4 ms·
Addressing your opponent position lets them pick what the topic is. They are picking a topic their position is strong at. Therefore addressing your opponent pos
by Nowado 4y ago
Addressing your opponent position lets them pick what the topic is. They are picking a topic their position is strong at. Therefore addressing your opponent position in limited-attention setting (aka publicly) is simply a losing move.
- number6 4y agoSo the only wining move is not to play?
- nicbou 4y agoI have stopped playing, and it turned out to be the winning move. I get involved in conversations, but not in heated debates. I don't even dignify bad faith responses with an answer. Participation is optional. If it's pointless and unpleasant, I don't bother anymore.
- ohwellhere 4y agoI try to do the same, now. From my perspective, a prerequisite is divorcing conversation from the concept of "winning."
- nicbou 4y agoSame here, although I just redefine winning to learning something new, seeing a different perspective or refining my own position. It's all about exchanging information.
- watwut 4y agoNo, if you dont play, then your opponent point of view is the only one out there. People will move their opinions to match your opponents more.
- ImPostingOnHN 4y agoI used to think like that. My online posting life got a lot less stressful once I realized that the world will be exactly the same if I neglect to rebut some twitter user's bad/uninformed point of view. Maybe you have a ton more social clout than I do, though :P
- Nowado 4y agoThere seems to be an assumption that the opponent isn't a competent player. They might be. The winning move is to seem like the winning side of discourse in their space. The truly winning move is to own a media conglomerate including social psychology people in communications.
- Cthulhu_ 4y agoFor your own sanity, yeah I think so; online 'debates' only drain energy and attention if the other party is not acting in good faith. That said, if you are playing, the winning move is not to play their games. Don't engage with their attempted straw man arguments, or end up in endless discussions about semantics. Some of the best debates I've seen / read were people not playing games and not reacting to bad faith arguments / tactics, but instead cleverly pointing out something else.