Social Anxiety Support Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,564 Posts
I enjoy a healthy debate and don't really care or take offense in it if I'm wrong or right (unless I'm disrespected in some way, which happens sometimes when debates get out of hand). I pretty much enter every debate I get into with someone now expecting a brash, "I'm right and you're wrong" tone, so that doesn't really bother me anymore (it used to a lot though). I understand debates get annoying though, especially when dealing with logic go-hards that master the art of logic and twisting it into their favor every single moment of their life lol.

That article is good btw, very interesting. I'm gonna remember this next time I get into an argument with someone.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35 Posts
I get what you are saying. I had never really bothered to debate anything with anyone outside the internet because I would see things easy to understand. There was never a reason to debate because one could prove it with logic and visual reference easy! - what works. That is logic no one can escape from.

For example. If we where to talk about who makes the best LCD TVs right now, that would be easy to understand for the savvy person. All you have to do is take notice like one takes notice who is winning the most Superbowls. But if you try to talk about that in the internet, you will hear people who swear by one brand or another with out actually knowing the technical side of things (was up MAC people :) ). But they will continue to debate in the non-technical level. In other words, they debate just for the sake of debating and not to reach a technical conclusion. The internet is more about social status more than anything else. Though that is a big problem for the K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid) principle.

I mean, there are a lot of forums that are still debating global warming too... where logically, that is a fact. One could say that that is just a product of the media. They just want to keep people guessing with out giving them the full truth so they can keep watching the news or keep coming back to the forum = revenue. If everyone where to show the hard truth... the traffic to their forum would stop... news channels would not get to get any more action from it (viewers) etc.

There is a solution to shut ignorant people up though, and that is either to ignore them (best solution on the internet and in real life too. In real life you don't read peoples answers... you choose to either listen to someone or IGNORE that someone... easy) or insult then so they can shut up... but that does not go well with the forum "rules" lol though i see this behavior all the time in real life with out a moderator (that's real life for ya)... even lions bite other lions to shut them up.

Those people who just live debating are just confused. They mistake the whole purpose of a debate... which the purpose is to find the best solution for the problem. They see it as “entertainment” (what comes after due to the media). Now imagine if you where to get mad with your wife... and carrying on this ideology of just debating for the sake to debate because that entertains you, then your whole relationship will be a debate. Which logically, the best relationship is when one does not debate (argue, conflict) and comes to an understanding, the sooner the better.

your are not the only one who has noticed this. Smart scientist who have contributed to make a positive change in this world have noticed this too. And they decided to stay away from debates on the internet and in colleges/universities. perhaps even in their own personal lives too.

life is not just about talking about it...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35 Posts
Also, this thread reminded me of how a lot of people are opinionated on the internet about the littlest things... like spanking a kid is not right – that is a crime. While when someone is trying to jump from a building (and most end up doing it), there are always people in the crowd shouting JUMP! And there is no one telling that person to shut up. to be fair, there just might be one strong soul. the rest are just hush hush... waiting to talk about it on the internet.


There is a famous bridge that is well known where people commit suicide too... local people know this. when someone is about to jump, while there are plenty of witnesses around walking by and knowing that that bridge is used a lot to commit suicide, people just walk by the person trying to jump with out even a peep out of them. there was one surviving lady who thanked a unique rare stranger that stopped her from doing it though.


Also, when someone is being beat up in the streets, the majority keep quiet and don't speak up about it.


Though I am sure they will post that on facebook or tweet about it. Lol the majority of the people on the internet are cowards and ignorant sorry to say (excluding the SA sufferers of course). It's cool, I am including myself in the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,073 Posts
I don't mind debating if the other person can bring up some good points. But I can't stand know-it-alls who refuse to admit that they are wrong. One of my friends tried to 'debate' me and he kept making these really stupid illogical statements and said he could debate better than me. I was actually in a debate class and knew what I was doing, he was just making up stuff and swearing that he was right. Idiot.

But if they don't start acting like him, I don't mind it so much. I just don't like it when people want to debate about every little thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
Some debaters (particularly online) make me laugh sometimes.

They can get so pathetic when it comes to debates. It's like winning is the only thing that matters to them even if you're arguments make more sense and are more rational then theirs are. Even worse they get so insecure that they're resort to all sorts of petty tactics to try and win the argument (personal attacks, mind games, false accusations)

I remember, for example, one bloke on a forum I used to frequent countering my argument with a very flawed argument of his own and at the bottom of his comments he'd put the words "bet you feel silly now don't you?".

