i watch e-celeb debatebros a lot, most of them fail to change my mind, i just like the blood sportthis debate was supposed to be about Veganism but little did both of them know that this will become a meta-language debatethis actually changed my mind on how i see definitions, i thought you need to come into a conversation with clear cut definitions but this debate changed my mind, the argument the non-vegan guy made was really powerfuli really suggest everyone to see this, they do insult each other but there are valuable things being said as wellhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWlgVfThbVc
That argument being? I won't watch a two hour debate, sorry.
Did you just use a lot of words to describe a debate that devolved into squabbling over semantics? Because I won't watch that
No one will watch a 2h discussion for the purpose of engaging with this post. You need to chew it up, digest it for us and vomit your findings into this digital agora like some bulimic teenager. Only then will we counsel over your choice of nutrition, maybe even participating in the violent regurgitation.
>>24884779Masterful reply. This post has made my day. Thanks anon.
Destiny showed me why plato warned us so heavily on sophistry. People can really believe someone is "right" just because he' using big words and talking fast
>>24884779Doing so would strengthen your own understanding of whatever it is you got out of that debate, OP
>>24884670I used to watch long debates until I realized they suck. And the participants know they suck. There are no real thoughtful exchanges just the prepared points and ideally snappy retorts or cutting comments off the cuff. There’s a type of exchange that’s more meeting of the minds but that’s a lot rarer. Even in academic circles people are petty and closed minded on controversies. >>24884779>devolved into squabbling over semanticsThis is the heart of virtually all debates. That and axiomatic assumptions. >>24884795I assume this is a joke but read the actual debates and Socrates is using sophistry quite often. So if it’s all shit what do I recommend? Either good interviews that let people explain their positions at length. This is not easy to find either. Dick Cavett has a bunch on Youtube, he was a great interviewer and the class and intelligence is just several step above what we’re used to now as a rule. I think Alex OConnor’s podcast does fairly well at letting people explain their views at length, even when he personally disagrees. Otherwise it’s “takedown” type videos but again it’s hard to find anyone not resorting to dishonest framing and skipping arguments they can’t fight. But, it’s better than a debate in that it’s not just prepared talking points, they have to respond to someone else’s arguments directly (what a debate is supposed to be but isn’t).
debt are useless for intellectual stimulation. The only purpose serves as a competition between two personas.They all suck but you don't realize that until you mature intellectually. Even the revelation (of the inherent ambiguity of language) you had watching that two hour video could be condensed into 5 pages of a philosophy book but I won't argue for reading philosophy either since that's also a waste of time but you'll never understand that sentiment until you've already done it.
>debating topic>get called a brown dilating tranny faggot>i am enlightened and my opinion switches
>>24884670Why subject yourself to that brain rot when you could be doing something more productive?
>>24884779Kek
>>24884670the real question is why are you engaging with Maga Communism and proud third worldist tankies from first world America like Haz Al Din?However I agree, just like Plato, I like to stop reading and just think about their sophistic arguments and how to respond. A lot rests on bad faith argumentation runs on ambiguous terminology being used in multiple definitions to fool the reader.
/lit/ - Literature
>blood sport>implying there is a violent physicality in online bickering Modern 'debate' is just two mental midgets struggling to circle the cul-de-sac of logic. Even if one side wins, it is never due to the quality or depth of their ideas: the other side is just woefully unprepared. There is no truth seeking or exchange of ideas. It's all just discord-server demagogues patching up their gaps in knowledge with quippy comebacks and reddit-tisms to disguise their complete lack of self reflection. They're the epitome of knowledge without wisdom: they refuse to do anything but posture and desperately attempt to allocate social capital. To admit having your mind changed by that kind of silliness is embarrassing.
every day on this very website I read QUALITY posts that help me reconsider the sexual orientation of the person to which they're addressed
>>24884941>read the actual debates and Socrates is using sophistry quite often.in the Gorgias, Socrates accused rethoric of not searching truth, while he himself used fallacious arguments.
>>24884795Plato was actually wrong about that honestly. Ask me how I know.
>>24887101lost
>>24884670I'm always right so nobody can change my mind
I spent my whole life a free speech absolutist until I figured out that the circumstances required for free speech and debate to work don't exist in our society anymore. Meaningful debate is only possible between people who share a basic moral foundation. If you can't agree on the most basic principles then arguments don't matter. Statistics don't matter. Philosophy doesn't matter. Once the wordswordswords trickle down to the base, it all bounces off those fundamental differences and your time has been wasted. There's no win scenario for either of you in debate if you can't even agree the ground beneath you exists. You're just killing time before one of you has the force to silence and disempower the other. Anyone who behaves otherwise always loses everything to the first person who doesn't. The most parasitic people are the ones who'll flourish most under free speech because they have a completely different set of rules that makes it okay for them to abuse your civility, censor you, ban you, punish you, whatever it takes to win. You'll be left holding your dick, jerking it to how elegant and principled you were for letting a bunch of psychopaths destroy your society. Once you permit outsiders and dissenters to get involved in free speech, it's only a matter of time before they take over, change the rules, and now you have to use violence to get rid of them. This is all I can think about these days when I see these fucking dorks playing gotcha and clip farming each other.
>>24885135>A lot rests on bad faith argumentation runs on ambiguous terminology being used in multiple definitions to fool the reader.Sadly, logic isn't taught to most students any more and if it is it is often a class solely on formal logic, the least useful sort for most people since it basically assumes that are your terms are perfectly clear. But unclear terms and equivocation are the most common fallacies of both good and bad faith argument, and since natural language arguments on any sufficiently complex topic invariably involve analogous predication instead of solely univocal predication, formal logic simply isn't that useful except occasionally as a tool of clarification. Far more often, people use it to obscure of overawe sadly (this is of course ignoring its many ingenious uses for mathematics and computer science and other areas of study). Add on to this widespread nominalism such that all terms can be rendered equivocal or unclear and it's easy to see how everything can devolve into bad faith and sophistry, just as Plato warns us.
>>24888008Wanna know a secret? The ambiguity is such a problem because it's being embraced as a weapon.
>>24884670No debate changes my perspective. I'm right and all my enemies are wrong. Simple as.
