Re: Two braindead morons debate the best methods of debate
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2018 12:21 am
@Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz You have been replaced with a superior version, it was non negotiable
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Also, secondly, in the real world, debates aren't about the truth.
Red
Yes, they are.
If it's just about one party winning, it isn't a debate worth having.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, they aren't. People don't care about the truth in this day and age of alternative facts and fake news. People care about who has the greatest charisma and can use rhetoric to swing people towards their viewpoint. Those are the people who win debates, not those with the facts and logic.
Red
Doesn't change the purpose of a debate.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
The purpose of a debate is irrelevant if it can't be fulfilled.
Red
At which point it isn't really a debate
If a debate is about winning, again, it isn't a debate worth having
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well sure, in the same way that the USSR and Maoist China weren't really communistic, however, every debate nowadays is about winning just like every example of communism has ended with death and misery.
Red
Social norms are irrelevant
So wait
Are you saying you're more concerned with winning than the truth?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes. How can you spread the truth without winning? What is the point of having the facts on your side if nobody will believe them?
Red
This is true, but you're wrong in this case, and you're more spreading falsehoods than truth.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Doesn't matter. If I'm using rhetoric that will rile people up and get them excited and marching in the streets, it is irrelevant whether the truth is on my side.
Red
So you're not concerned with doing the most good? That's how the Holocaust happened.
btw I made a new forum post
Zzzzzzzzzzz
The Holocaust happened because those who opposed the Nazis didn't have a charismatic enough figure to oppose Hitler. They were too concerned with facts and morals to realize that the average German John Doe doesn't care about the truth or morality. He cares about rhetoric. You need a figure with rhetoric if you want to win. Evil people such as Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler and Bin Laden understood this. They were defeated by people who also understood this. If we want to actually get people to believe the facts, we must not waste time putting forward the evidence. We need to appeal to people's feelings and emotions. Then we can get shit done.
Red
It still happened though.
You focus on rhetoric against the facts and evidence, rhetoric wins
Zzzzzzzzzzz
And it could have been prevented from happening if the opposing side had better rhetoric.
Red
It can be used for good, depending on the situation, but I'm not focused on rhetoric. Who exactly are you trying to rally when you're arguing that social sciences are hard sciences?
And for what useful cause?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
If you're trying to figure out what your own viewpoint should be, then absolutely, do not focus on rhetoric then listening to other people. However, if you're tying to rally people to your viewpoint, then not focusing on rhetoric is a massive mistake as most people don't care about the facts and only care about rhetoric and appeals to emotion. Who exactly am I trying to rally? Everybody. For what useful cause? The useful cause of believing that the distinction between hard and soft science is arbitrary.
Red
So you're not concerned with facts and evidence to promote something, just rhetoric?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Absolutely. Because other people aren't concerned. Do you want to win other people over, or not?
Red
Yes.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
If you want to win other people over, then when debating, the facts do not matter.
Red
Do you focus on rhetoric when it comes to your politics?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
When determining my own political views, no. When trying to win other people over to my political views, yes.
Red
Of course facts matter, and we should be applying scientific standards to politics and other social sciences
Zzzzzzzzzzz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8NydsXl32s
YouTube
truTV
Adam Ruins Everything - Why Proving Someone Wrong Often Backfires ...
Relevant video
Red
I know what the backfire effect is
It makes someone more fervent in their beliefs
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yep. So you see how far facts and evidence will get you when trying to change other people's minds lol.
Red
True, true, but psychology (a soft science) has actually figured out a way to change people's minds with facts (also, not to mention, how can you be so sure that the same thing won't happen when you apply rhetoric?).
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well, when I watched the episode of Adam Ruins Everything, it explained at the end of this segment how rhetoric is effective. And I thought you said soft sciences were unreliable because they were prone to biases? Now you support them when they support your viewpoint? Anyway, what is the way to change people's minds according to psychology which switches between being reliable and unreliable depending on your mood?
Red
Well, first of all, I'm using a psychology study since you're also using psychology. So, if you want to be fair, you have to apply the same standard.
brb]\
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I've already explained how I agree with you that soft sciences are prone to bias. Where we differ is on my belief that hard sciences are equally prone to bias. Anyway, I haven't rejected this psychological study because I don't even know what it is yet.
Brb also.
