06 Jul 20
Is it the person who makes others with similar beliefs to their own appear to be the more reasonable?
Is it more about making the other person's point of view appear ridiculous?
Is it important to emphasise the perceived ridiculousness of the other to the maximum to make others wish to distance themselves from those views or does ridicule make people more entrenched or more inclined to defend those under attack?
Is it important to promote yourself as a good debater in debates that matter little in order to use that status in a future debate?
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
06 Jul 20
@petewxyz saidAll of the above in different measures of context.
Is it the person who makes others with similar beliefs to their own appear to be the more reasonable?
Is it more about making the other person's point of view appear ridiculous?
Is it important to emphasise the perceived ridiculousness of the other to the maximum to make others wish to distance themselves from those views or does ridicule make people more entrenched or ...[text shortened]... self as a good debater in debates that matter little in order to use that status in a future debate?
Nobody wants to constantly be another's punching bag or puppy's gnaw toy.
So, I always cheer for the underdog who makes the bulldog realize that its bitten off more than it can chew.
Good post Pete.
@wolfe63 saidWolfy,
All of the above in different measures of context.
Nobody wants to constantly be another's punching bag or puppy's gnaw toy.
So, I always cheer for the underdog who makes the bulldog realize that its bitten off more than it can chew.
Good post Pete.
Funny how we all see things in a different light. It appears to me you jump all over the underdog.
-VR
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
06 Jul 20
@very-rusty saidYeah, I've been hard on you Rusty. I'm sorry.
Wolfy,
Funny how we all see things in a different light. It appears to me you jump all over the underdog.
-VR
Maybe you shouldn't have called Suzianne a man. I dunno.
What do you think?
06 Jul 20
@petewxyz said"Is it the person who makes others with similar beliefs to their own appear to be the more reasonable?"
Is it the person who makes others with similar beliefs to their own appear to be the more reasonable?
Is it more about making the other person's point of view appear ridiculous?
Is it important to emphasise the perceived ridiculousness of the other to the maximum to make others wish to distance themselves from those views or does ridicule make people more entrenched or ...[text shortened]... self as a good debater in debates that matter little in order to use that status in a future debate?
What do you mean? If you make the other appear more reasonable how can you be the winner of the debate.
"Is it more about making the other person's point of view appear ridiculous?"
If the other's point of view is truly ridiculous then you weren't ever in a debate. If it's not, you can't make it appear ridiculous except through underhanded means that most would see through.
"Is it important to promote yourself as a good debater in debates that matter little in order to use that status in a future debate?"
Shouldn't be. If you're here for fame, you're in the wrong place. This is a diversion. A good debate is its own reward. If you're in it for the adulation of the rhp forum, you're so very sad. (i am using the generic you)
07 Jul 20
You lose a debate by being absurd or saying something that is later (or then) demonstrated to be false, and thus the winner is the person that reduces their opponent to absurdity.
One of the things in the West that is considered to be absurd is racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., so one of the easiest ways to "defeat" someone is to equate their beliefs with such a thing.
The most interesting way to derail a debate is to deny the efficacy of accusations of bigotry, honestly -- for then the debate doesn't even occur in a way that makes sense anymore to most of the people involved. Nobody knows what game they are playing any more.
It would be like saying to a 17th century Puritan "Of course I do not believe in God."
@zahlanzi said'"Is it the person who makes others with similar beliefs to their own appear to be the more reasonable?"
"Is it the person who makes others with similar beliefs to their own appear to be the more reasonable?"
What do you mean? If you make the other appear more reasonable how can you be the winner of the debate.
"Is it more about making the other person's point of view appear ridiculous?"
If the other's point of view is truly ridiculous then you weren't ever in a debate. I ...[text shortened]... f you're in it for the adulation of the rhp forum, you're so very sad. (i am using the generic you)
What do you mean? If you make the other appear more reasonable how can you be the winner of the debate.'
I think this depends on your definition of winning a debate. If winning a debate is saying things that allow the most people in the community to see the reason in what you believe or wish to say, then it might be very important to make sure that other people saying things that you believe, are perceived as the more reasonable. Debates within communities are not the same as debates between two speakers who are for and against.
07 Jul 20
@petewxyz saidi was unsure on your wording. You mean support people in your camp, not the opposite camp.
'"Is it the person who makes others with similar beliefs to their own appear to be the more reasonable?"
What do you mean? If you make the other appear more reasonable how can you be the winner of the debate.'
I think this depends on your definition of winning a debate. If winning a debate is saying things that allow the most people in the community to see the reason in ...[text shortened]... Debates within communities are not the same as debates between two speakers who are for and against.
Yes, i guess.
all in all, i dislike the term "winning the debate". In a real, honest debate both sides are winners, both sides finding, if not common ground at least respect on how the other side argued their position.
@petewxyz saidIt's whoever gets the last word in, irrespective of its verity.
Is it the person who makes others with similar beliefs to their own appear to be the more reasonable?
Is it more about making the other person's point of view appear ridiculous?
Is it important to emphasise the perceived ridiculousness of the other to the maximum to make others wish to distance themselves from those views or does ridicule make people more entrenched or ...[text shortened]... self as a good debater in debates that matter little in order to use that status in a future debate?
So obviously Metal Brain wins all the debates here.