"Winning" an Argument

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_LoneQuietus
_Emeritus
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 7:59 pm

Re: "Winning" an Argument

Post by _LoneQuietus »

Equality wrote:Last night, I got into a heated exchange with one of the board bigots. After he repeated oft-debunked lies, I called him names and engaged in "invective." I don't usually do that (anyone here can wade through my 1000+ posts to confirm), but occasionally I think that trying to engage in rational discourse with a hatemonger is simply impossible, and sometimes only a dismissal in the strongest rhetorical terms is appropriate. There is no sense trying to rationally "debate" a Young Earth Creationist or a Flat Earther or someone advancing a Geocentric Theory of the Solar System. Nor is there any point engaging in rational discourse with a Grand Wizard of the KKK on racial issues.


It would be different if you were discussing a 'thing', but when you discuss people's beliefs, they inevitably regard the attack on their beliefs as an attack on themselves. Most positions of bigotry find no home in reason and no limit to any whim.
_Sophocles
_Emeritus
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:39 am

Re: "Winning" an Argument

Post by _Sophocles »

bcspace wrote:Bottom line: Once Equality resorted to invective and censorship, I won.


Won what? According to whom?

I could be persuaded that, all other things being equal, if a formal debate were being held in front of an impartial audience, and one side presented an intelligible (if flawed) argument while the other could only respond with invective, then it's likely that the audience would find the former more persuasive.

But that doesn't come close to describing the situation here.

I think more than anything else bspace's declaration of victory betrays the legalistic mindset inherent in Mormonism. It's not about what is true or right, it's about winning.

It's like the way apologists think that they can refute the whole of D. Michael Quinn's research simply by pointing out that he is an excommunicated homosexual. In their imagined courtroom, they just got all that evidence thrown out on a technicality. They won.
_Sophocles
_Emeritus
Posts: 298
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 4:39 am

Re: "Winning" an Argument

Post by _Sophocles »

bcspace wrote:Essentially, when someone resorts to those tactics, they're the ones who've walked away and I have no more need to tend the subject as it devolves into something for the peanut gallery to consume.


I think I've figured out what is going on here. Bspace is confusing a maxim used to predict the winner of a debate between equals with the actual rules of the debate used to determine the winner. It's like he heard the oft repeated saying
The cardinal rule of negotiation: he who speaks first loses.

and interpreted it as a literal rule, instead of a maxim intended to illustrate who most likely has the upper hand. So in his next negotiation, he simply waited for the other party to speak, and then promptly declared victory.

We might imagine a maxim in boxing that says the first fighter to lower his gloves or stick out his chin loses. Of course, this is meant to illustrate that lowering one's guard in such a way essentially hands the victory to the opponent, and a fighter would never do so unless he were simply to exhausted to carry on. Bspace, do you imagine that it is actually against the rules of the bout to lower ones gloves and stick out one's chin, and that a fighter immediately forfeits by doing so?

"Of course not," would be his reply, having learned that lesson during his last embarrassing negotiation. "As I said, by lowering his gloves and forgetting to keep his head down, my oponent is demonstrating that he is too beaten and exhausted to maintain proper form. Finishing him off at this point is a formality. I've won."

What bspace is forgetting is that there is another reason a fighter might lower his guard and break form. Upon finding himself in the ring with Mike Tyson, bspace observes that the first thing Tyson does at the opening bell is break form. He stands there with his gloves at his side, his head back, laughing. "Look at him," bscpace is thinking to himself. "He's already so exhausted and beaten down that he can't hold up his gloves, and I haven't even touched him yet. I've won!"
_palerobber
_Emeritus
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:48 pm

Re: "Winning" an Argument

Post by _palerobber »

it should be noted that prior to any invective being aimed at him on that thread, bcspace posted a baseless personal attack against an entire class of people.

so even by his own confused terms of debate, he lost.
_palerobber
_Emeritus
Posts: 2026
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:48 pm

Re: "Winning" an Argument

Post by _palerobber »

bcspace wrote:Essentially, when someone resorts to those tactics, they're the ones who've walked away and I have no more need to tend the subject as it devolves into something for the peanut gallery to consume.


...said the expert on civility who copy-pastes reports from SPLC-designated hate groups.
Post Reply