Red
I was mostly referring to you saying since I thought psychology is biased (which is sometimes) I'm only relying on it when it fits my viewpoint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA783XpBx1A
YouTube
Bite Size Psych
Who do we discriminate against the most?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Ok, so 1 minute and 5 seconds in and one of the studies cited is already flawed. It supposedly shows that people are biased against those who don't share their political ideology. All it really shows is that people are more biased against those who don't share their political ideology than they are to people who don't share their gender, race or religion.
Ok 1 minute and 18 seconds in and he's sort of acknowledged this.
Red
He was addressing how political bias is more prevalent than something like racism or homophobia.
But what I was referring to is near the end of the video
Zzzzzzzzzzz
That's my point. It's common sense that it is more prevalent than racism or homophobia. I don't need a study to show me that. That still doesn't prove political bias is prevalent. Just that it's more prevalent than racism.
Red
I wouldn't say it's common sense.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Anyway, you can give me a timestamp if you want. And yes it is common sense. How socially acceptable do you think it would be to say "I hate liberals" or "I hate conservatives" or "I hate socialists" compared to "I hate blacks" or "I hate gays" or "I hate Jews"?
Red
Common sense =/= right sense
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well it's both.
Red
wait so wouldn't you say this is an argument in my favour?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Why?
Red
Social sciences are biased (which you agree with) but harder sciences, such as physics and chemistry, are not
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Harder sciences haven't even been mentioned, so I'm not sure how this could be an argument in your favour.
Red
In terms of what we were arguing about before
You know, when you said even the harder sciences can be biased
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, and again, they haven't been mentioned in the video or in our discussion since I started watching the video, so I don't see how this could be an argument in your favour.
Red
This isn't relating to the whole rhetoric debacle
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I haven't mentioned rhetoric. Are you trolling?
Red
Then why do you think I showed you the video? Have you forgotten so quickly?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I mean I haven't mentioned rhetoric since you started talking about the harder sciences just now. You appear to think that I have misunderstood you. I haven't. What is it in the video that you think proves that the harder sciences aren't biased?
Red
How could you have forgotten?
That fast?
I'll get a timestamp
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I didn't forget. Did you even read the first sentence of what I wrote just then?
Red
skip to 6:00
Zzzzzzzzzzz
"I mean I haven't mentioned rhetoric since you started talking about the harder sciences just now. "
Red
yes, you have
scroll up
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You mean when I wrote "I haven't mentioned rhetoric. Are you trolling?"?
You're counting that?!
Red
Am I?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Are you?!
Because there's nowhere else where I mentioned rhetoric!!!
Before the video, I mean.
Since I know I have to spell this out to you.
Red
btw where in the adam ruins everything video does it mention rhetoric
Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's in the full episode I think. An expert is brought in.
Red
An expert social scientist?
:sagan:
Zzzzzzzzzzz
He says sort of similar things to what the guy in the video is saying, which really only proves my point. The guy in the video is saying you must use rhetoric that relates to their political alignments if you want to change their minds. Not to use facts or evidence. And I can't remember what he was an expert in.
:sagan:
Red
So what if they don't listen to rhetoric that doesn't fall in line with their political ideals?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Keep relying on rhetoric and emotion for your argument, and only if that fails should you resort to facts and evidence.
Red
But I thought facts and evidence don't work?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
They work for some people, but not for the majority.
The vast majority.
Red
Well, we'd need a parameter or some kind of statistic for this. We'd need find out if this is more prevalent among liberals, conservatives, or both. And did you watch the video I sent you?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Like I've literally been commentating on it. I have to ask again, are you trolling?
Red
I think you are
Zzzzzzzzzzz
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Red
I think you're actually Jebus
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Can you please explain to me why you had to ask me if I watched the video I was literally commentating on?
Red
i was referring to the part of the video told you about
the 6 minute mark?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Which I was also literally commentating on?
At 18:54 - "He says sort of similar things to what the guy in the video is saying, which really only proves my point. The guy in the video is saying you must use rhetoric that relates to their political alignments if you want to change their minds. Not to use facts or evidence. And I can't remember what he was an expert in."
Red
He didn't say anything about rhetoric
Zzzzzzzzzzz
He never said the word "rhetoric".
Very different to not saying anything about rhetoric.
Red
He didn't even imply it
watch it again
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Rhetoric logically follows from appealing to a person's political ideology. Are you going to appeal to conservatives while talking about eating the rich?
Red
What are you talking about? That's not what he said in the video.
The studies showed the participants views that go against their own
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You're talking about a completely different part of the video now.
Red
I don't think you watched the whole thing
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Of course I didn't! You told me to skip to 6 minutes!!
