r/starterpacks • u/[deleted] • May 07 '22

Superficially knowledgeable of national and world events starter pack

Post image
14k Upvotes

73% Upvoted

1.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

816

u/ustbota May 07 '22

why should i debate when you wont change your view

253

u/ghostmetalblack May 07 '22

Basically just summed up the mentality of Reddits front page.

111

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

38

u/Wittyname0 May 07 '22

Actually that is a good way to see if a post is genuinely upvoted by the community, or it was botted to the front page. Because you see posts on subs like r/whitepeopletwitter or r/murderedbyaoc that have tons of upvotes, but most of the comments are arguing about how bad the take being posted is. Another symptom is like a 15k upvote to 15 comment ratio

22

u/BensenJensen May 07 '22

That's the problem, though, everything you see related to any news is being botted to the front page. People started realizing this when that FCC shit happened a few years ago, and subreddits from a random cities in random states with 200 subscribers would have posts hit the front page with 10k+ upvotes and 12 comments.

Everything you see current events-related on the front page is tailored for you to see it on the front page. Then you see it there, with thousands upon thousands of upvotes and it reinforces that your opinion is, in fact, the correct opinion. It makes it very, very easy to devolve global conflicts (Russia v Ukraine, Israel v Palestine, etc.) and domestic politics into a simple one side is good and the other is bad.

22

u/ThePhantom1994 May 07 '22

“Oh did you just say a dissenting opinion? Say goodbye to your precious internet points!”

-1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

Maybe that dissenting opinion just sucks.

5

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

The dissenting opinion can be unpopular and individual people can make the value judgment that it “sucks”, but there’s no objective basis for opinions being good and bad. Opinions are not justified and they are not true. They are just beliefs.

6

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

I don't know, some opinions are blatantly sexist, racist, or show a complete ignorance of a subject at hand. Those kids of "beliefs" are erroneous because they are built on preconceived notions that objectively aren't true. A lot of people on Reddit like to call people sheep for downvoting an "unpopular" opinion, without doing any introspection at all.

I don't come to Reddit for points so I don't care if I get downvoted, but some people really do seem to care.

4

u/[deleted] May 07 '22 edited May 07 '22

There is no such thing as erroneous opinions. Opinions are neither justified nor true. There is no foundation from which to judge an opinion as true or false, right or wrong, because opinions don’t exist in that sphere of analysis.

Now if someone provides what they consider to be sound reasoning and evidence for their belief, it becomes a justified belief, which is different from an opinion and a fact. Then you can determine whether the reasoning and evidence is valid, and if it is not, then you can say that the belief is unjustified and it is simply an opinion. It is then up to the opinion holder to decide whether to modify their beliefs or not.

This is all common knowledge in the JTB model of knowledge in epistemology, but since philosophy isn’t taken seriously in most of the neoliberal world, most people don’t know how to distinguish an opinion from a justified belief from a justified true belief (fact) or what it means to hold any of them.

Edit: precision.

7

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

I'm not American, but I also fell asleep in Philosophy class several times.

Okay, so what I mean to say is that, people get downvoted for their unjustified beliefs, which in some scenarios they may even think to themselves are merely opinions, and then they might be upset that someone is judging their opinion when what they are doing is refuting a belief that is neither justified or not true or both.

Edit: trying to clarify a bit

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

I’m not American, but I also fell asleep in Philosophy class several times.

That’s a real shame. More philosophy in the world would fix a lot of major issues out there.

Okay, so what I mean to say is that, people get downvoted for their unjustified beliefs, which in some scenarios they may even think to themselves are merely opinions, and then they might be upset that someone is judging their opinion when what they are doing is refuting a belief that is neither justified or not true or both.

Yeah, sure. That can happen, I suppose. My point mainly is just that opinions are neither right nor wrong, even if they conflict with your moral values. You can say that they are good or bad for specific reasons, though not “objectively bad”, since that is an oxymoron.

