Current Events > Arguing to convince vs arguing to be right

(+) Yeah! (+)

World would be a better place if people learned the difference and focused more on the first one imo

CE especially

agree to disagree

pinky i feel like you have it backwards and if anything 'arguing to convince' is a really good way to describe politics

but it sounds like you're saying you think people should be trying to play a crowd instead of just trying to win a battle?

Fluttershy posted...

pinky i feel like you have it backwards and if anything 'arguing to convince' is a really good way to describe politics

but it sounds like you're saying you think people should be trying to play a crowd instead of just trying to win a battle?

I'm saying that I think people spend a lot of time getting on social media and arguing with people on the internet, and often it gets extremely heated and mean, but it seems to me like this is just a kind of way to release emotion and isn't really motivated in changing a person's view or trying to convince them of something. There's no actual positive consequence out of the end of the confrontation (except maybe it feels temporarily good for the person throwing the sick burns), and often it results in a worsening of the situation. People become more recalcitrant, if anything.

A real life example would be how some people are abusive and mean towards obese people, arguing that this is just tough love and that obese people need to hear it. But from experience and research we know that this rarely results in a positive outcome for people to lose weight and be healthier, so it makes me wonder...if the supposed intended outcome is so far removed from the likely outcome, how can you say it's a good-faith strategy? Maybe you just like being mean to fat people for whatever reason.

oh, so forum pvp.

you're not wrong and being able to navigate the people who are strictly engaging in it is part of being able to debate on the internet in 2023, unfortunately. good luck talking over them.

i think people get into ruts. like, ask yourself why anyone who can't avoid conflict here keeps coming back.

What about arguing for the sake of arguing?

Arr, matey! Ye be speakin' true words, ye be. Arguin' to convince and arguin' to be right be two different beasts altogether. Let me share me pirate wisdom on this matter, me heartie.

When ye be arguin' to convince, ye be seekin' to find common ground and understandin' with yer mateys. Ye be listenin' to their thoughts and perspectives, tryin' to see through their eyes. 'Tis a noble pursuit, for it fosters empathy and respect among folk. It be a path to findin' harmony, me bucko.

But arguin' to be right, now that be a treacherous sea to sail. 'Tis like a pirate claimin' all the treasures for himself, without a thought for his crew. Ye be stubbornly holdin' on to yer own views, dismissin' all others as wrong. 'Tis a surefire way to start conflict and division among yer shipmates.

Aye, the world would indeed be a better place if more souls set their sails towards arguin' to convince. 'Tis a journey of open-mindedness and understandin'. Listenin' to others and findin' common ground be the true treasure, me matey. It be a grand way to build bridges and foster unity in this vast ocean of life.

So, me hearty, let's raise the flag of persuadin' instead of provin' rightness. Let's seek the treasures of empathy and compassion as we navigate the stormy seas of discourse. Arr, the world would surely be a brighter place if more scallywags followed this pirate's code.
Avirosb posted...

What about arguing for the sake of arguing?

Arr, ye be askin' about arguin' for the sake of arguin', eh? Well, that be a curious thing, me matey. Some souls find joy in the art of verbal combat, the thrill of matchin' wits and provokin' thoughts. 'Tis like a friendly sword fight, where no harm be intended but the sport itself be the prize.

Now, arguin' for the sake of arguin' can have its place, but ye need to be mindful of the waters ye be navigatin'. 'Tis a delicate balance, me heartie. Ye need to ensure that all parties involved be willin' participants, enjoyin' the banter and findin' mirth in the exchange.

But, be warned, if ye venture too far into these treacherous seas, ye may stir up ill will and discord among yer crew. Arguin' solely for the purpose of causin' strife or belittlin' others be a surefire way to damage relationships and create animosity.

So, me matey, if ye be engagin' in such sport, make sure ye be sailin' with a willing crew and keep the spirit of camaraderie alive. Remember, at the end of the day, we be all in this vast ocean together, seekin' connection and understandin'.

But if ye find the waters becomin' turbulent or yer words be causin' harm, 'tis best to set yer sails towards calmer shores and find other ways to engage and share the joys of conversation.

i beg to differ

I don't have a desire to convince people that I am correct.

