Arguments

[Valairn]

Sorry to be a bother, but I need to vent. I hate arguing with people and here is why, because everytime people argue they think that arguing is about winning rather than about coming to the right conclusion.

I'm not always humble, but I do at least try to acknowledge when someone is right about something that I was not right about. But what the heck is the problem with people who are given every piece of evidence they need in order to be able to say, oh this is right and that is wrong, and then still say, "I disagree with you. <insert already debunked reason why>"

Drives me crazy.

[Haruki-kun]

I completely agree with you. It happens to me on a daily basis............ and I really wish it didn't..............

[Occasional Sage]

Me three, and I still find myself doing it.

For me, there're two different potential flavors to an argument, and I tend to be drawn by the other person's attitude: if they approach a topic reasonably, I'm willing to be swayed by a good argument; if their attitude is confrontational (and sometimes, admittedly, that's a matter of my perception), I stop listening and just talk.

I suspect most arguments are just two people talking to themself. I enjoy the other kind a great deal more though, and often seek out people willing to have a reasonable arguement discussion.

[Ego Slayer]

My brother was pronouncing something wrong when he was younger.
So, I got a dictionary out, and showed him how it's really pronounced. He says the dictionary is wrong, and continues to say it wrong. He often still carries the same attitude, so it's pointless arguing with him. :smallannoyed:

What's worse is when you're the person being proven wrong. I hate that so much. :smallsigh:

[topher]

People have a hard admitting when they are wrong especially when it involves something that has been believed for generations, like the world is flat, earth is at the center of the universe(no relativity replies please), etc. But even if it is something small, some people just can’t seem to throw in the towel. I don’t get it either, stubbornness I suppose, more likely fear (of being inadequate??). I have no problem with it; tend to be wrong most of the time anyway.:smallsmile:

[Skippy]

I'd like to disagree with you all, just for the irony of it...

I say that there are lots of times when the people who argues are truly in search for the truth, and arguing is a way to discover it more easily.

I know I am right and nothing you can say can make me change my mind!! :smallamused:

[Ego Slayer]

I guess it's one thing to be wrong factually, and another to have a 'wrong' opinion... or that, at the very least, a widely challenged one, argue your own opinion, and after awhile you actually start seeing you're being irrational, and they are, to some extent, right, and you end up agreeing with them. :smalleek:


earth is at the center of the universe(no relativity replies please)
If the Universe goes on for infinity, then we are the center of it... but, then so is everything else.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :smallamused:

[Valairn]

Well actually if the universe goes on for infinity then the center of it is indeterminate, not every point at once. But that's semantics.

[valadil]

If you don't like that sort of argumentative attitude, internet forums may be the wrong place to vent about it. People in forums get off on telling you you're wrong and they usually do it by attacking your argument rather than what you have to say. It's incredibly frustrating even if you aren't already pissed off at people being argumentative.

[Telonius]

Sorry to be a bother, but I need to vent. I hate arguing with people and here is why, because everytime people argue they think that arguing is about winning rather than about coming to the right conclusion.

I'm not always humble, but I do at least try to acknowledge when someone is right about something that I was not right about. But what the heck is the problem with people who are given every piece of evidence they need in order to be able to say, oh this is right and that is wrong, and then still say, "I disagree with you. <insert already debunked reason why>"

Drives me crazy.

You're not playing the same game (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/controversy/chapter3.html) that they are.


When your opponent uses a merely superficial or sophistical argument and you see through it, you can, it is true, refute it by setting forth its captious and superficial character; but it is better to meet him with a counter-argument which is just as superficial and sophistical, and so dispose of him; for it is with victory that you are concerned, and not with truth.
(emphasis added).

To some people, the argument really is about winning. It's a game, a pastime. It's like high school and college debate, law, or politics. You go into it because you want to win. It helps a lot if you really are right, but being right isn't required for winning an argument.

[LCR]

Seconded.
While discussion has it's moments, arguments are great. Arguing is fun and there is no joy like the pride of totally wrecking your opponent in an argument. It's like rugby for intellectuals (and more so for wannabe-intellectuals, like myself).