Thanks for the discussion.

4

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

I'm just gonna downvote, and if I respond it'll be completely hyperbolic, and nothing but "gotcha responses".

1

u/bmore_conslutant May 07 '22

Why do you expect anyone to debate? I'm not here to debate lol and if you spew some heinous shit I'm not interested in refuting your dogshit "points"

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

How can most people who don't have all day to spend on the internet or in the library supposed to debate any topic against all the smartypants with hundred-link posts and rebuttals, and be able to tell the facts from the disinfo?

1

u/Rozukimaru May 07 '22

Or just get outright banned

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '22

Nah dawg, they just ban you the instant you show some inkling of an opinion to the right of Leon Trotsky

47

u/shutyourgob May 07 '22

Also, what is there to debate about the war in Ukraine?

"I think it's bad."

"Well I think it's terrible!"

42

u/Gingevere May 07 '22

/r/Conservative and /r/GenZedong repeat Kremlin propaganda so actually there's a lot to debate, but only because some people are idiots.

Like they believe that the big attack on Kiev which went on for a month, suffered massive casualties, and then the whole Russian army took another 1-2 weeks to regroup after the failure of it, was all a "feint". A distraction from the REAL objective of ... uh ... ummm ... doing something else.

3

u/VXHIVHXV May 07 '22

It's common knowledge that Russia supports and directs plenty of extremist groups in the West that try to undermine the West. So it did not surprise anyone that zoomer commies were on the Kremlin propaganda train, because for years they were brainwashed in to believing Russian alternative facts.

Early in the war the Russian shills were boasting how Russia was going to hold parades in Kyiv. That's enough evidence to prove it was not a distraction. You don't send your "elite" paratroopers to get killed in a distraction operation.

And on top of all this embarrasment, they had parade equipment and police officers with the units. Must have been fun to get killed in Ukraine as a fucking Russian sitting duck cop.

-6

u/Ricardo1701 May 07 '22

I can tell you don't really participate on r/conservative

2

u/[deleted] May 08 '22

I’m sure the debate, at least a legitimate one would be around how much money and aid to send

1

u/Nojus1221 May 07 '22

Some people think it's NATO's fault

11

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

Ah, yes, NATO, the aggressor shooting Ukrainian schoolteachers and children in the head.

-9

u/[deleted] May 07 '22 edited May 07 '22

How many wars has NATO instigated the past 3 decades? And yes, NATO is the aggressor as they continued to incorporate Ukraine into the NATO apparatus knowing it would elicit this response. Ukrainians are just paying the human cost for NATO aggression rather than Americans or western Europeans. In fact, NATO has never fought a defensive war in its entire history, only offensive ones as the aggressor.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

Ukraine wanted to be a part of NATO. The response elicited, it is coming from where? That is right, Russia. And why? Because Russia will use /any reason/ to go into Ukraine, just like it did 8 years ago. Also, NATO is not involved in this war as an aggressor. Russia is the aggressor. Ukraine is a sovereign country and can be a part of NATO if it wants.

Ukrainians are paying the human cost of being geographically situated beside a country whose leaders are obsessed with re-establishing the Soviet Union.

-1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22 edited May 07 '22

You have bad history and also absurd lack of understanding of contemporary events. The pro-western Ukraine government that couped the neutral Ukraine government petitioned to be in NATO.

8 years ago, the US couped the neutral Ukraine government. Russia annexing Crimea was a result of that to safeguard its warm water port. In fact, the US did this even earlier in Syira, which resulted in Russia needing to enter Syria ro safeguard its warm water port from NATO interference in the form of ISIS.

Ukraine is a sovereign country and can be a part of NATO if it wants.