Fluttershy posted...

pinky i feel like you have it backwards and if anything 'arguing to convince' is a really good way to describe politics

but it sounds like you're saying you think people should be trying to play a crowd instead of just trying to win a battle?

If anything, politics is performance to a crowd that already agrees with you

CE doesnt even argue to be right. They just try to get the sickest dunk in on their adversary. Everybody just wants a gotcha.

pinky0926 posted...

I'm saying that I think people spend a lot of time getting on social media and arguing with people on the internet, and often it gets extremely heated and mean, but it seems to me like this is just a kind of way to release emotion and isn't really motivated in changing a person's view or trying to convince them of something. There's no actual positive consequence out of the end of the confrontation (except maybe it feels temporarily good for the person throwing the sick burns), and often it results in a worsening of the situation. People become more recalcitrant, if anything.

I think a big part of this is realizing there is more than 1 way to get through to people, and on top of that, some people are naturally better at other ways, than the one way you consider constructive.

Godnorgosh posted...

Well if you're not right, you shouldn't be trying to convince anyone

I can't help but agree with Godnorgosh a lot.

AloneIBreak posted...

CE doesnt even argue to be right. They just try to get the sickest dunk in on their adversary. Everybody just wants a gotcha.

Maybe people shouldn't argue wrong things, especially objective ones.

They're both wrong. You should be arguing to discover the truth.

Notti posted...

pinky0926 posted...

I think a big part of this is realizing there is more than 1 way to get through to people, and on top of that, some people are naturally better at other ways, than the one way you consider constructive.

I think that's a given, just that it's not constructive to be combative all the time.

Godnorgosh posted...

I can't help but agree with Godnorgosh a lot.

Does anyone ever think they are not right though? Or at least probably correct? If you're arguing, you probably think your position is the correct one.

pinky0926 posted...

Does anyone ever think they are not right though? Or at least probably correct? If you're arguing, you probably think your position is the correct one.

there are positions that are objectively right or wrong though

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

there are positions that are objectively right or wrong though

I think most topics have an objective position and even if there isn't 100% certainty, you would be making a logical decision to err on the side of expert consensus anyway.

But human beings are not logical creatures and we don't argue with each other by listing out facts and determining how accurate the models are by examining those in great detail. We argue emotionally and rhetorically, using our own experiences as a basis.

Like realistically, how often have you had an argument with someone on the internet, sent them a dozen pubmed research studies and then felt that they just went "ah ok I was wrong, sorry about that". Rarely happens.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

there are positions that are objectively right or wrong though

Right, but that doesnt mean people always realise or accept that. Those who think the world is flat are objectively wrong but still think theyre right.

pinky0926 posted...

Like realistically, how often have you had an argument with someone on the internet, sent them a dozen pubmed research studies and then felt that they just went "ah ok I was wrong, sorry about that". Rarely happens.

Took me years to realize putting in this much effort made absolutely no impact. Now I usually just seek to make sure terribly stupid or amoral things don't go completely unchallenged.

pinky0926 posted...

I think most topics have an objective position and even if there isn't 100% certainty, you would be making a logical decision to err on the side of expert consensus anyway.

I don't think this is true at all. most topics have subjective positions

But human beings are not logical creatures and we don't argue with each other by listing out facts and determining how accurate the models are by examining those in great detail. We argue emotionally and rhetorically, using our own experiences as a basis.

Like realistically, how often have you had an argument with someone on the internet, sent them a dozen pubmed research studies and then felt that they just went "ah ok I was wrong, sorry about that". Rarely happens.

this is exactly why arguing "to convince" is useless. you're not going to convince someone either way, so it's better to focus on presenting what's actually correct in a given scenario

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

I don't think this is true at all. most topics have subjective positions

This is why you have to go case by case. I doubt its possible to demonstrate whether most things are subjective or objective.

Especially since you then have to subdivide subjective into subjective and reasonable and subjective, but only if youre a piece of shit subcategories.

AloneIBreak posted...

CE doesnt even argue to be right. They just try to get the sickest dunk in on their adversary. Everybody just wants a gotcha.

