This is why I whomp up on y'all

[Bill Mattocks]

Debate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LesGw274Kjo&feature=fvwrel

 

[WC_lun]

I think the skills used in debating are important, but I also see the other side of it. As Mark Twain said, "Its pointless to argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to thier level, then beat you with experience. "

 

[Blindside]

I think it is simply because you use those strange things called "reason" and "logic." I grew up with a lawyer for a father, it was a really long time (proably in college) before I ever felt like I "won" an debate (or argument) with him. It turned out to be really good training for pointing out fallacies in other peoples arguments.

 

[arnisador]

As Mark Twain said, "Its pointless to argue with a fool. They'll drag you down to thier level, then beat you with experience. "

No, that was me who said it--about The Study.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

My point was to get some people thinking about the power of debate skills and how it leads to critical thinking as well as how it helps you to really get to the core of a problem, not to mention how it helps to really try to understand the point of view of the other side of the argument. If you ever want to actually try to understand how people can hold different opinions than you do, adopt their side for awhile, look for the reason and logic that supports their point of view, and argue it earnestly. You may not change your opinion, but you will gain insight into why they feel the way they do; and how to counter their arguments. It's all good stuff.

 

[WC_lun]

My best friend is conservative...a true conservative, not an extremist. He and I talk quite frequently about politics and he is very convincing in some of his arguements. I like to believe that I am a counter wieght for him against some of the right's more out there political pundantry. We sometimes are passionate about a position, but never disrespectful to each other. We both understand that we both want the best for our country and the people in it. Many times in our national political diolgue that understanding is missing.

 

[punisher73]

Some arguments can be swayed by logic. But, for many people it is like arguing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream and which is better. There is no accounting for preferance in some things. Or in the political realm, preference is what we hold to be more valuable in the big picture. Such as, place of the government in the individual's life vs. society as a whole, etc.

So, someone may have a very good argument to support why they feel that way from their view. But, it is contrary to a value that someone else holds as a higher ideal. You can't argue with value is more valuable anymore than which ice cream tastes better. Look at how many differing philosophical views there are on ethics and morals in general.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Some arguments can be swayed by logic. But, for many people it is like arguing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream and which is better. There is no accounting for preferance in some things. Or in the political realm, preference is what we hold to be more valuable in the big picture. Such as, place of the government in the individual's life vs. society as a whole, etc.

So, someone may have a very good argument to support why they feel that way from their view. But, it is contrary to a value that someone else holds as a higher ideal. You can't argue with value is more valuable anymore than which ice cream tastes better. Look at how many differing philosophical views there are on ethics and morals in general.

But you can isolate what is preference and what is objective reality. One of the biggest problems with political opinions is that yes, people have preferences, but they don't believe they are preferences, they believe they are facts. Once you get everything broken down through logic to the point where preference is clear and understood by both sides to be that and not objective reality, then you can work on ironing out differences and finding common ground.

 

[Steve]

One of the most important things in that video, in my opinion, is how critical it is to force oneself to defend as passionately and vehemently multiple positions. This not only helps you see both sides of a issue, it also helps you anticipate counter arguments and frame your responses accordingly.

WC_Lun, your post in particular strikes me as a perfect opportunity to suggest to your friend that you reverse rolls. See how well you've been listening and argue in favor of traditional conservatism, while your friend, who seems like an open minded fellow, argues on behalf of a more progressive platform.

Learning rhetorical tricks and identifying logical fallacies is only one aspect of debate. A good debater also listens well and is able to see the nuances of a complex, multi-sided issue.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A good debater also listens well and is able to see the nuances of a complex, multi-sided issue.

It's in the video also. Worth a watch!

 

[punisher73]

But you can isolate what is preference and what is objective reality. One of the biggest problems with political opinions is that yes, people have preferences, but they don't believe they are preferences, they believe they are facts. Once you get everything broken down through logic to the point where preference is clear and understood by both sides to be that and not objective reality, then you can work on ironing out differences and finding common ground.

It still assumes that people value the same things (yes, preference) and look at the issue through the same value. For example, what about abortion? What values are at the bottom of that issue? How do you come to a common ground when the way of looking at it doesn't allow for much common ground? What is the compromise that both sides can agree on?

 

[WC_lun]

You might have a point on something like abortion, but most of the political bickering we see is not done through the prism of morality, but tribalism. So yeah, many things can be compromised and solved if both sides are actually focused on solvng problems. Right now that isn't the case.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It still assumes that people value the same things (yes, preference) and look at the issue through the same value. For example, what about abortion? What values are at the bottom of that issue? How do you come to a common ground when the way of looking at it doesn't allow for much common ground? What is the compromise that both sides can agree on?

I won't claim there is always common ground that can be found, but I will claim it's always worth looking for. Learning debate helps you find that that might be. You seem to be simply rejecting the notion entirely because in some circumstances it might not help. That's up to you, of course. I offer a tool that I consider useful.

 

[Steve]

It's in the video also. Worth a watch!

Sorry if I wasn't clear. Let me try again. After having watched the video, there are a couple of points brought up in it that I think are very important, and I don't think I've seen them highlighted so far in this thread.

First, listening (or reading carefully) and being receptive to a nuanced, complex issue.

Second, as was brought up in the video, it's important to exercise one's mind by considering the other point of view. Rather than staunchly and vehemently arguing only one position, try putting yourself in the position of defending the opposite side. Billcihak or Big Don, for example, would benefit greatly from trying to earnestly and sincerely defend a liberal position on a topic.

I'd be all for that, if anyone wants. I'll happily debate with someone on any topic, and will even allow you to choose which side of the argument you'd like for me to defend.

Doing this opens your mind to perspectives and assumptions of which you might otherwise be unaware.

 

[Steve]

It still assumes that people value the same things (yes, preference) and look at the issue through the same value. For example, what about abortion? What values are at the bottom of that issue? How do you come to a common ground when the way of looking at it doesn't allow for much common ground? What is the compromise that both sides can agree on?

Healthy debate isn't necessarily about reaching consensus, although that's a laudable goal. I can understand both sides of the abortion issue, even if I don't agree completely with both sides. I also understand that both sides are based on a prioritized set of values.

 

[punisher73]

I won't claim there is always common ground that can be found, but I will claim it's always worth looking for. Learning debate helps you find that that might be. You seem to be simply rejecting the notion entirely because in some circumstances it might not help. That's up to you, of course. I offer a tool that I consider useful.

Not rejecting the idea. I always try to understand where a person is coming from. It's just that the title of the video is "never lose an argument again". Many times there isn't a "win". That was all I meant.