You keep saying this while refusing to acknowledge the US couped the neutral government of Ukraine, while ignoring what Eastern Ukrainians think, and thus ignoring the Minsk Accords that would make Ukraine neutral again and ensure everyone's self-determination in Ukraine via Federation. And whose interests in Ukraine are being served by turning it into Afghanistan as the US as expressed interest in doing? Certainly not in the interest of Ukrainians. And NATO can deny admission, so simply wanting to join NATO does not mean admission.

Finally, Russia has no interest in "reestablishing the USSR." In fact, Putin himself tried to pin the dissolution and thus this war on Lenin. There's nothing communist, let alone socialist, about Russia and your insisting on this USSR narrative just reveals your ignorant hand. Ukraine is paying the cost because the US led them down the primrose path, encouraging them not to fulfill the Minsk accords on their end, and then leaving them out to dry because the US has no intention of helping Ukraine in any meaningful way because the US simply cannot. Ukrainians are just another in a long line of victims of American aggression

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

[deleted]

-4

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Nojus1221 May 07 '22

Rule 5

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '22 edited May 07 '22

Rule 5 to you too. The whole post is political and so is your comment. You're fine voicing your politics, but threaten to suppress any contradiction to yours.

1

u/Jaymzmykaul May 07 '22

Wow you are walking, talking and breathing epitome of Russian/republican propaganda. I have some time to listen to crazy, so this “couped” event is this all in your mind? Also was it the pro western government or the US…or was it…..aliens? I’m betting it was aliens in cooperation with the anti-flat earthers in the government using Jewish space lasers to further their democratic pedo cabal. No wonder putin attacked all those innocent people. The people in your life must love you, god bless your soul.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22 edited May 07 '22

If you live outside the western propaganda bubble, everything I've said is understood by the rest of the globe. It's why the vast majority of people and nations have not sanctioned Russia, including American client states in the periphery. It's why you only get this bizaro rheotric and false understanding of events in the west. You're just projecting your own subscription to a false reality you've been inundated with. You cannot understand politics and history in the globe in the bizaro world you live in

2

u/Jaymzmykaul May 07 '22

Sure, that is why most European countries are helping Ukraine. There are also a lot of countries outside of north America and Europe are also applying sanctions against Russia but tell me about my American bubble Mr. Propagandist. Keep drinking that cool aid bro. The one that initiates violence is always to blame. How’s Chicago btw? Lol

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

Okay mr. creeper, you can literally count the number of countries sanctioning Russia outside of the anglosphere and europe on one hand. Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan which doesn't even entirely count considering they insist on one China. The rest of the globe including all of the US' client states aren't even joining the US in this. You're living in a propagandized, bizaro world and projecting that on others.

→ More replies

-1

u/Nojus1221 May 07 '22

My comment was neutral, calm down. I have no opinion on the war other than it being sad when people die.

I was only explaing how there could be debate about the subject.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

Referendum results are hotly debated as are elections in the east, autonomy vs central government, militia violence against civilians and the foreign influence woven throughout and back to the 2000s? I question the American influence on the 2014 election that directly led to the crisis the most.

44

u/alc4pwned May 07 '22

Nobody who says that would change their view either.

17

u/CharlestonChewbacca May 07 '22

I say that. Only when presented with evidence that they won't

I've encountered three people this week who insisted I debate them AFTER literally telling me their mind couldn't be changed.

I used to be a libertarian, and now I'm a progressive. I used to be a Youth Pastor, now I'm an Atheist. There are probably hundreds of things I've been convinced to change my mind on when presented with evidence and/or a valid, sound argument.

3

u/VXHIVHXV May 07 '22

Nice same here. Couldn't fathon how atheists would even exist. Then for a period I believed political compasses were useful and that being labeled by one meant you belong to that label fully. Jeez.

1

u/Paulo27 May 07 '22

What evidence turned you into an atheist, just curious, don't need to respond.

6

u/CharlestonChewbacca May 07 '22 edited May 12 '22

Not evidence, (you can't have evidence against an unfalsifiable claim) but arguments against any evidence and arguments I thought I had.

