallacy policing, but misunderstanding fallacies themselves. Someone recently tried to call me out as "moving the goalposts" when all I did was make a point additional to the one I originally argued (which the other person did not refute). Moving the goalposts would be refuting my argument, so then I claim that the new standard for conceding the point should be something else. I don't have to argue the exact same thing 50 different ways all day if you don't even attempt to refute it.
Come to think of it, I feel like this is the fallacy I see misused the most. Argument from authority as well. Arguing from authority is a perfectly good inductive argument. "PhD scientist says the following regarding his domain of expertise" is infinitely more credible than how some dude on reddit feels.
In that case it seems like the main actors in the debates (the notorious ones that keep stirring shit) are skewing the picture - perhaps I was wrong. It's definitely not obvious when someone's mind is visibly changed -- posts that acknowledge this are rare.
To be honest though, I've also had my opinion on gun control changed thanks to the threads on these forums, now that I think about it. Hey, this very thread, this very instance right now could act as an example!
But are we representative of the internet as a whole, or does this only work in smaller communities?
This clip from The Newsroom shows both why a debate format where facts are checked is a great idea and why it'll probably never happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF-BZsrtoPs
The problem I have with debates nowadays is people treat it like it's a wrestling match. Often it's already pre-digested for you in YouTube video titles like "Ben Shapiro OWNS the LIBS by DRINKING his own PISS during debate" that already put a spin on the whole thing.
If you empathize with your debating partner, be that your colleague or a classmate or even an idol of yours, you're far more willing to concede to their statements or argue your own with less conviction. If the opposite is the case, it's pretty much a personal quest for destroying the opposition and getting Your Way™. You could say neither lead to a productive debate, which makes having a good debate hard.
Accounting for the current political climate, debating about socio-political topics is almost impossible. Participants more frequently aren't out for academic truths, they're out for 0wn4g3 montages and fan followings to fuel their Patreons.
Televised debates are physically aggravating and fill me with murderous intent. I don't know who's worse: the screaming manchildren talking over eachother or the spineless token 'moderator' that does nothing but look uncomfortable all the time.
Well, I don't know. I think this is a topic we should open up to the marketplace of ideas.
/s
There's actually a few pretty great televised debates on french TV, between experts from different fields who have different perspectives, not politicians. Theses are worth watching and can be pretty informative (as long as you do some research on your own and dont just repeat what one source on TV said ofc, even if theyre experts in good faith theyre not free of biais).
People — yes, even you — do not make decisions on an entirely rational basis. An audience is more easily won over with a one-liner that inspires applause or laughter than a five-minute explanation of a complicated phenomenon. A false statistic repeated confidently will be more convincing than a truth stated haltingly by some guy you’ve never heard of, and who you’ve already decided you don’t like because he’s arguing against the guy you came to see. Massively complex ideologies with hundreds of years of scholarship behind them are reduced to a couple of fast-talking egos in Dockers thinking about the best way to make their opponent look like a dumbass. Debate is not politics. It’s theater.
Destiny touches on stuff like this a lot.
Conservatives are really good at presenting their ideas with very few words and getting zingers so they can "win" the argument even if their ideas are dumb.
It's a lot harder to convince people that we should just do research and try to find the best way to get a better outcome instead of placing blame.
I think it's because "the left" as a whole has this Aaron Sorkin idea of debate where bad ideas can be defeated by good arguments, when it's actually just alt right and neo reactionary chuds saying they want to have a "free exchange of ideas" when they really just want to peddle their snake oil.
it still doesn't matter when facts can be manufactured to support any viewpoint. And I mean any viewpoint. There's always a think tank or scientist that can and will write something to support your argument and in a debate setting a veneer of truth is good enough
"debate is not politics. It is theater"
Modern Politics is theater. Literally.
Acting a certain way and expecting everyone whom exists to act the same exact way and conform to a magical set of artificially propped up beliefs is literally broadcasting make believe and expecting it to stick via strong impression, aka theater.
There's certainly better methods of arriving at conclusions than current forma debate but taking this article seriously won't be one of them, because the slant is based on a platform on inherent position superiority, the same kind of smug guffaw reasoning that swept Orange Hued Human Trash Fire into the most powerful office on earth, and the taint of smug is so strong he's likely to have another go around in charge simply as the guy who doesn't do that (despite also doing it incessantly)
There is one grain of actual truth here:
Real learning is hard. It’s a slow, confusing process where you sometimes have to read long books with dreadful covers, and look at footnotes and shit. It requires us to recognize and then overcome our biases as best we can. It can take years to learn what we really think and why, and then if we get a lingering feeling we might be wrong, it can take years to un-learn and start all over.
The rest is typical neoliberal smarm whereupon "my position is inherently correct to begin with, therefore debate simply isn't needed or wanted and merely carnal delight for the unwashed masses", while ironically enough citing a debate format that actually works on several levels that no one uses anymore.
Then that's people not arguing in good faith, posting shit article and studies as sources because they fit your views or fabricating evidence is the definition of bad faith. I didn't mean more civil either. You can say with a lot of calm and authority a very bad faith point.
AS long as news organizations go out of their way to whip this up, there will always be a venue for it.
For fucks sake learn what neoliberal means. I'm sick of this word being misused.
Yeah no, sorry but I think the most interesting debates run to 11 pages at least, but never 10. You seriously think it's 10 pages? That invalidates your whole point my dude, you just got owned by logic
if they get away with it then it doesn't matter, its like asking a jury to ignore something they've heard, they can't forget it.
I know exactly what it means, and it isn't misrepresented. The belief a particular set of values is inherently superior without any why and how is preaching to the circle, not expanding it.
Neoliberalism is an economic ideology
What exactly does the article have to do with economics?
The key word you're glossing over there is ideology, and this article reeks of it; ala people who actually engage in it are assholes whilst ignoring the author's in the same category of economic standing. Citing people up to their necks in it as indicators of the problem while the difference between you and them is you're authoring an article citing why the system used by you and others is flawed is inherently bound to be defenestrated.
McCrea is actively in the same economic bracket as the people she criticizes, difference being those people actively participate in contention with neoliberal policies, she prefers to tell you what your opinion should be before the fact, and given her background and career path that's not really all that surprising. She's literally paid to tell you what you need to think, and what you'd like to hear as a very very upwardly mobile silicon valley progressive with plenty of cushion to afford time and energy to ponder the esoterics of political discourse.
This isn't even covering that Bill Clinton and Barrack Obama mopped the floor with their opponents during debates and it was fine then, but now, well populist debating is problematic guys.
As for your general question, the last three american elections have been largely predicated almost entirely on economics including Mitt Romney losing by making off the cuff comments about the work ethic of poor and disadvantaged people and also incidentally losing a populist debate pretty handily, and the entire issue with Obama with conservatives hinged directly on it, so maybe you wanna go read some stuff, cause the article didn't happen in a vacuum.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