Red
Yes, and what you're talking about isn't implied in those last few moments
or discussed, rather, not implied
I don't think you watched it to the end, I just think you watched about 45 seconds
not even
Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's not discussed outright, but that's because the video isn't made for people who can't pick up on subtleties and need everything shoved in their faces. The man in the video talks about people trying to change people's minds through appealing to their political ideologies. For instance, trying to change people's minds on abortion by calling themselves "Pro-life feminists". Now, are you saying that these "Pro-life feminists" aren't going to try to change feminists' minds on abortion by using feminist rhetoric? Because that is frankly absurd. And no, I didn't watch to the end. At what point does he start to talk about how facts and evidence can change people's minds? Because it sure ain't at the 6 minute mark!!
Red
I started at the 6 minute mark for context
So, go watch to the end
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Okie dokie, but the "context" so far appears to be in my favour.
Well literally the only bit I missed was his conclusion, which wasn't really placing any arguments forward.
Red
Have you forgotten what we were discussing?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, I have not. And that question shows that you seem to be valuing rhetoric over substance already, proving me correct.
Red
So you have? You said only rhetoric will be effective at changing minds in most cases, while I said that, when in the right context, facts and evidence will work just as well.
the same guy also has a related video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-Y
YouTube
Bite Size Psych
Why internet arguments are useless and how to start winning arguments
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Once again, proving me correct. I literally just said that I haven't and talked about rhetoric vs evidence. Then, you, rather than addressing what I actually wrote, acted as if I hadn't wrote it and explained what I already wrote. And in the right context?! In the right context?! The context of appealing to emotion and rhetoric!
Boy, am I watching a lot of videos today.
Red
So then what were we discussing?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I literally just wrote a detailed three lines explaining what we were discussing! You're already attempting to appeal to rhetoric that is meant to be snarky, but is failing on every level. But nevertheless, you're proving me correct by appealing to rhetoric and to emotion rather than addressing what I actually said.
Red
Well, perhaps I have forgotten. Perhaps refresh my memory?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You want me to copy and paste what I literally just wrote to you a few minutes ago?
Red
Sure
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Once again, proving me correct. I literally just said that I haven't and talked about rhetoric vs evidence. Then, you, rather than addressing what I actually wrote, acted as if I hadn't wrote it and explained what I already wrote. And in the right context?! In the right context?! The context of appealing to emotion and rhetoric!
Also, come on now.
"Well, perhaps I have forgotten. Perhaps refresh my memory?"
Is that evidence or rhetoric?
Red
It's neither (false dichotomy), and weren't we discussing the effectiveness of rhetoric in terms of convincing people? Why do you think I sent you that video?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I literally just said we were discussing that. And it was very clearly rhetoric.
Red
Are you trolling?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Are you asking me that because I asked you that?
This is playground debate.
Like a toddler yelling "I know you are but what am I!" over and over again
Red
No, because I think you've completely missed the point. Or, at least, one of us have.
Are you trying to reaffirm the backfire effect?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
That question has no substance. It is meant to be rhetoric in order to insult.
Red
Alright, well then nevermind then.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
More rhetoric yet again.
Why rely on something you claim doesn't work?
Red
Do you even know what rhetoric is? I'm not using rhetoric to convince you.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's not convincing to me, but you are stylising yourself as if you are talking to somebody who knows nothing and this can work at convincing outsiders. For instance "Do you even know what rhetoric is?".
And I already know what your response you are typing is: "I'm only stylising myself as if I'm talking to somebody who knows nothing because I am talking to somebody who knows nothing!" Again, more rhetoric, emotion, language tricks and appeals to humour. No substance.
Red
How is this rhetoric?
How is, what I was saying, rhetoric?
I wasn't using it to try to convince you.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, but you're using it to convince somebody.
Red
No, I am not.
You're accusing me of things
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Anyway, rhetoric is (from Google) the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. It says nothing about necessarily being used to convince somebody. But nevertheless that is what you are doing because nobody would use language that is meant to sound convincing if they weren't attempting to convince somebody. And no, I am not accusing you of things. I am accusing you of one thing. Singular!
Red
What specifically is something I said was rhetoric, and how is it so?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
There's a name for all the type of questions you asked me such as "Do you even know what rhetoric is?" and "Are you trying to reaffirm the backfire effect?". Do you want to know what the name of that type of question is?
Hint: I'm using the same type of question right now.