[Pyrian]

That's a bad game, though. Worse than pointless; actively harmful.

[Iudex Fatarum]

Personaly I love a good debate. The whole idea of aruing to be right does matter sometimes because what if you are right, then it would be wrong to conceed that you were wrong. most people dont argue that they are right if they don't believe it. I for one hate being wrong but I normaly admit it, but I do fail. also how do you define truth, after all if you want a more real life example of a classic philosophical debate take the existance of God, just think about it there is massive amounts of arguments on both sides and evidence its just that by the nature of the definition of God there is no proof he exists and there is no proof he doesn't (its extreamly hard to prove something doesnt exist) (some might disagree but then why has it held on for so long, and if you do disagree still ok thats your perogative) I'm in seminary and basicly its view is you have to begin with that and it can not be proven. so lots of debates are things that can't be proved and they are right or wrong we just can't know. like the continuum hypothesis if you want math consistent if true, consistent if false.

my 2 cp
if someone wants to respond then pm me. i'm up for a good debate.

[LCR]

That's a bad game, though. Worse than pointless; actively harmful.

How's that harmful?

[Tormsskull]

I like to pretend that I am a cyber lawyer defending the just with well-chosen words, logic, and hilarity.

[LCR]

Lucky you. I'm too cynical for that.

[Winterwind]

If the Universe goes on for infinity, then we are the center of it... but, then so is everything else.

Sorry, couldn't help myself. :smallamused:And if it does not go on for infinity, it does have a defined centre, and we're most certainly not at that centre. (And usual cosmological models actually assume that to be the case) :smallamused:
Relativity just says inertial reference frames are equivalent to each other, so one thing might move towards the other or vice versa, but whether something is at the centre of something else is completely independant of the reference frame, so relativity doesn't mess with that.


As for the topic, I would actually side with radikalskippy. While some people may be more stubborn than others, most people I know are sufficiently open minded to accept the truth if confronted with overwhelming evidence.

However, in my humble opinion the main goal of a debate is not to find the truth either, because that is often not possible. Rather, I think it serves to improve the understanding of other people's points of view and to further one's knowledge and reflection regarding the subject of the discussion. In a debate, I am far less interested in convincing the other than in learning why the other believes what (s)he does (which may or may not validate or invalidate my own opinion on the subject at hand).

And, by the way, I love debates. :smallwink:

[valadil]

Personaly I love a good debate.

There's nothing wrong with a good debate. I don't enjoy getting blindsided with debate with no warning, which is what I see more often than not in online forums.

[StickMan]

Nothing better or more fun that a good old fashion Argument. I like Arguing a little to much perhaps, which some times gets me in to trouble.

[Brickwall]

I love arguing. I love debating. What I hate are the people I usually have to argue with. It's okay if you play to win, but if you refuse to admit you can't win, then you're a waste of carbon, plain and simple. I let up when I'm wrong. I've never seen anyone else do so. Usually if they can't say anything more in their defense, they just stop arguing so that the debate never comes to a conclusion. It's like dropping out of a race and saying you neither won nor lost. Totally insane.

Oh, and plenty of self-proclaimed intellectuals do that. Don't think it's only stupid people. I'm talking people who have the ability and personality to pursue graduate degrees at universities in all kinds of disciplines. Poor sportsmanship is universal, it seems. :smallannoyed:

[preserver3]

Well actually if the universe goes on for infinity then the center of it is indeterminate, not every point at once. But that's semantics.


The universe isn't infinite. Current theories state it started as a singularity or multiple singularities and expanded from a certain principle or multiple big bangs. Those big bangs occurred a finite time ago, thus the expansion has only achieved a finite distance comparable to the speed of light times the age of the universe.

That's assuming that space, as they now are arguing, is independent of time, which is a 2d concept relative only to itself.