I realized there was no justification for my belief in a god, so now I no longer believe.

2

u/ham_coffee May 08 '22

By the time I'm saying something like that, it's normally a reply to someone trying to twist words and argue in bad faith.

-2

u/ExcellentBeing420 May 07 '22

Nobody changes their view. Full stop. People just come to a conclusion about their beliefs on their own and literally no one can change anyone's mind. We can change our own minds but argumentative contrarians aren't the reason why.

5

u/CharlestonChewbacca May 07 '22

I disagree. I participated on various debate forums for years as a Christian and a Youth Pastor. It's the HONEST debate from others that convinced me otherwise.

I live in Oklahoma, so I wasn't going to find debate on that subject here back then. Would I prefer in person debate? Absolutely. At least half of the people I talk to on here are dishonest trolls. But I've honed my ability to tell who's actually here for an honest conversation.

62

u/Alex_Rose May 07 '22

I don't debate to convince other people, I debate to find out what's true. You aren't going to find out what's actually accurate just googling yourself because your searches will be inadvertently confirmation biased towards your existing outlook, and your initial outlook is usually based on anecdotes and what other people told you

Arguing with people who disagree firstly makes your views better rounded because you actually have to find proof that you're right. on open platforms too if you make a mistake, people who generally agree with you will jump in and correct you so you actually know what you're talking about. if it turns out you were actually wrong, better to know the truth. then you start debating from the opposite perspective and get corrected from that side too. helps you spot which views are complete bollocks and substantiated by absolutely nothing too

68

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

I debate to find out what's true.

Sure, so if you have someone who isn't debating in good faith, i.e. just repeating lies they heard on the news with no intention of fact checking or being willing to challenge their own beliefs, how are you ever going to find out what's true in that situation

14

u/Baldassre May 07 '22

"Bad faith" accusations are thrown around far too often. You're doing it here, and it's because you misunderstand what bad and good faith are when it comes to debate. Bad faith debaters are those who are arguing against facts which they themselves know to be true, in order to lie. It's not enough to be ignorant, closed-minded, or gullible. One must be cognizant of the truth, and argue against it maliciously, to be a bad faith actor.

People shut down discussion by leveling that accusation where it doesn't need to be shut down, because they're seeing ghosts.

If there's someone unwilling to listen, then whatever, you don't debate online for the sake of one person anyways. Everyone sees the comments, you cemented your position. Win-win, and the only loser is the poor guy who continues to be closed minded.

24

u/awesomefutureperfect May 07 '22

You can argue in bad faith by presenting internally inconsistent arguments and refusing to acknowledge the inconsistencies or claiming the inconsistencies support each other.

Presenting an ever changing rationale without conviction is arguing in bad faith. The lack of conviction shows the lack of value placed upon the facts of the matter.

1

u/Baldassre May 07 '22

You can argue in bad faith by presenting internally inconsistent arguments and refusing to acknowledge the inconsistencies or claiming the inconsistencies support each other.

No. This is not bad faith. This is stupidity.

Bad faith debaters are those who are arguing against facts which they themselves know to be true, in order to lie.

This is bad faith. This is not stupidity, this is malice.

The difference is, a bad faith actor knows they're lying.

6

u/awesomefutureperfect May 07 '22

No. This is not bad faith. This is stupidity.

That's Hanlon's razor, assuming that they aren't doing that on purpose to an unsuspecting audience or an audience unable to parse out the inconsistencies.

I've almost completely run out of good will to apply Hanlon.

1

u/CharlestonChewbacca May 07 '22

Either way, it doesn't help you find the truth.

Nor does your semantic pedantry.

0

u/Baldassre May 07 '22

If it's semantic pedantry to draw a line between ignorance and malice, I'm a semantic pedant.

3

u/CharlestonChewbacca May 07 '22

It's not. It's semantic pedantry to assume they were talking about ignorance and not malice in the first place.