I rarely bother with online debates anymore mainly because of these types. It's rare to find someone who's actually up for a proper debate without resorting to some **** waving (happy mods?) show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
Debating makes me very frustrated because even though I know I have good points to make, my delivery sucks so people will automatically think they're winning.

Yep that's another issue, if your delivery isn't good then you can't get your point across well and some people are so arrogant to believe that it means they have the superior point.

Good delivery is an acquired skill but one that can be developed (although not always easily).
 

·
Security Risk
Joined
·
293 Posts
UKPhobe said:
Even worse they get so insecure that they're resort to all sorts of petty tactics to try and win the argument (personal attacks, mind games, false accusations)
Oh, I don't do that out of a sense of insecurity. Or even pettiness or out of any true sense of malice against who I'd be arguing against. What that really means is the whole thing has just gotten really very boring. Every debate eventually converges towards a point where it becomes clear that neither side is going to concede, meanwhile the argument itself has spiraled off into a kind of hellishly tedious netherworld of weird circular logic and oft repeated positions, looping endlessly, with no possibility of any winner. Its like some kind of law. No one wants to drop out at this point however, particularly after having wasted so much time, as by doing so the other side could take it as a sign that they've somehow beaten you into submission, with what they imagine to be a superior logic. The only real hope of escape at this point is to try to escalate the thing to where an outside force is required to intercede, issuing reprimands and effectively closing down the thread. Possibly one of the few instants where I'm legitimately glad for moderators.

Direct argument seems to be one of the worst forms of persuasion most of the time anyway. All it really seems to accomplish is to put people on the defensive, forcing them to dig deeper and reinforce their preconceived notions with anything at all they can. Its like resistance training but for stupid ideas. The one question anyone ever seems unable to ask themselves being, "is it possible I might be wrong?".
 

·
Cynical Idealist
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
I kind of like debates as long as they don't get nasty. What I hate is when people will tell you you're wrong, but won't offer any explanation as to why. If you're going to be argumentative, at least present an argument. Sometimes my ideas aren't as well thought-out as they should be. I'm keen to hear where I'm wrong, or where my logic failed, instead of just a plain "you're wrong." Just bugs me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
Oh, I don't do that out of a sense of insecurity. Or even pettiness or out of any true sense of malice against who I'd be arguing against. What that really means is the whole thing has just gotten really very boring. Every debate eventually converges towards a point where it becomes clear that neither side is going to concede, meanwhile the argument itself has spiraled off into a kind of hellishly tedious netherworld of weird circular logic and oft repeated positions, looping endlessly, with no possibility of any winner. Its like some kind of law. No one wants to drop out at this point however, particularly after having wasted so much time, as by doing so the other side could take it as a sign that they've somehow beaten you into submission, with what they imagine to be a superior logic. The only real hope of escape at this point is to try to escalate the thing to where an outside force is required to intercede, issuing reprimands and effectively closing down the thread. Possibly one of the few instants where I'm legitimately glad for moderators.
Direct argument seems to be one of the worst forms of persuasion most of the time anyway. All it really seems to accomplish is to put people on the defensive, forcing them to dig deeper and reinforce their preconceived notions with anything at all they can. Its like resistance training but for stupid ideas. The one question anyone ever seems unable to ask themselves being, "is it possible I might be wrong?".
But if you've resorted to personal attacks, mind games or false accusations then the intent is malicious. I don't see any form of personal attack or false accusations which aren't done with malicious intent. Mind games on occasion perhaps to prove a point or in special cases (such as interrogation).
I agree that some arguments go off in circles with neither side giving way (much like politicians), when peoples are confident in their opinions they won't easily be swayed by the opposition. However I think to start firing off personal attacks or false accusations to "spice things up" is unprofessional and not to mention juvenile.
I also agree that some are so arrogant as to assume that if you've given in or can't be bothered to finish the debate they take it to mean that they've somehow won and that their opinion are right. I quite often don't bother finishing debates, not because the other person has overwhelmed me with their amazing logic and debating skills :roll, but because I can no longer be bothered trying to persuade some types of people any more. They really are only interested in winning and "owning" people online (frankly if you need to own people online you must have a really **** life offline). It isn't worth the time and effort.
Direct argument in my experience can work as a form of persuasion if done in a diplomatic way. Personal attacks and other petty methods in my experience are far more likely to put someone on the defensive and force them to reinforce their opinions. When people have resorted to insulting or belittling me in the past I've been far far more determined to disagree and refuse to support their position then when they've debated with me in a rational manner. Diplomats and other skilled persuaders learned a long time ago that you won't win people over by insulting them, a fact that gobsmackingly goes above some people heads. I find it amazing that some people really believe that the way to win someone over to their way of thinking is to call them names and attack them on personal levels.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,274 Posts
I do not have much to ad. Except for this handy debate pyramid