Red
Ok, how is it rhetoric? And do you have proof I was using it as rhetoric?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Secretary Red
It's called a rhetorical question.
Red
I didn't ask them rhetorically.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You mean you intended me to answer every one of them?
Red
Yes. Why the hell else would I ask them?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
To make a point?
Red
How would those be making points?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well let's start by using the rhetorical question you used just then. This is not a question I am meant to answer. It is rather a statement rephrased. The statement being "Those questions are not making points". However, this does not work as well rhetorically as a question especially one that is written in italics. If you really want to demonstrate that you eschew rhetoric, then perhaps stop asking questions for what could easily be said in statements.
Red
I didn't ask that rhetorically either.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You sure did. Hence why you are making a point here which I am going to respond to, rather than a question which would be "How did I ask that rhetorically?" which you wouldn't made if I hadn't called you out for making statements and phrasing them as questions. Nevertheless, your claims that you aren't saying these things rhetorically don't work so well when you're literally putting what you say in italics in order to place emphasis on what you are saying.
Red
I am not asking these questions to be rhetorical, I am asking them because I want an answer.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
And of course it is impossible to get an answer from me without asking a question. Hence why I am not responding to your statement that you have made just now.
Red
I'm pretty sure you just don't want to answer my questions.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Is that substance? Is that evidence? Or is it rhetoric? (And also an accusation - the very thing you chided me for making about you).
Red
Or, if you actually do think it's rhetoric, instead of dismissing it because you feel as though it's rhetoric, you can address it in an organized matter.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I have addressed it. Your opinion is that rhetoric does not work in an argument and that we should rely upon logic and reason, but you've already debunked yourself by relying so much on rhetoric in this argument.
And as for this: "I'm pretty sure you just don't want to answer my questions."
Red
No, you did not.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
If that's how I felt, I wouldn't have answered the damn things.
But they weren't questions, they were statements.
Red
No, they were questions.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, which is why they all could have easily been reworked into statements and why you kept putting them into italics in order to make them look as if they had substance.
Red
I put statements in italics to show that I'm getting increasingly frustrated, and it wouldn't make any sense to put questions into statements.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
It wouldn't have made any sense to write "How would those be making points?" as "Those questions are not making points."? And your putting statements into italics to show that you're getting increasingly frustrated is not necessary. It does not add to the argument. It only works as rhetoric as if to say to those outside of the debate 'Gee whiz, fellas, can you believe the stupidity I have to deal with?'. This is not evidence. This is its own form of an appeal to emotion!!
Red
If I were to write 'Those questions are not making points' I wouldn't understand why you think that, which I why I asked it.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes you would understand why I would think that, because the only response to that statement is an explanation of why I thought the questions were making points. Hence why you didn't need to phrase your statement as "If I were to write 'Those questions are not making points' would I understand why you think that? Can't you that that is why I asked it?". I was already able to answer it despite it being a statement. Also, nice job responding to my point about the italics.
Red
I don't really give a shit about your rhetoric about italics. Why does it matter whether or not to put it in a question? I felt as though it was easier. If you didn't know if it was asked rhetorically or not, then you should've asked me, or just answer it as if it were a normal question to be safe.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
How is it easier to add it two *s to your questions? It's more time and energy consuming to do that. And I didn't know that the questions were being asked rhetorically, in the same way that I don't know that the person sending me emails about wanting to transfer money into my bank account really is a scammer. However, in both cases, it's plain enough to see what the true intentions of the person in question are. There is enough evidence to believe that you were asking these questions rhetorically.
Red
If you were to ask me if I asked them rhetorically, what would the risk be?
And no, time consumption is subjective.
can we just agree to disagree? this is wasting a lot of time and we seem to be angry with each other
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Firstly, there's no risk. It's just pointless. You aren't going to answer "yes" to me asking you whether they are rhetorical, otherwise you would admit that you are using something which you claim to be above. You would obviously answer "no". And why should I take your word for that? Secondly, time consumption is subjective? It's pretty objectively provable that writing a statement with two asterisks in it consumes more time than the same person writing the same statement in the same way but without the two asterisks. Thirdly, if time consumption is subjective, why would you care about this "wasting a lot of time"? Fourthly, I'm not angry with you. I'm just disappointed. Finally, we can agree to disagree, but I want to get some of the thoughts of the people on the forum because I reckon they'll have interesting takes on it. I'm going to post a transcript of what we've written in order to get their thoughts on it.
Red
sure
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Also, secondly, in the real world, debates aren't about the truth.