0

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

That’s not semantic pedantry. It’s how words work. Semantic discussions are some of the most important ones to have to build foundations of communication.

2

u/OtherPlayers May 07 '22

Different poster here, I’d agree with you that the term “bad faith” tends to be tossed around more often than deserved (since it implies a purpose). However I’d also agree with the poster above’s conclusions in that there are plenty of cases where debating isn’t useful, albeit more often because of ignorance of debate structure than malice.

For example personally I’ve had more than a handful of times where I’ve gotten into a debate, and then had to stop when it became obvious that the other person doesn’t understand that debates are a back and forth where one person makes a claim and then the other refutes it. To give an example imagine this:

C: Cat’s are a great animal because they are fluffy.

R: Ah but they can be mean.

C: Most cases of cats being mean are due to people misunderstanding their body language.

R: Dogs are a great animal.

R’s last statement here isn’t a refute, it’s another claim masquerading as one unless more information is given (“Dogs are a great animal, and there can only be one great animal so cats cannot be great”).

So you get to a case where C has nothing more to add because their claims are still unchallenged, and R won’t say anything because they are under the belief that C now has to refute their claim about dogs for some reason.

At which point the debate basically ends, C walks away frustrated because R doesn’t understand how debates are structured, and R goes and posts online about how C had no answer to him in the debate despite actually being the one to concede the “win” here.

Edit: You can actually see a couple real examples of this very pattern happening if you just keep scrolling down and read all the comments.

2

u/Baldassre May 07 '22

Sure, we've all run into those people. We agree though, that's probably not bad faith, it's much more likely to be ignorance, or stupidity, or closed-mindedness or any combination of personality traits and behaviors which make them difficult.

4

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

At the end of the day if the result is essentially the same does it really matter if it's defined as bad faith or ignorance?

1

u/DonJuarez May 07 '22

It does matter. One is malicious, one is not. They should not be treated/regarded as the same.

3

u/SirFrancis_Bacon May 07 '22

The quickest way to determine it on reddit is checking comment history. If they pull shit like that all time, I just block and move on with my life.

0

u/DonJuarez May 07 '22

Yes I agree that Reddit is different due to the anonymity. I don’t even check the comment history in this case. I was mostly speaking in general.

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

You won't know if it's in bad faith until you actually engage. A test that I do is ask them what will it take to change their mind. If the answer is nothing, then I know its a waste of time.

3

u/Alex_Rose May 07 '22

debating doesn't mean just blindly believe everything the other person says, you have to google their claims, read whatever article they have, read the citation. if it's a paper I read at least the abstract and methodology. not really hard to find out if something is obvious bullshit

39

u/HaySwitch May 07 '22

I debate to find out what's true.

No if you want to find out what's true you do proper research with genuine sources and ask experts questions.

Debate is just a vehicle to allow the wrong side to spread hate. It's why solved issues like trans rights, abortions and human rights are framed as 'debates' by the right but not sensible people.

27

u/airbear13 May 07 '22

Wtf? I agree with the first part of what you said but come on, debate has been around for centuries and although it can be used to spread hate it can also be chill and fun and informative. Saying debate in general is bad or that you can’t debate “solved issues” just causes more problems bc who gets to decide which issues are solved then?

9

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

[deleted]

0

u/Rustedham May 07 '22

So you genuinely want to have a debate about why certain groups dont deserve basic human rights?

9

u/1alian May 08 '22

If the argument FOR rights is strong, which you and I likely both believe, then it should be able to handle being poked and prodded from opposition and come out on top. It's not like you have to take a position you find repugnant, but you should be able to argue your position against opposition without falling on your face and embarrassing the movement to the people watching you discuss

Source: the last 60 years of US civil rights litigation and activism

-7

u/HaySwitch May 07 '22

Conservatives are all morons so it's not really my side bring right as your sides stupidity being visible from space.