 

·
Security Risk
Joined
·
293 Posts
UKPhobe said:
But if you've resorted to personal attacks, mind games or false accusations then the intent is malicious. I don't see any form of personal attack or false accusations which aren't done with malicious intent. Mind games on occasion perhaps to prove a point or in special cases (such as interrogation).
I agree that some arguments go off in circles with neither side giving way (much like politicians), when peoples are confident in their opinions they won't easily be swayed by the opposition. However I think to start firing off personal attacks or false accusations to "spice things up" is unprofessional and not to mention juvenile.
I also agree that some are so arrogant as to assume that if you've given in or can't be bothered to finish the debate they take it to mean that they've somehow won and that their opinion are right. I quite often don't bother finishing debates, not because the other person has overwhelmed me with their amazing logic and debating skills :roll, but because I can no longer be bothered trying to persuade some types of people any more. They really are only interested in winning and "owning" people online (frankly if you need to own people online you must have a really **** life offline). It isn't worth the time and effort.
Direct argument in my experience can work as a form of persuasion if done in a diplomatic way. Personal attacks and other petty methods in my experience are far more likely to put someone on the defensive and force them to reinforce their opinions. When people have resorted to insulting or belittling me in the past I've been far far more determined to disagree and refuse to support their position then when they've debated with me in a rational manner. Diplomats and other skilled persuaders learned a long time ago that you won't win people over by insulting them, a fact that gobsmackingly goes above some people heads. I find it amazing that some people really believe that the way to win someone over to their way of thinking is to call them names and attack them on personal levels.
Malicious intent implies the object is to cause harm to the the other person, if the object is merely to escape boredom, then the definition doesn't actually apply, though harm may come about as a consequence. Its the same difference between dropping a bomb to end a war and dropping a bomb only for the sake of killing a bunch of people. I was really only joking about the escalations and personal attacks. Primarily it was just to try and illustrate how absurd and totally pointless the process tends to be. Generally if there's any resolution it'll consist of some muttering about "agreeing to disagree", then stalking off, probably more annoyed at myself than whoever I was arguing with, for letting myself waste all that effort getting caught up in something so ridiculous.

In truth, belittling people in these circumstances aren't really necessary, too often it seems persons will take the fact that other people have a view different than their own as a personal attack.

Diplomats don't really hold debates to change one another's minds, once a mind is fixed is nearly impossible to change, at least abruptly, but to appeal to an audience, specifically those who still have questions and who haven't yet made up their mind. Whereas on the internet, it tends more often than not to be individuals or sometimes gangs, just shouting at one another, to no one's apparent benefit. Probably more of an ego thing.

I'm not saying this is a universal rule or anything just the most common outcome.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,022 Posts
Yeah, sometimes it's not even so much a matter of who's right or wrong as it is clashing points of view/perspectives on reality.

But you know, I think I'm slowly coming to terms with the fact that some people are just really outspoken and opinionated. And who knows, maybe they even enjoy a little online bickering from time to time. Which is all understandable I guess, considering this is an internet message forum
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
706 Posts
Malicious intent implies the object is to cause harm to the the other person, if the object is merely to escape boredom, then the definition doesn't actually apply, though harm may come about as a consequence. Its the same difference between dropping a bomb to end a war and dropping a bomb only for the sake of killing a bunch of people. I was really only joking about the escalations and personal attacks. Primarily it was just to try and illustrate how absurd and totally pointless the process tends to be. Generally if there's any resolution it'll consist of some muttering about "agreeing to disagree", then stalking off, probably more annoyed at myself than whoever I was arguing with, for letting myself waste all that effort getting caught up in something so ridiculous.
In truth, belittling people in these circumstances aren't really necessary, too often it seems persons will take the fact that other people have a view different than their own as a personal attack.
Diplomats don't really hold debates to change one another's minds, once a mind is fixed is nearly impossible to change, at least abruptly, but to appeal to an audience, specifically those who still have questions and who haven't yet made up their mind. Whereas on the internet, it tends more often than not to be individuals or sometimes gangs, just shouting at one another, to no one's apparent benefit. Probably more of an ego thing.
I'm not saying this is a universal rule or anything just the most common outcome.


