Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 1 hour later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,443,306
@previous (Mate)
Tbh I don’t really like those debate channels because the whole premise of it is a lie. Nobody watches a debate with the intention of having their mind changed about anything.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,443,307
I mean, it really is just entertainment, only it’s usually somebody arguing something stupid against somebody arguing something reasonable, but we’re all supposed to pretend that hearing out stupid people is important, when it’s not. Like we don’t have to debate people who think the earth is flat, that’s dumb.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 2 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,443,308
I think that’s one of the issues society has though. Too many stupid people were told that their voice is important and they have a right to be heard. So now we have rule by the stupid.
It doesn't matter if they change the mind of the person debating.
For the people on the show or who watch it, it's hearing new arguments that they can use or hearing the arguments from the other side they can start thinking about rebuttals for.
Over time the discussions use better arguments, and once everything is explored it reaches its natural conclusions. The dialectic advances, and one side can continue to deny it if they don't mind being the side that has to run from the conversation or use identifiable sophistry.
As long as there's some people in the middle making their decisions based on that, debates can improve the culture.
The people opposed to that process are those stubbornly clinging to a position that is indefensible.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade joined in and replied with this 3 weeks ago, 18 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,443,328
@previous (H)
That process is the exact opposite of the scientific method. You shouldn’t try to argue why you’re correct in order to find truth, you should try and find reasons why you’re wrong.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade double-posted this 3 weeks ago, 50 seconds later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,443,329
The reason why I’m against it, is because it’s nonsense. You can’t arrive at truth through debate and who wins a debate has more to do with who is better at lying. It doesn’t have any connection to reality.
Mr. Bloody Lemonade triple-posted this 3 weeks ago, 5 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,443,331
It’s also completely illogical what you’re saying. Finding better arguments doesn’t make a false idea any more true. That’s not how it works. There’s an objective reality. You can come up with good or bad sounding arguments for things regardless of whether they’re true or false.
Anonymous H replied with this 3 weeks ago, 8 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#1,443,355
@1,443,328 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
You misread my post.
People should consider counter-arguments, but if someone ignores good arguments it doesn't matter because there will be behaviors they have to do to avoid acknowledging their weak position.
For people who are unsure, they can look to see how both sides behave in most debates to see who is following the process.
@1,443,329 (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
No, because there are ways of identifying who is lying. Being a skilled liar isn't going to matter if the debate has happened many times before and people know how to refute the sophistry.
@previous (Mr. Bloody Lemonade)
That's not what I said. For the 100th time, check to see if you can actually find where I said "Finding better arguments makes a false idea more true." before you act like I said it.
What I ACTUALLY pointed out what that even if both sides are biased, when both sides know the debate well enough the truth will be apparent.
It's like a court case where each side defends their client, but the client is the idea, and you don't get one try but the conversation can happen many times. So if someone gets away with a trick once, it can be studied and countered in the next debate.