Ross PK Posted September 18, 2009 Posted September 18, 2009 Okay, proving the other person to be wrong obviously is. But what if the person who is wrong sounds a lot more intelligent in what he's saying, and is able to twist things around (whether purposely or unpurposely) against the other person? What if the person who is wrong get's the last word? Do either of these things mean they've won the argument even though they are actually wrong and the other person is right?
Trey Walter Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 Okay, proving the other person to be wrong obviously is. And the other person has to accept it. (Or the spectators if it's a public argument.) If he (that is the other person) doesn't accept the proof, then you're the only one who accepts it. You think you're right, he thinks he's right. The argument didn't lead anywhere. If both of you accept one point of view, then this point of view --or the person who holded that point of view at the beginning-- wins. But what if the person who is wrong sounds a lot more intelligent in what he's saying, and is able to twist things around (whether purposely or unpurposely) against the other person? What if the person who is wrong get's the last word? Do either of these things mean they've won the argument even though they are actually wrong and the other person is right?Things get a little bit more complicated if spectators are around. (Take a political debate as an example.) In that case, the person who is wrong would probably win if he sounds a lot more intelligent for example. Arguments are a lot about persuasion. The one who persuades the other one (or most of the audience) of his point of view wins. At least that's how I think about it.
Taramere Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 It's often impossible for anyone to be proved completely right or wrong in an argument. Even in court, a judge might concede certain points made by the losing lawyer - but give reasons as to why, on balance, he prefers the winner's argument. In that context, there's going to be an assumption that both people involved in the debate are intelligent and sane...so it's not personal. The focus is on the topic of debate, not the characters or personal beliefs of the people arguing it. Arguments in heated personal situations or on message boards like this are often approached very differently. Often it becomes less about the topic which apparently forms the basis for an argument, and more about (as Trey said) who seems to be the more intelligent, and/or emotionally stable individual. Or which person spectators or other participants in the discussion like best. So it'll often take on an ad hominem flavour...meaning that the person, rather than their argument, is under attack. If they're being attacked in a "you are a horrible, immoral individual - so it follows that everything you say is incorrect or a lie" manner....or "you're a man/woman so what they hell would you know?" then that's fallacious in that it does nothing to address the topic under discussion. On the other hand, arguing that the person is demonstrating irrationality (eg in that they're using highly emotional or inflammatory language), that might add substance to claims that their argument lacks objectivity and/or fails to take relevant facts into account. If they believe the person made the statement purely to provoke hostility rather than to encourage intelligent debate, others might give an ad hominem response as an expression of this belief....ie discrediting the worthiness of the person's statement as a valid topic for debate, because that person failed to raise it in convincingly objective sounding terms. Outside of a formal setting where debates are run in accordance with fairly strict rules, I generally think it's pretty difficult to objectively gauge who wins or loses an argument.
Trialbyfire Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 The definition of winning an argument on the Internet is as follows: Both parties unzip their e-pants and pull out their e-penises. If there are spectators, not only do the combatants pull out rulers, so do the spectators or others who choose to participate by taking sides. Then everyone measures. The one with the largest e-penis wins. As you've probably noticed, logic, rational behaviour, morality, common sense, practicality and reality, have nothing to do with an Internet debate.
shadowplay Posted September 19, 2009 Posted September 19, 2009 I In that context, there's going to be an assumption that both people involved in the debate are intelligent and sane...so it's not personal. The focus is on the topic of debate, not the characters or personal beliefs of the people arguing it. Arguments in heated personal situations or on message boards like this are often approached very differently. Often it becomes less about the topic which apparently forms the basis for an argument, and more about (as Trey said) who seems to be the more intelligent, and/or emotionally stable individual. Or which person spectators or other participants in the discussion like best. So it'll often take on an ad hominem flavour...meaning that the person, rather than their argument, is under attack. Yes .........................
Tayla Posted September 22, 2009 Posted September 22, 2009 Kevin, interesting advice! My son was on the debate team and has continued thru College. Very fascinating how open arguements on the Topic (not the Persons) has helped his social skills for learning negotiating and when to stand ground. he'll even concede that the other teams research can also be compelling and he has learned skills from the opposing team. If people could listen more, comment less and absorb the persons view point, they'll have a better chance of conveying the message or relaying the fact. I have seen though: Boss are always right, if your the spouse - your wrong, and rarely can people talk on finance,politics, religion or raising kids without a Huge difference of opinion.
Recommended Posts