3 ms·
> Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea. If you can't argue in the affirmative of the
by tekla 3y ago
> Improving people's ability to competitively argue for things they don't believe in seems a hilariously bad idea.
If you can't argue in the affirmative of the other side, you probably don't actually understand the topic to being with, and are probably not very good at critical thinking.
- rutierut 3y agoI completely agree with this. If you’re arguing against trickle-down economics you should know where people arguing for it are coming from and be able to phrase it in a manner that its proponents agree with. This also happens to be one of the most (holistically) effective techniques irl when “debating” with someone.
- vacuity 3y agoSounds like Chesterton's fence. "Tear it down!" "OK, but can you give me a good reason to?" "...It's an obstruction." "Reeeeeal persuasive." Even if the other side has abysmal reasoning, you won't be able to distinguish that from decent arguments if you blindly try to push your side of things. Besides, establishing common ground is key to cooperation.