Red
Yes, they are.
If it's just about one party winning, it isn't a debate worth having.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, they aren't. People don't care about the truth in this day and age of alternative facts and fake news. People care about who has the greatest charisma and can use rhetoric to swing people towards their viewpoint. Those are the people who win debates, not those with the facts and logic.
Red
Doesn't change the purpose of a debate.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
The purpose of a debate is irrelevant if it can't be fulfilled.
Red
At which point it isn't really a debate
If a debate is about winning, again, it isn't a debate worth having
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well sure, in the same way that the USSR and Maoist China weren't really communistic, however, every debate nowadays is about winning just like every example of communism has ended with death and misery.
Red
Social norms are irrelevant
So wait
Are you saying you're more concerned with winning than the truth?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes. How can you spread the truth without winning? What is the point of having the facts on your side if nobody will believe them?
Red
This is true, but you're wrong in this case, and you're more spreading falsehoods than truth.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Doesn't matter. If I'm using rhetoric that will rile people up and get them excited and marching in the streets, it is irrelevant whether the truth is on my side.
Red
So you're not concerned with doing the most good? That's how the Holocaust happened.
btw I made a new forum post
Zzzzzzzzzzz
The Holocaust happened because those who opposed the Nazis didn't have a charismatic enough figure to oppose Hitler. They were too concerned with facts and morals to realize that the average German John Doe doesn't care about the truth or morality. He cares about rhetoric. You need a figure with rhetoric if you want to win. Evil people such as Lenin, Mussolini, Hitler and Bin Laden understood this. They were defeated by people who also understood this. If we want to actually get people to believe the facts, we must not waste time putting forward the evidence. We need to appeal to people's feelings and emotions. Then we can get shit done.
Red
It still happened though.
You focus on rhetoric against the facts and evidence, rhetoric wins
Zzzzzzzzzzz
And it could have been prevented from happening if the opposing side had better rhetoric.
Red
It can be used for good, depending on the situation, but I'm not focused on rhetoric. Who exactly are you trying to rally when you're arguing that social sciences are hard sciences?
And for what useful cause?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
If you're trying to figure out what your own viewpoint should be, then absolutely, do not focus on rhetoric then listening to other people. However, if you're tying to rally people to your viewpoint, then not focusing on rhetoric is a massive mistake as most people don't care about the facts and only care about rhetoric and appeals to emotion. Who exactly am I trying to rally? Everybody. For what useful cause? The useful cause of believing that the distinction between hard and soft science is arbitrary.
Red
So you're not concerned with facts and evidence to promote something, just rhetoric?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Absolutely. Because other people aren't concerned. Do you want to win other people over, or not?
Red
Yes.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
If you want to win other people over, then when debating, the facts do not matter.
Red
Do you focus on rhetoric when it comes to your politics?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
When determining my own political views, no. When trying to win other people over to my political views, yes.
Red
Of course facts matter, and we should be applying scientific standards to politics and other social sciences
Zzzzzzzzzzz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8NydsXl32s
YouTube
truTV
Adam Ruins Everything - Why Proving Someone Wrong Often Backfires ...
Relevant video
Red
I know what the backfire effect is
It makes someone more fervent in their beliefs
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yep. So you see how far facts and evidence will get you when trying to change other people's minds lol.
Red
True, true, but psychology (a soft science) has actually figured out a way to change people's minds with facts (also, not to mention, how can you be so sure that the same thing won't happen when you apply rhetoric?).
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well, when I watched the episode of Adam Ruins Everything, it explained at the end of this segment how rhetoric is effective. And I thought you said soft sciences were unreliable because they were prone to biases? Now you support them when they support your viewpoint? Anyway, what is the way to change people's minds according to psychology which switches between being reliable and unreliable depending on your mood?
Red
Well, first of all, I'm using a psychology study since you're also using psychology. So, if you want to be fair, you have to apply the same standard.
brb]\
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I've already explained how I agree with you that soft sciences are prone to bias. Where we differ is on my belief that hard sciences are equally prone to bias. Anyway, I haven't rejected this psychological study because I don't even know what it is yet.
Brb also.
Red
I was mostly referring to you saying since I thought psychology is biased (which is sometimes) I'm only relying on it when it fits my viewpoint
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QA783XpBx1A
YouTube
Bite Size Psych
Who do we discriminate against the most?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Ok, so 1 minute and 5 seconds in and one of the studies cited is already flawed. It supposedly shows that people are biased against those who don't share their political ideology. All it really shows is that people are more biased against those who don't share their political ideology than they are to people who don't share their gender, race or religion.