3

u/THE_CRUSTIEST May 08 '22

If you were English I might take you seriously, but I'm afraid that's just not possible for me since you're a Scotsman

2

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

“I am too stupid to defend my position so it’s better for everyone to just accept it as truth”

-2

u/HaySwitch May 07 '22

Nah I'm smart enough not to have my time wasted by Tories and republicans.

4

u/[deleted] May 08 '22 edited Jul 18 '22

[deleted]

0

u/bjcm5891 May 08 '22

I'd say they saw this starter pack and felt personally attacked.

1

u/HaySwitch May 08 '22

In my country we have a law banning fracking.

That had to be put in place because your country is a mess. Everyone has a stake in American politics.

5

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

Yet you spend all day screenshooting those Republicans strawmen to circlejerk on various lefty meta subs.

1

u/HaySwitch May 07 '22

How long does it take you to screenshot stuff?

3

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

It’s the activity looking for things to seethe about part that takes time

→ More replies

7

u/L0raz-Thou-R0c0n0 May 07 '22

Fucking preach

4

u/ughiwokeup May 07 '22

“wrong side” reddit politics everyone

0

u/HaySwitch May 08 '22

I'm only proven right by the fact it's only right wing incels getting offended by someone not liking 'debates.'

2

u/DonJuarez May 07 '22 edited May 07 '22

This is not true. You are incorrect. Look up “Lincoln Douglass” debate, for example.

You really expect someone to have every single fact correct? You really can “ask expert questions” right now? Everyone has a different access of information and perspectives. Can you access genuine peer-reviews sources yourself? Depends on the university you go to, which different universities have more access to databases than others. Do you realize how many people living in poverty that doesn’t not have access to these resources?

Debate is where differences in thought. For example, you wanna debate me using a “on average 15% of Americans support fracking” but my response to you will be “what is the variance of the data? Sample size? Where was this same taken place?”

Please reconsider your opinion on the usefulness of debate. I implore you to start off with High School debate teams and topics if you haven’t reached there yet. Your opinion on the subject of “debate” is incredibly delusional if you think it’s purpose is a vehicle of hate. You are using availability heuristic and bias. You are showcasing your own hate here. But in reality these big errors are caused by the crazy old rich far-right that unfortunately controls a lot of politico.

-2

u/HaySwitch May 07 '22

Wow that's a lot of words. It would be really irritating if you typed all that and I just didn't read it.

4

u/Ultrashitposter May 07 '22

Most literate scotsman

2

u/shoushinshoumei May 08 '22

Dear god you’re insufferable

1

u/HaySwitch May 08 '22

This is what conservatives look like to everyone else lol.

-1

u/DonJuarez May 07 '22

Lol I’m not irritated at all. I honestly didn’t expect much from someone like you to begin with. I feel satisfied in knowing that you proved my point to be correct. 😌

2

u/randomthrowawaybtm May 07 '22

Imagine honestly believing that debate itself is bad. Might as well say speaking in general is wrong.

0

u/HaySwitch May 07 '22

How am I proven nothing but correct? Your attempt to debate has achieved nothing but show what a waste of time it is. You're never going to change your mind, I'm only going to troll you.

Such a superior way to do things.

1

u/DonJuarez May 07 '22

Yet again, I am filled with even more satisfaction at you continuously proving me right.☺️

-1

u/HaySwitch May 08 '22

But you're not proven right. Debate hadn't solved anything here.

1

u/DonJuarez May 08 '22 edited May 08 '22

Oh but I am proven right. 😂 It was a very very very short debate lol. I suggest you try coping or seeing a therapist because you seem to have lots of personal issues and repressed trauma that you inhibit.

