3 ms·

Oh, that's interesting, thank you for bringing up this analogy. Yeah, I guess I'm looking into two aspects: 1) understanding argumentation framework 2) pract

by divan 3y ago

Oh, that's interesting, thank you for bringing up this analogy. Yeah, I guess I'm looking into two aspects: 1) understanding argumentation framework 2) practicing in the real world conversations For example, one of the recent revelations for me was the fact that people typically have judgement or belief (planted in their head by society or parents), and then use logic to build the arguments in order to support their view. So the confirmation bias is not really a bias, but pretty much a 'default' mode. That kinda changes the whole game, as it becomes clear that attacking person's arguments and bringing up yours is kinda futile most of the time. I.e. They didn't build their conclusions based on these arguments in a first place. In fact, they might not even believe in those arguments, but bring them up because they've heard them used by others in the similar debate. And if you present them your arguments, they will just dismiss it as cherrypicking or the lie. So basically you can't use your own arguments supporting your view to win the debate. But if you can take arguments that person brought up (and thus signed that they believe in them) and use them to build your conclusion – that's much more powerful move. In a way that require you to agree with some arguments, so you have common language and set of facts you both agree. So I'm looking to read more about debating at this kind of level...

syndicatedjelly 3y ago
What you’re describing to me sounds more like psychology. Some people are able to become famous through sheer understanding of human psychology - not because they have a worthwhile argument to make
syndicatedjelly 3y ago
But if you can take arguments that person brought up (and thus signed that they believe in them) and use them to build your conclusion – that's much more powerful move. In debate, we called this type of argument a “turn”. As in, you “turned” the opponent’s argument in one of two keys ways: 1 - Given their original premise and a positive outcome, show how the positive outcome actually comes from one of your premises instead. 2 - If they are attempting to dispute any of your points, show how the negative effects actually originate from THEIR premise, not yours. ———- I’ll reiterate, this kind of argumentation is effective in competitive debate, but will make you no friends in the real world. The positions are assigned ahead of time - you might personally disagree with the case, but you have to argue it confidently and set aside your morals and beliefs. Furthermore, a round is only 30 minutes, and you go back to being friendly with the opponent as soon as it’s over.

by divan 3y ago

syndicatedjelly 3y ago

What you’re describing to me sounds more like psychology. Some people are able to become famous through sheer understanding of human psychology - not because they have a worthwhile argument to make

syndicatedjelly 3y ago

But if you can take arguments that person brought up (and thus signed that they believe in them) and use them to build your conclusion – that's much more powerful move. In debate, we called this type of argument a “turn”. As in, you “turned” the opponent’s argument in one of two keys ways: 1 - Given their original premise and a positive outcome, show how the positive outcome actually comes from one of your premises instead. 2 - If they are attempting to dispute any of your points, show how the negative effects actually originate from THEIR premise, not yours. ———- I’ll reiterate, this kind of argumentation is effective in competitive debate, but will make you no friends in the real world. The positions are assigned ahead of time - you might personally disagree with the case, but you have to argue it confidently and set aside your morals and beliefs. Furthermore, a round is only 30 minutes, and you go back to being friendly with the opponent as soon as it’s over.