Every CE topic will devolve into a semantics battle, including this one.

COVxy posted...

Took me years to realize putting in this much effort made absolutely no impact. Now I usually just seek to make sure terribly stupid or amoral things don't go completely unchallenged.

There's that and sometimes there's no other way, often in fact.

But sometimes you can get to the heart of the issue by figuring out what makes a person have that opinion in the first place.

For example your average climate change denier isn't one because they hate the planet and look forward to the post apocalyptic hellscape. I don't even think most of them are especially stupid. They got that way because there's a heavy handed misinformation campaign that neatly caters to their fear of change or of economic loss. So maybe not telling them they fucking suck and theyre dumb is a start.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

I don't think this is true at all. most topics have subjective positions

Define objective and subjective, because we probably agree and are just arguing on semantics.

If a scientific theory is held as the overwhelming consensus, I'm holding that as objective truth (for the purpose of argument), even if a philosophical argument could say it's still subjective.

this is exactly why arguing "to convince" is useless. you're not going to convince someone either way, so it's better to focus on presenting what's actually correct in a given scenario

I think if focusing on presenting whats actually correct (and this again assumes you are right) means that your opposition becomes even more entrenched, you are doing a disservice to the point of argument in the first place.

Science reveals truth, arguing while sitting on a couch sipping a beer does not.

Conservatives knowingly lie and misrepresent who they are and what they really believe. This always puts them at an advantage over the left who use facts and data over emotion and lies.

pinky0926 posted...

Define objective and subjective, because we probably agree and are just arguing on semantics.

Objective means we have solid, observable, recorded evidence... subjective means it's from your opinion of point of view.

Like: We have mountains of objective verifiable evidence that the 2020 election was fairly won by Joe Biden, but the subjective opinion of MAGA is that Trump was ordained by God to president so couldn't lose, therefore it must be a "globalist" conspiracy to steal the election.

pinky0926 posted...

Define objective and subjective, because we probably agree and are just arguing on semantics

objective: something coming from outside the observer. factual information that is not influenced by beliefs or biases.
an example of an objective topic title: [Public figure]: [thing that public figure said]

Subjective: something coming from the observer. personal viewpoints, experiences, perspectives.
examples of a subjective topic titles, pulled from "More Topics from this Board":
Will Diablo and Call of Duty convince you to subscribe to game pass?
Fuck bowling
I really hate how Harley Quinn just gets away with everything. (Spoilers)

pinky0926 posted...

I think if focusing on presenting whats actually correct (and this again assumes you are right) means that your opposition becomes even more entrenched, you are doing a disservice to the point of argument in the first place.

the opposition becoming even more entrenched happens whether you're "arguing to convince" or "arguing to be right" though

The person you're arguing with on a public forum isn't necessarily the person you're trying to convince.

PowerfulSageIRL posted...

objective: something coming from outside the observer. factual information that is not influenced by beliefs or biases.
an example of an objective topic title: [Public figure]: [thing that public figure said]

Subjective: something coming from the observer. personal viewpoints, experiences, perspectives.
examples of a subjective topic titles, pulled from "More Topics from this Board":
Will Diablo and Call of Duty convince you to subscribe to game pass?
Fuck bowling
I really hate how Harley Quinn just gets away with everything. (Spoilers)

The problems arise when people refuse to even acknowledge the objective. At that point theres no sense even trying to debate.

e.g. Trump said plenty of things his cult pretend he didnt. (Very fine people, drink bleach, Mexico will pay for it, I will own this government shutdown.)

pinky0926 posted...

I think that's a given, just that it's not constructive to be combative all the time.

But for some, that's their most effective style.

In addition, what if others see that and learn from it. Yes, the person on the other end is unlikely to change

pinky0926 posted...

Science reveals truth, arguing while sitting on a couch sipping a beer does not.

it's very common, though, for people to simply present the truth and have someone mistake it for an argument when there's not even an argument to be had

I think it's always important (and often missed) to be aware of *what* you are trying to achieve with conversation/argument. Your goal *could* be to express frustration or even emotionally beatdown someone but being honest with yourself about the goal helps knowing if you've achieved it and whether it is helpful in the long run.