Ok 1 minute and 18 seconds in and he's sort of acknowledged this.
Red
He was addressing how political bias is more prevalent than something like racism or homophobia.
But what I was referring to is near the end of the video
Zzzzzzzzzzz
That's my point. It's common sense that it is more prevalent than racism or homophobia. I don't need a study to show me that. That still doesn't prove political bias is prevalent. Just that it's more prevalent than racism.
Red
I wouldn't say it's common sense.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Anyway, you can give me a timestamp if you want. And yes it is common sense. How socially acceptable do you think it would be to say "I hate liberals" or "I hate conservatives" or "I hate socialists" compared to "I hate blacks" or "I hate gays" or "I hate Jews"?
Red
Common sense =/= right sense
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well it's both.
Red
wait so wouldn't you say this is an argument in my favour?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Why?
Red
Social sciences are biased (which you agree with) but harder sciences, such as physics and chemistry, are not
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Harder sciences haven't even been mentioned, so I'm not sure how this could be an argument in your favour.
Red
In terms of what we were arguing about before
You know, when you said even the harder sciences can be biased
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, and again, they haven't been mentioned in the video or in our discussion since I started watching the video, so I don't see how this could be an argument in your favour.
Red
This isn't relating to the whole rhetoric debacle
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I haven't mentioned rhetoric. Are you trolling?
Red
Then why do you think I showed you the video? Have you forgotten so quickly?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I mean I haven't mentioned rhetoric since you started talking about the harder sciences just now. You appear to think that I have misunderstood you. I haven't. What is it in the video that you think proves that the harder sciences aren't biased?
Red
How could you have forgotten?
That fast?
I'll get a timestamp
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I didn't forget. Did you even read the first sentence of what I wrote just then?
Red
skip to 6:00
Zzzzzzzzzzz
"I mean I haven't mentioned rhetoric since you started talking about the harder sciences just now. "
Red
yes, you have
scroll up
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You mean when I wrote "I haven't mentioned rhetoric. Are you trolling?"?
You're counting that?!
Red
Am I?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Are you?!
Because there's nowhere else where I mentioned rhetoric!!!
Before the video, I mean.
Since I know I have to spell this out to you.
Red
btw where in the adam ruins everything video does it mention rhetoric
Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's in the full episode I think. An expert is brought in.
Red
An expert social scientist?
:sagan:
Zzzzzzzzzzz
He says sort of similar things to what the guy in the video is saying, which really only proves my point. The guy in the video is saying you must use rhetoric that relates to their political alignments if you want to change their minds. Not to use facts or evidence. And I can't remember what he was an expert in.
:sagan:
Red
So what if they don't listen to rhetoric that doesn't fall in line with their political ideals?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Keep relying on rhetoric and emotion for your argument, and only if that fails should you resort to facts and evidence.
Red
But I thought facts and evidence don't work?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
They work for some people, but not for the majority.
The vast majority.
Red
Well, we'd need a parameter or some kind of statistic for this. We'd need find out if this is more prevalent among liberals, conservatives, or both. And did you watch the video I sent you?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Like I've literally been commentating on it. I have to ask again, are you trolling?
Red
I think you are
Zzzzzzzzzzz
"I know you are, but what am I?"
Red
I think you're actually Jebus
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Can you please explain to me why you had to ask me if I watched the video I was literally commentating on?
Red
i was referring to the part of the video told you about
the 6 minute mark?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Which I was also literally commentating on?
At 18:54 - "He says sort of similar things to what the guy in the video is saying, which really only proves my point. The guy in the video is saying you must use rhetoric that relates to their political alignments if you want to change their minds. Not to use facts or evidence. And I can't remember what he was an expert in."
Red
He didn't say anything about rhetoric
Zzzzzzzzzzz
He never said the word "rhetoric".
Very different to not saying anything about rhetoric.
Red
He didn't even imply it
watch it again
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Rhetoric logically follows from appealing to a person's political ideology. Are you going to appeal to conservatives while talking about eating the rich?
Red
What are you talking about? That's not what he said in the video.
The studies showed the participants views that go against their own
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You're talking about a completely different part of the video now.
Red
I don't think you watched the whole thing
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Of course I didn't! You told me to skip to 6 minutes!!