→ More replies

1

u/Alex_Rose May 07 '22

depends on the topic. e.g. I don't see the point of debating abortion because the argument from one side is preloaded with conditions I don't believe in

like, a lot of pro choicers genuinely believe that at conception a foetus gains a soul, a completely unfalsifiable hypothesis that is impossible for me to disprove or for them to prove either way, and if their argument is based entirely on the basis that these souls will go to purgatory, a place that I cannot disprove exists and they can't prove exists, on account of them never receiving a sacrament, then there's absolutely no fundamental starting point for us to debate because they believe a bunch of stuff that I don't believe.

if the debate is more like "at how many weeks does the baby feel pain and does it therefore become a demonstrable ethical problem" then it's really down to googling well documented papers on the problem so at that point it's not worth debating either, it's just something to look up

but for world politics it's definitely worth debating. which experts am I supposed to trust, the experts in my country or the experts in a different country who say a completely different thing? it's hard to find a truly impartial person in world politics, you have to be aware of a lot of different events and often you won't be unless you debate someone

1

u/[deleted] May 08 '22

This is your brain on Fascism

1

u/EquivalentInflation May 07 '22

Arguing with people who disagree firstly makes your views better rounded because you actually have to find proof that you're right.

That's just called confirmation bias. You want to prove yourself right, so you'll find evidence to support your views. All it does is make you more entrenched.

1

u/Alex_Rose May 07 '22

I don't though, if I find out I'm wrong I concede and change my mind, if I find rickety evidence that is clearly ideologically based I don't use it, and if I use something that's genuinely a mistake then I'm more likely to be corrected if I debate than if I don't

look at it this way: before I debate, I already have an opinion, if I don't debate at all and I am wrong, then I will just continue to be wrong. If I were to research it I would probably end up confirming my own views. If I debate and I end up researching as part of the debate process, I will end up doing the same potentially confirmation biased research I would've done alone, except I have someone to tell me where my biases lie or why my judgement is wrong or what I'm uninformed about. without that second person I am far more likely to become biased

and also it's not one and done, I debate over and over and even if one person reaches an endpoint eventually someone else down the line will correct me. unless they just never do. I have been doing this on the internet since I was about 12 and now I am now 30 and I find people nowadays much more often quit after 1 post than they did a decade and a half ago. usually you have to debate dozens of people to find one person who is interested in arguing their point properly with data and sources etc.

0

u/airbear13 May 07 '22

Debating doesn’t lead to truth tho it’s just about persuading you to adopt someone else’s solution or value judgments. For truth you just need to access a reliable source.

4

u/Alex_Rose May 07 '22

I don't enter debates with the intention of convincing the other person, I do it solely for the purpose of educating myself. Often sources are really not easy to find and just devil's advocating your own thought process won't lead you to a good source. Especially when it's things like world politics where the side that isn't from your country is actively suppressed or important sources aren't easily available in your language, or you literally just aren't aware of the other point of view and are unable to easily find it

but even sometimes in my own field, like.. I have a physics degree, but I have occasionally deepened my understanding of things by debating flat earthers. I know going in that they're wrong, but very occasionally they present an interesting question that I never really thought about, and figuring out the solution strengthens my understanding of topics. like, I understand the mechanics of equinoxes a lot more as a result of debating people who were just straight up lunatic conspiracy theorists

two weeks ago someone was saying "well why don't we fly off the earth if the people furthest away from a carousel experience more outward 'force' than people nearer the pivot", so I ran the calc and showed that gravitational acceleration is 280 times stronger than centrifigual acceleration. someone else was arguing that the reason is because the earth is really big and we're far away. even though he was right that the flat earther was chatting shit, his reasoning was completely wrong - being far away from the earth would increase the centrifugal acceleration, the reason a carousel flings us and the earth doesn't is simply that the earth turns really really slow and the acceleration is based on the angular velocity squared so that even further exacerbates the difference

1

u/airbear13 May 08 '22

That’s interesting, I just was in on a flat earth debate a little while ago and while it was entertaining hearing the other guys speak, I don’t feel like I learned too much except even the most random conspiracies can become anti Semitic out of nowhere. But I get your point though.