[Don Julio Anejo]

"Never argue with a fool. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

I hate arguments (and conflicts too at that). I have no problems admitting I'm wrong, but as said, lots of people argue to win, they don't care who's right or not. About the only times I argue is when I'm 100% certain I'm right and it's for one reason or other important that other people see my point rather than someone else's. Otherwise I either dodge the argument, or if I'm forced into it, I act retarded to piss off the other guy and stop it as soon as possible.

[Emperor Demonking]

I love arguing. I love debating. What I hate are the people I usually have to argue with. It's okay if you play to win, but if you refuse to admit you can't win, then you're a waste of carbon, plain and simple. I let up when I'm wrong. I've never seen anyone else do so. Usually if they can't say anything more in their defense, they just stop arguing so that the debate never comes to a conclusion. It's like dropping out of a race and saying you neither won nor lost. Totally insane.

Oh, and plenty of self-proclaimed intellectuals do that. Don't think it's only stupid people. I'm talking people who have the ability and personality to pursue graduate degrees at universities in all kinds of disciplines. Poor sportsmanship is universal, it seems. :smallannoyed:

Issn't that more about opinion. A lot of people would say that by walking away they're admiting your right or you've beat them.

[Brickwall]

Issn't that more about opinion. A lot of people would say that by walking away they're admiting your right or you've beat them.

It's what they're letting happen. Being the overgrown children they are, though, they can't actually admit the fact to anyone, not even themselves. It's worse when people think they've won by not listening. Brainless bastards...

[Winterwind]

The universe isn't infinite. Current theories state it started as a singularity or multiple singularities and expanded from a certain principle or multiple big bangs. Those big bangs occurred a finite time ago, thus the expansion has only achieved a finite distance comparable to the speed of light times the age of the universe.

That's assuming that space, as they now are arguing, is independent of time, which is a 2d concept relative only to itself.The usual assumption is, however, that space itself expanded at a higher rate than that, and hence the Universe is larger than its age times light velocity. (Note, yes, this is allowed - nothing may move faster through space than light velocity, but space itself is allowed to expand faster than that)

[The Orange Zergling]

What I hate about arguments is that neither side will ever, ever admit they are wrong. They might say "I'm wrong, you're right" or whatever, but they still think they're right. The 'loser' is the one who says "This is stupid" and ends the thing.

Waste of time imo.

[Tormsskull]

What I hate about arguments is that neither side will ever, ever admit they are wrong.


That's not true. It all depends on what you are arguing about. See, I've lost several arguments. Like when I say "I like that song that goes blah blah blah" and someone else says "Mike, those aren't the real lyrics." And I say "They sure are!" And they say "No. Wanna bet?" And I say "Sure do!"

So then we look up the lyrics, I'm wrong, they're right, I grumble something nearly incomprehensible about me being wrong, pay them, and we move on.

When people argue about thoughts/ideas it is very difficult to PROVE that someone is wrong, though.

[Winterwind]

When people argue about thoughts/ideas it is very difficult to PROVE that someone is wrong, though.Still, it is possible.

For instance, when we argue about houserules, whether something is balanced or not, and which would be the best solution to the problem. It may take a while, but sooner or later, usually someone can present convincing arguments why to take one route instead of the other.

I readily admit though that there are a lot of stubborn, close-minded idiots upon this planet as well.

[Bor the Barbarian Monk]

Hello, kids. *waves* You friendly neighborhood barbarian monk here. I'm a bit wrapped up editing some writing I'm doing, so I must admit right out the gate that I haven't read the entire thread, even though it's so short.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...hmmm...that sounds familiar...anyway, I went to college. One of the very few classes that I actually enjoyed was a comminications course. I mean, how could you possibly dislike a course where you spend an entire class listening to the original radio broadcast of War of the Worlds? Our next class was spent discussing the various communication gimmicks used that made an entire populace believe we were experiencing an alien invasion. It was really cool. :smallcool:

It was in this class that I learned the difference between a fight and an argument. An argument usually involves two parties, both with a supportable point of view. They then discuss their varying points, with one side attempting to bring their opponent over to their side.

I fight is a very different creature. The varying sides are implacable. Shouting is involved. Violence sometimes comes into play. Things are often said that are later regretted.