Red
Yes, and what you're talking about isn't implied in those last few moments
or discussed, rather, not implied
I don't think you watched it to the end, I just think you watched about 45 seconds
not even
Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's not discussed outright, but that's because the video isn't made for people who can't pick up on subtleties and need everything shoved in their faces. The man in the video talks about people trying to change people's minds through appealing to their political ideologies. For instance, trying to change people's minds on abortion by calling themselves "Pro-life feminists". Now, are you saying that these "Pro-life feminists" aren't going to try to change feminists' minds on abortion by using feminist rhetoric? Because that is frankly absurd. And no, I didn't watch to the end. At what point does he start to talk about how facts and evidence can change people's minds? Because it sure ain't at the 6 minute mark!!
Red
I started at the 6 minute mark for context
So, go watch to the end
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Okie dokie, but the "context" so far appears to be in my favour.
Well literally the only bit I missed was his conclusion, which wasn't really placing any arguments forward.
Red
Have you forgotten what we were discussing?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, I have not. And that question shows that you seem to be valuing rhetoric over substance already, proving me correct.
Red
So you have? You said only rhetoric will be effective at changing minds in most cases, while I said that, when in the right context, facts and evidence will work just as well.
the same guy also has a related video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-Y
YouTube
Bite Size Psych
Why internet arguments are useless and how to start winning arguments
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Once again, proving me correct. I literally just said that I haven't and talked about rhetoric vs evidence. Then, you, rather than addressing what I actually wrote, acted as if I hadn't wrote it and explained what I already wrote. And in the right context?! In the right context?! The context of appealing to emotion and rhetoric!
Boy, am I watching a lot of videos today.
Red
So then what were we discussing?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I literally just wrote a detailed three lines explaining what we were discussing! You're already attempting to appeal to rhetoric that is meant to be snarky, but is failing on every level. But nevertheless, you're proving me correct by appealing to rhetoric and to emotion rather than addressing what I actually said.
Red
Well, perhaps I have forgotten. Perhaps refresh my memory?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You want me to copy and paste what I literally just wrote to you a few minutes ago?
Red
Sure
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Once again, proving me correct. I literally just said that I haven't and talked about rhetoric vs evidence. Then, you, rather than addressing what I actually wrote, acted as if I hadn't wrote it and explained what I already wrote. And in the right context?! In the right context?! The context of appealing to emotion and rhetoric!
Also, come on now.
"Well, perhaps I have forgotten. Perhaps refresh my memory?"
Is that evidence or rhetoric?
Red
It's neither (false dichotomy), and weren't we discussing the effectiveness of rhetoric in terms of convincing people? Why do you think I sent you that video?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I literally just said we were discussing that. And it was very clearly rhetoric.
Red
Are you trolling?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Are you asking me that because I asked you that?
This is playground debate.
Like a toddler yelling "I know you are but what am I!" over and over again
Red
No, because I think you've completely missed the point. Or, at least, one of us have.
Are you trying to reaffirm the backfire effect?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
That question has no substance. It is meant to be rhetoric in order to insult.
Red
Alright, well then nevermind then.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
More rhetoric yet again.
Why rely on something you claim doesn't work?
Red
Do you even know what rhetoric is? I'm not using rhetoric to convince you.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
It's not convincing to me, but you are stylising yourself as if you are talking to somebody who knows nothing and this can work at convincing outsiders. For instance "Do you even know what rhetoric is?".
And I already know what your response you are typing is: "I'm only stylising myself as if I'm talking to somebody who knows nothing because I am talking to somebody who knows nothing!" Again, more rhetoric, emotion, language tricks and appeals to humour. No substance.
Red
How is this rhetoric?
How is, what I was saying, rhetoric?
I wasn't using it to try to convince you.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
No, but you're using it to convince somebody.
Red
No, I am not.
You're accusing me of things
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Anyway, rhetoric is (from Google) the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the exploitation of figures of speech and other compositional techniques. It says nothing about necessarily being used to convince somebody. But nevertheless that is what you are doing because nobody would use language that is meant to sound convincing if they weren't attempting to convince somebody. And no, I am not accusing you of things. I am accusing you of one thing. Singular!
Red
What specifically is something I said was rhetoric, and how is it so?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
There's a name for all the type of questions you asked me such as "Do you even know what rhetoric is?" and "Are you trying to reaffirm the backfire effect?". Do you want to know what the name of that type of question is?
Hint: I'm using the same type of question right now.
Red
Ok, how is it rhetoric? And do you have proof I was using it as rhetoric?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Secretary Red
It's called a rhetorical question.