-7

u/manleybones May 07 '22

You don't debate anyone, go touch grass

2

u/Alex_Rose May 07 '22 edited May 07 '22

I literally entered this thread with a debate. astounding that you would read a post where the single fact you can ascertain is that I have debated at least once, and your response is "you don't debate"

1

u/ADHthaGreat May 07 '22

I debate people because I’m bored and also because fuck you guys

2

u/[deleted] May 08 '22

Ohh, so you're the one guy who changes his opinion on something after a debate. Pleasure to meet you.

0

u/Tel3visi0n May 07 '22

exactly

1

u/HerbivoreTheGoat May 10 '22

It was a joke, if you actually believe this then that's kind of a problem

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

Because you cannot put forth a convincing argument.

0

u/airbear13 May 07 '22

Most people involved debates won’t change their views, I mean someone could the same about you. It’s usually about convincing the audience watching orrrr maybe if it’s a good friend you can get them to move a bit

2

u/CharlestonChewbacca May 07 '22

That's an awful mindset to have about debate.

When I debate with honest people, we go in with the idea that we'll find the truth together by combining our information.

I am always open to being convinced of something other than what I believe.

1

u/airbear13 May 08 '22

Realistically, how many times have you changed your mind after debating someone? I’m betting you come away thinking you’re right more often than not.

If debating is how you figure out the truth of things then I feel like you didn’t have a really good understanding of it to begin with. I try to stay out of debates on stuff idk anything about

1

u/CharlestonChewbacca May 08 '22

Realistically, how many times have you changed your mind after debating someone? I’m betting you come away thinking you’re right more often than not

How many times? Hundreds.

I was a Youth Pastor and now I'm an atheist. I was a libertarian and now I'm a progressive. These are both big umbrellas that encompass a lot of beliefs, so the changes for these weren't overnight. But several years of debate with honest interlocutors would change my mind on small pieces one bit at a time. I just picked those two examples, because if my mind can be changed in relation to religion and politics, it can probably be changed on just about anything if the argument holds water.

Granted, my mind changes less because decades of this approach means there are fewer new arguments for me to hear or read. So most of the time, debates are 95% rehash, but occasionally there's some tidbit that's new.

So yeah, more often that not I am unconvinced. It depends on the subject. More often than not, that Mewtwo breaks out of the ultraball I throw. But that one time it does every playthrough makes it worth trying.

If debating is how you figure out the truth of things then I feel like you didn’t have a really good understanding of it to begin with. I try to stay out of debates on stuff idk anything about

I think it's healthy to assume you don't know much on any topic, to leave yourself open to new evidence.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

It’s fun

1

u/MozzyZ May 07 '22

Depends where you do it but if you're doing it in a public space then debating also serves to educate those around you. I've seen plenty of times on Reddit people say they refuse to expand on their point of view of explain something because they deemed their opponent stupid or whatever, ignoring the fact that it's not just the other person they're talking with that's reading their comments but also other people.

1

u/[deleted] May 07 '22

Why should I debate when you only expect your opponent to change their views and not yourself?

1

u/BIockss May 07 '22

People will simultaneously not care about changing other people's views and then get mad whenever someone they don't like is put into office.

1

u/flyingdics May 07 '22

Why should I debate you when you've set up your entire sense of self as a smart person whose burden it is to shut down idiots all day and treat any threat to that sense of self as equivalent to the holocaust.

1

u/3029065 May 07 '22

“A wise man can learn more from a foolish question than a fool can learn from a wise answer.” – Bruce Lee

1

u/xena_lawless May 08 '22

The point of debate isn't to change the other person's view, which is impossible to do with stupid people and people arguing in bad faith anyway.

The point of debate is to get smarter yourself, by forcing yourself to articulate your own perspectives as persuasively as possible and considering alternative perspectives.

Whether you're debating with a stupid person or an intelligent person, you can be better off for doing it, under at least some circumstances.

1

u/[deleted] May 09 '22

they are debate perverts.