I don't mind an argument, and often enjoy a good one when I engage intelligent folk in one. But fights...I hate those with a passion.

You may now resume arguing. :smallwink:

[preserver3]

The usual assumption is, however, that space itself expanded at a higher rate than that, and hence the Universe is larger than its age times light velocity. (Note, yes, this is allowed - nothing may move faster through space than light velocity, but space itself is allowed to expand faster than that)

That's why I added that last little caveat at the end.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe appears to show the possible interference of other universes upon the expansion of our own. Additionally, the current theory being advanced is that Time is simply a 2d linear concept independent of space. The warping of space has not been proven to exist in areas where matter does not exist so the assumption that space expanded beyond the expansion of the universe, seems to suggest that space would be infinite, when if there are other universes butting against ours, that would not necessarily be true.

Anyway, my point was to get someone to respond. the reason arguments continue on and on is that most arguments come with the desired goal to get the other person as well as the audience to think the way you want them to. Unfortunately, there's always a contrary opinion and we're almost instinctually drawn to conflict for a survivalist's reason: If most of us are wrong, those remaining behind who disagreed might have a chance to survive, if the decision we made kills all of the wrong ones.

[Tormsskull]

It may take a while, but sooner or later, usually someone can present convincing arguments why to take one route instead of the other.


Hmmm. But when you say convincing, do you mean convincing to the majority? Because that is one of the biggest issues when it comes to proving things.

As a hypothetical, let's say that I am Pro-Policy A. And I believe that the vast majority of posters here are Pro-Policy B (and thus Anti-Policy A IMO). Since I already am biased against Policy B, and I know the people I am arguing with are Pro-Policy B, I would take their input with less import than those who are neither Pro or Anti either, or those who are Pro-Policy A.

So if I submit an idea/thought on something, and 65% of posters disagree with me, I wouldn't necessarily think I am wrong due to the fact that I know they are biased in their thoughts. Therefore I would most definitely not admit that I was wrong.

So.... Yeah, confusing and all that, but I hope it kinda makes sense.

[Winterwind]

That's why I added that last little caveat at the end.I know; my post wasn't so much meant as to contradict you, but merely to expand on the information you presented to any reader of your post.


Anyway, my point was to get someone to respond. the reason arguments continue on and on is that most arguments come with the desired goal to get the other person as well as the audience to think the way you want them to. Unfortunately, there's always a contrary opinion and we're almost instinctually drawn to conflict for a survivalist's reason: If most of us are wrong, those remaining behind who disagreed might have a chance to survive, if the decision we made kills all of the wrong ones.That's an interesting theory why people might have an incentive as to not be swayed from their possibly wrong opinion.


Hmmm. But when you say convincing, do you mean convincing to the majority? Because that is one of the biggest issues when it comes to proving things.No, I actually meant that if two people with opposed opinions debate, it is a perfectly common event that one presents arguments or proof sufficient to sway the other person to their opinion. I merely wanted to point out that this foolish stubbornness and utter refusal to admit they are wrong so many people complained about in this thread so far may be common, but by no means mandatory.


So.... Yeah, confusing and all that, but I hope it kinda makes sense.Perfectly, but being in a minority should not influence one's opinions anyway. Logic and arguments should.

[Iudex Fatarum]

is it just me or do most people think that in an argument a side is neither right nor wrong. it seems most believe one side is right and the other is wrong. if one is wrong then why is the person arguing passionatly about it? and if they are right is the other side wrong and as such why argue again?

quote "those convinced against their will, hold their origonal opinion still" not sure where from but not I who made this

[The_Chilli_God]

I once argued for a good ten minutes that 1000^0=0, even though I remembered that is really equals 0 about five seconds after I said it.

I hate arguments, even though they are so incredibly addictive. Especially arguments over the internet where anonymity gives you a confidence boost.
But it is bad, because there is so much emotion that you could have used to drive home your point, that is stripped away from the text that you type. Which leaves only emboldened and large-size letters with several exclamation marks. Nowhere near as effective as an intimidating visage and extraordinarily loud shouting.

