[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [vip] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/sci/ - Science & Math



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: argument.jpg (22 KB, 500x330)
22 KB
22 KB JPG
Is there any strategies, scientific reasoning, philosophical, ect to winning debates/arguments?

I'm tired of looking like a jackass infront of peers and others because of terrible comebacks or just shitty supporting arguments.
>>
>>9218784
Learn about social engineering. But it's not really "scientific".
>>
Be a smug faggot, and reply "that just makes no sense at all" to everything you have no argument against.
>>
>>9218795
Can I just learn about social engineering online?
>>
>>9218784

there's a difference between winning debates and winning arguments.

"debate" is using logic to defeat your opponents points and counterpoints while not letting your opponent defeat your own point. Debate winners are usually decided by a 3rd party based on whose argument was more convincing and had the least amount of logical holes in it.

Winning an argument happens by psychologically defeating your foe. You don't usually win arguments with logic, but through attrition and witty zingers to get the crowd on your side. You might even use faulty logic on purpose and logical fallacies to trick and persuade someone into thinking your way. The winner of an argument is subjective and based on personal opinion.
>>
>>9218798
Do you mean learn about it online or learn and apply it to online debates?
>>
be more physically attractive and successful than your "opponent"
>>
>>9218813
learn about it online, not to do it in online arguments/debates
>>
>>9218784
Yes, but why do you want to win debates/arguments?
>>
>>9218784
Learn formal logic properly, not through dumb infographics about logical fallacies. Focus on being correct instead of being right and don't approach your arguments as arguments but rather as discussions. The person who is adamant about proving you wrong more easily gets distracted and makes a fool of themselves. If something is subjective then nail down exactly what you disagree on and agree to disagree.

>>9218806
This person is a retard. People who use faulty logic typically "win" by being so offputting that everyone would rather change the topic than continue wasting time on a brainlet.
>>
>>9218784
Et cetera.

Etc.

Not ect.
>>
>>9218897
To not embarrass myself when confronted by another person. I always feel like i geg verbally destroyed in everything.
>>
>>9218956
Okay thanks etc
>>
>>9218784
look up gorgias. he argued you could argue for anything with success
>>
>>9219027
Take a speaking class. Confidence is 99% showing up.
>>
>>9218796
You are forgetting talking over the top of other people when they are speaking
>>
>>9218784
Start by not arguing about things you don't have enough knowledge about. Always be on the lookout for fallacies and try to be the one asking the questions. If you ask long enough people's arguments will start to crumble because most of the time they haven't really put any deep thought into what they are saying (which goes back to what I said initially about knowing what you're talking about).
Having said that, approaching arguments with a competitive mindset is a terrible way to develop your views and opinions.
>>
>>9218784
To be good at arguing you must master the dark art of persuasion. Many people abuse it and come off like total fucking tools but once combined with logic it is nearly impossible to defeat. Look up NLP for starters just to open your mind to the fact that you can almost completely control someone else's reality. Less is always more.
>>
>>9218927
>This person is a retard.

actually you're retarded
>>
File: 1476290780327.jpg (31 KB, 876x493)
31 KB
31 KB JPG
>>9218784
A debate is not to win.

The point of a debate is for the improvement of the knowledge and understanding of all parties involved in the debate.

The ancient Greeks often did group debates not to show who was "best", but to come to some general conclusion and census on a subject.
Even if the debates had radically different viewpoints they still had mutual respect for each other.
Debates where also not used to proof or show the 'strength' of a theory, but to show its weaknesses by putting it to the test of critical counter arguments where by the theory could evolve and improve.
Thus debates where seen as a good opportunity to improve one's knowledge. If you lost a debate you knew where you were still lacking and could make improvements.
Losing a debate was therefore not seen as something shameful and bad, but rather as a new chance to improve one's viewpoint.

Modern culture especially amerifat culture with its emphasis on competition, power play, and hostility has reduced debating to a simple dumb downed dick measuring contest. The contents of the arguments do not matter anymore. Rather the focus has shifted to the personality and charisma of the debate.
The debaters no longer show any respect for each other. They do not see each other as equals anymore. The debate is not about mutually improving each others understanding, but about humiliating the other debater and feeling a sense of superiority.
Where as in the time of the ancient Greeks debates could last as long as 6 hours to several weeks. So that the debates could go into all the details of their theories to form the best arguments and counter arguments.
In the modern culture with its focus on speeds, efficiency, and instant gratification debates usually only range from 5 minutes to 30 minutes.
This can be seen in the US presidential elections where arguments are dumb downed and reduced into short sound bites and pop slogans.
Causing the public to be misinformed about the views of the debater.
>>
>>9218784
Hit them with correct sounding intentional logical fallacies. When they stumble trying to navigate your bullshit, they look stupid and "lose"
>>
>>9218784
Learn to logic.
At official debates you win by using logic correctly and knowing relevant facts.
You win an argument (provided the audience is dumb) by using faulty logic masterfully,
>>
A formal debate, or a casual one? There is plenty of material out there on strategy for formal debate. Casual debate is different. To "win" a casual debate, assuming you're trying to convince them, you have to not debate them. If it becomes oppositional, they shut you out and will never listen. Instead, just ask them questions. Try to understand their position. Either you're wrong, they misunderstand something, or it comes down to differing core, axiomatic beliefs.
>>
>>9218784
No, you can improve with logic/rhetoric/general wisdom. But it won't help to necessarily "win", the most argumentative people are the most ignorant and stubborn. So no flawless reasoning or knowledge will help you win every time. Also, often just spewing flawed rhetoric wins the argument for the observers and one party. Make those terrible comebacks and shitty supporting arguments but dress them up in pretense and "deepness". This is what most people do.
>>
>>9218784
You don't "win" arguments, because truth (actual truth) is independent of the interest of both parties.
In fact what you want to achieve is to fraud your opponent successfully.
>>
If your main goal is to convince your opponent, then try to keep the conversation as friendly as possible. Don't think of it as you vs. them, but you and them learning together. Be passive and frame your arguments in such a way that though you sound confident and display your reasoning, you do not seem arrogant in your position.
Imagine you're debating someone and they hit you with a logical argument, but in the most snarky, arrogant way imaginable. Imagine their crooked smile as they know they're right. You may begin to realize their logic, but you don't want to agree with them because they are your enemy, and so you avoid active agreement with their statements. It's easier to persuade a friend than an enemy.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.