How to win 'any argument' warning will not work on libtards.

http://memolition.com/2013/11/06/how-to-win-any-argument-19-pictures/

This is a picture based educational link, kinda humorous. Will not work against anti-rights stupid people though.

Antis are not people, that's why it does not work. They are guberment cogs.

My experience is that most people have issues they're irrational on, and the average person does rationality pretty poorly. Doesn't stop them from going all out with rhetoric about rationality though. There are certain things that are only said when false. "I am a rational person" is one of them.

I don't know what advice is in the OP, but I would add this: Don't call people "libtards." That will not help win arguments with anyone.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Don't call people "libtards." That will not help win arguments with anyone.

Click to expand...

THANK YOU, sir.

You may make all the partisan associations you like in your own head, but that doesn't prevent an ad hominem attack from being what it is, and diminishing the impact of your argument.

I'm not going to pretend I even know what a "liberal" is anymore, much less a "libtard", but I do know that I never have a need to attack the person when his argument is ever so much more easily shredded.

Brace said:

My experience is that most people have issues they're irrational on, and the average person does rationality pretty poorly. Doesn't stop them from going all out with rhetoric about rationality though. There are certain things that are only said when false. "I am a rational person" is one of them.

Click to expand...

It's because the government teaches that logic sucks/is boring (when of course, once you get the hang of it, rationality is incredibly fun).

I remember at my high school you had to take the debate class before you could join the debate club. I took this class (ended up dropping it), and discovered that their solution to the quandary of pretending to teach debate without actually doing so was to force every student to spend basically the first two weeks in the library nonstop, doing pointless "research" for the sole purpose of deterring anybody interesting from actually wanting to continue on. Future politicians ready to "win" "debates" using a truckload of irrelevant "facts", sure, but genuinely passionate, motivated, interesting people? Well, they're dangerous. Gotta deter 'em. Sure enough, basically everybody dropped (and continues to drop) that class, except for the aforementioned future politicians. Needless to say, the debates are incredibly lifeless, uninspiring, unconvincing, and wholly, utterly noncontroversial (and therefore valueless).

Of course, in the real world, positions derive from philosophy and reason, and then research follows (when/if necessary) to find facts to support the conclusions reached philosophically.

You might win a stilted political debate with an overabundance of BS "data", but you'll never change hearts and minds without a foundation in reason and philosophy.

Facts without this foundation serve nobody but the choir-preacher. But, of course, this is what government wants: choir-preaching politicians to maintain the status quo.

Models inform research which in turn informs models. That's how things are supposed to work. Effective rhetoric comes from lived experience to be sure. There's a lot of important data people are bad at reducing to simple models simply because the world is complex and often unpredictable. The problem with debate as I usually see it is that people aren't even aware of all of their premises, let alone interested in questioning them. They focus on making their own beliefs as internally consistent and airtight as possible, which has value, but can prevent people from truly learning anything. Politicians refer to, say, scary statistics about health, and premises about the role of the state and the cause of these statistics are left unstated, are essential to the final argument, and are utterly wrong. A single false case breaks a universal rule, so data can be insanely valuable, but only for honest people. At least as far as truth is concerned. Often arguments are really about control instead of truth. Arguing to reach truth is a forgotten art.

Brace said:

Models inform research which in turn informs models. That's how things are supposed to work. Effective rhetoric comes from lived experience to be sure. There's a lot of important data people are bad at reducing to simple models simply because the world is complex and often unpredictable. The problem with debate as I usually see it is that people aren't even aware of all of their premises, let alone interested in questioning them. They focus on making their own beliefs as internally consistent and airtight as possible, which has value, but can prevent people from truly learning anything. Politicians refer to, say, scary statistics about health, and premises about the role of the state and the cause of these statistics are left unstated, are essential to the final argument, and are utterly wrong. A single false case breaks a universal rule, so data can be insanely valuable, but only for honest people. At least as far as truth is concerned. Often arguments are really about control instead of truth. Arguing to reach truth is a forgotten art.

Click to expand...

I have run into problems with those who think that their feelings are the same as opinions. That such uninformed beliefs are supposed to hold any value against clear logic and reasoning.

"I am scared of guns. Therefor guns are bad."
"The Brady Campaign says guns are bad and so guns are bad."
So on and so forth.

I will never understand people.

Freedom1Man said:

I have run into problems with those who think that their feelings are the same as opinions. That such uninformed beliefs are supposed to hold any value against clear logic and reasoning.

"I am scared of guns. Therefor guns are bad."
"The Brady Campaign says guns are bad and so guns are bad."
So on and so forth.

I will never understand people.

Click to expand...

Thankfully, we have the first amendment, which makes it perfectly fine for someone to confuse feelings for opinions, and shout those uninformed beliefs loudly, and free association lets them associate with others, and form parties, and influence leaders. Liberty is a dual-edged sword. It works for us, as it works for them. No one has the right, or the justification to disrupt another persons right to be stupid in a loud fashion.

Also, we need new phrases, slang, and rhetoric that isn't re-hashed copies of what our adversaries use.

"I am scared of guns. Therefor guns are bad."
"I am scared of <blank>. Ergo, <blank> is/are bad."

'The GOP says that Democrats are bad, therefore, all Democrats are bad, and we should talk about limiting their rights, and dis-enfranchase them, while whining about statists on both sides that do the real dirty work.'

Whoa dude, we can really take all the anti, and pro, movements rhetoric and replace a word or two with another thing and have a whole group of one-liners to use for a different cause! We're so clever, special, and unique!

Emotions are the reason people do anything, logic just ensures they do it logically. If you have unhealthy emotions and perfect logic the logic isn't liable to help. I don't think there's even been a case in history where mass murder was committed in the name of illogic. Every dictator in the past century has claimed his efforts to represent a scientific and rational project. It's not that people need to stop having emotions, or separate emotions from logic, it's that they need to get over themselves in general.