That, and arguments (or any sort of conflict with another human being) leave me with a sore tummy, swollen from anger and fear and the realization that I'm getting angry and/or fearful.
That's bad, because I hate being angry, which often happens to me during arguments. It's just one step closer to being furious. And that tends to lead to rage.

[Semidi]

I love to argue. People around me get really annoyed by it a lot of times. They all know when to get clear when I say something like:

"Well, that's not necessarily true because it could be a problem of correlation not equating causation. Here's an ulterior..."

This is when they stop me and tell me to quit being so argumentative.

I love being right, but I'd like to think that I'm OK with admitting I'm incorrect about something. As one of my philosophy teachers once said, "When someone proves you wrong, shake their hand and thank them, for they've just done you one of the greatest services possible." It’s also one of the hardest things possible to admit that you’re wrong or to admit that your argument is faulty.

Avoiding the continuous argument is solved by all parties having some knowledge of common logical fallacies and correct deductive or inductive form. This way the two parties have concrete platforms. It also helps to have people who are discussing rational hypotheses rather than irrational beliefs.

[Brickwall]

Hmmm. But when you say convincing, do you mean convincing to the majority? Because that is one of the biggest issues when it comes to proving things.

As a hypothetical, let's say that I am Pro-Policy A. And I believe that the vast majority of posters here are Pro-Policy B (and thus Anti-Policy A IMO). Since I already am biased against Policy B, and I know the people I am arguing with are Pro-Policy B, I would take their input with less import than those who are neither Pro or Anti either, or those who are Pro-Policy A.

So...wait...let me get this straight.

When someone disagrees with you, you just automatically think that they're less capable of reasoning than you, whether or not you've heard them argue their point? Your only basis for listening to their opinion less is that they disagree with you?

You can't make it sound like a good thing. :smallannoyed:

[Telonius]

So...wait...let me get this straight.

When someone disagrees with you, you just automatically think that they're less capable of reasoning than you, whether or not you've heard them argue their point? Your only basis for listening to their opinion less is that they disagree with you?

You can't make it sound like a good thing. :smallannoyed:

Whether or not it's good, it is. Before any discussion starts, people have a bunch of opinions that they've (presumably) thought about. They have those opinions because they think the opinions are right. If they thought those opinions were wrong, they'd have different opinions.

So, if I have an opinion that I've thought out and think is right, and somebody else has a different opinion, how do I account for that contrary opinion? Four things come to mind. One, that the opponent is not as smart as I am. He's not as able to make logical conclusions. Two, that the opponent does not have access to the same information as I do. He's wrong because he has bad or incomplete information. Three, that I'm not as smart as my opponent is. Four, that my opponent has information that I don't.

Most people assume 1 or 2 (or both) is true, and discount 3 and 4 until proven otherwise. Note that none of the four options necessarily exclude each other. (1 and 3 might, but it's possible that both people are making logical errors in different ways). Any or all of them might actually be the case.

[Brickwall]

I only go into an argument to find out any of those, I don't assume. If I had some idea of what they knew or thought, the argument would not be necessary, or at least I would be able to clear past those points anyway.

Seriously, any time you presume someone's knowledge, sources, or logic pattern, you will probably be wrong, unless you have some direct observation of them.

There is also the issue that many people, in fact, all of us at some level, have opinions that we have never, ever thought about. I couldn't hope to question all the things drilled into my head between when I was born and when I stopped trusting people automatically. And sometimes, you may acquire an opinion when someone does your thinking for you in a speech or other presentation of an opinion. Now, if I do discover that someone has acquired their opinion after being able to think about it but without thinking about it, I will question their intelligence, but it would be foolish to automatically assume that's how they got their opinion.

And, lastly, occasionally neither party has any supporting information or or logic. Haven't you ever argued about what to name something? Did you want to call a cat Bart and your sister wanted to call it Poe? Is she any less logical than you for wanting to name it that? Are her mental facilities not as good as yours because she thought of a different name? It's still an opinion after all.

Don't assume. It doesn't work.