Red
I didn't ask them rhetorically.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You mean you intended me to answer every one of them?
Red
Yes. Why the hell else would I ask them?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
To make a point?
Red
How would those be making points?
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Well let's start by using the rhetorical question you used just then. This is not a question I am meant to answer. It is rather a statement rephrased. The statement being "Those questions are not making points". However, this does not work as well rhetorically as a question especially one that is written in italics. If you really want to demonstrate that you eschew rhetoric, then perhaps stop asking questions for what could easily be said in statements.
Red
I didn't ask that rhetorically either.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
You sure did. Hence why you are making a point here which I am going to respond to, rather than a question which would be "How did I ask that rhetorically?" which you wouldn't made if I hadn't called you out for making statements and phrasing them as questions. Nevertheless, your claims that you aren't saying these things rhetorically don't work so well when you're literally putting what you say in italics in order to place emphasis on what you are saying.
Red
I am not asking these questions to be rhetorical, I am asking them because I want an answer.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
And of course it is impossible to get an answer from me without asking a question. Hence why I am not responding to your statement that you have made just now.
Red
I'm pretty sure you just don't want to answer my questions.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Is that substance? Is that evidence? Or is it rhetoric? (And also an accusation - the very thing you chided me for making about you).
Red
Or, if you actually do think it's rhetoric, instead of dismissing it because you feel as though it's rhetoric, you can address it in an organized matter.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
I have addressed it. Your opinion is that rhetoric does not work in an argument and that we should rely upon logic and reason, but you've already debunked yourself by relying so much on rhetoric in this argument.
And as for this: "I'm pretty sure you just don't want to answer my questions."
Red
No, you did not.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
If that's how I felt, I wouldn't have answered the damn things.
But they weren't questions, they were statements.
Red
No, they were questions.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, which is why they all could have easily been reworked into statements and why you kept putting them into italics in order to make them look as if they had substance.
Red
I put statements in italics to show that I'm getting increasingly frustrated, and it wouldn't make any sense to put questions into statements.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
It wouldn't have made any sense to write "How would those be making points?" as "Those questions are not making points."? And your putting statements into italics to show that you're getting increasingly frustrated is not necessary. It does not add to the argument. It only works as rhetoric as if to say to those outside of the debate 'Gee whiz, fellas, can you believe the stupidity I have to deal with?'. This is not evidence. This is its own form of an appeal to emotion!!
Red
If I were to write 'Those questions are not making points' I wouldn't understand why you think that, which I why I asked it.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Yes you would understand why I would think that, because the only response to that statement is an explanation of why I thought the questions were making points. Hence why you didn't need to phrase your statement as "If I were to write 'Those questions are not making points' would I understand why you think that? Can't you that that is why I asked it?". I was already able to answer it despite it being a statement. Also, nice job responding to my point about the italics.
Red
I don't really give a shit about your rhetoric about italics. Why does it matter whether or not to put it in a question? I felt as though it was easier. If you didn't know if it was asked rhetorically or not, then you should've asked me, or just answer it as if it were a normal question to be safe.
Zzzzzzzzzzz
How is it easier to add it two *s to your questions? It's more time and energy consuming to do that. And I didn't know that the questions were being asked rhetorically, in the same way that I don't know that the person sending me emails about wanting to transfer money into my bank account really is a scammer. However, in both cases, it's plain enough to see what the true intentions of the person in question are. There is enough evidence to believe that you were asking these questions rhetorically.
Red
If you were to ask me if I asked them rhetorically, what would the risk be?
And no, time consumption is subjective.
can we just agree to disagree? this is wasting a lot of time and we seem to be angry with each other
Zzzzzzzzzzz
Firstly, there's no risk. It's just pointless. You aren't going to answer "yes" to me asking you whether they are rhetorical, otherwise you would admit that you are using something which you claim to be above. You would obviously answer "no". And why should I take your word for that? Secondly, time consumption is subjective? It's pretty objectively provable that writing a statement with two asterisks in it consumes more time than the same person writing the same statement in the same way but without the two asterisks. Thirdly, if time consumption is subjective, why would you care about this "wasting a lot of time"? Fourthly, I'm not angry with you. I'm just disappointed. Finally, we can agree to disagree, but I want to get some of the thoughts of the people on the forum because I reckon they'll have interesting takes on it. I'm going to post a transcript of what we've written in order to get their thoughts on it.
Red
sure