Well the dictionary definition of malicious is "Characterized by malice; intending or intended to do harm: "malicious rumours"." Personal attacks and false accusations are harmful regardless, I don't see how anyone can make them without at the very least knowing that they are likely to do so which by that very knowledge makes it malicious. Even if the motivation is boredom that person knows that the act is to cause harm, therefore it's malicious. I don't see any other way around that.

Anyway I didn't realise you were only joking, my mistake.

You're point about diplomats is a good one and yes frequently it is about ego more than anything else (I've been guilty of this myself). Ego can be a powerful motivator. Sometimes also I think it's about frustration. I've often found myself in a debate with a hard-line BNP or EDL supporter and found my annoyance levels rising. Same with some hard-line left wing supporters. I suppose that when faced with gobsmacking ignorance the temptation to resort to insults is not easy to resist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
A robust and healthy debate is central to discovering truth, IMO. Although it goes without saying that resorting to personal attacks and other childish tactics accomplishes the opposite instead.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
35 Posts
Note: I just picked a random post to respond to :)... I am not choosing yours to get a response from... more to just post my opinion regarding this because I found it true...

A robust and healthy debate is central to discovering truth, IMO. Although it goes without saying that resorting to personal attacks and other childish tactics accomplishes the opposite instead.
there is a famous quote regarding this but I can't remember.... but the moral of the quote is that one cannot find truth alone. Even when it comes to fighting (the quote was said by a general at war.. something about if he was not beaten, he would have never aimed to be stronger... or something a long those lines) there is always something positive to be learned if one chooses to see the positive side of things.

The problem about that quote for many is that they see as conflict as "evil" that everyone should stay away from it... yes and no. yes because conflict can escalate really fast and not because one needs a little conflict to get to the truth. Because if both parties where not challenging each other, they would both be stagnant. There would be no enlighten closer to the truth. Where truth is not just pretending to be happy but what happiness really is.

Have you ever neglected anything before? Like changing the motor oil in your car.... just keeping it well maintained... then you get the conflicting "check engine" light as a reminder to do it. But that should only happened once or twice when one is barely started driving. But after that, if it continues to happened, then one is not really disciplined and should not give any car advise at all. The point is that the conflicting "check engine" light will give you a push to take more care of the car and it will also enlighten you to the full truth in how to be car problem free for the rest of your life. This is not hard to understand by anyone... it boggles my mind why a lot of people still don't understand this... well, I blame it on the media again :). they need to keep the majority misinformed so they can sell products. And give expensive tune ups.

Back to the debating part, the problem is that a lot of debaters just get blinded by a lot of filters. YOne being the pride filter. The pride gets in the way when one is proven wrong. Many of people have big prides even if they are far from understanding truth. So when one is trying to debate with a person who's pride comes first than truth, one will first have to find a way verbally to not hurt his pride or else, he will forget the goal to find truth and try to defend his pride ignoring truth.

I have met many people (on the internet and in real life), and by many I would say most, lol, that believe they know what they are talking about when they don't. Seriously, I cannot emphasize this enough. It is sort of like they live in their comfort zone. Where most don't challenge them so it makes them believe that what they believe "should" be correct. Where most don't tell them that they are wrong for many reasons.. one may be that they don't give a F-k. Another may be that they believe that person. Etc. so just imagine if one more knowledgeable than that person was to CORRECT him/her... hell no!! there is no way because that person is living in hos own little fantasy world. Which is fine, people have the right to live where ever they want... but when one has to deal with such people in personal endeavors and/or at work.... not good.

Anyways... a healthy debate is always good. One could say that life is a debate too :) so one needs to learn how to ignore people who attack at the personal level and those who are just hmmm.... childish... basically ignoring the whole central point. That and also not following the debate etiquette.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top