Arguments

What's the point of making a reasoned argument if the other side doesn't even accept the basic premises needed for such a debate?

Well, you have to argue first why the premises are reasonable and should be accepted.

Maybe that's why philosophical works are long. You have to convince the reader that 2+2=4 otherwise you're not doing it thoroughly.

edit: I guess you'd have to consider basic logic to be a universal "premise", I guess. If the other person operates on moon logic things might be icky.

edited 20th Feb '11 2:49:27 PM by melloncollie

I'm talking about real-world debates, not the stuff we learn in lectures and seminars. About convincing regular people about why your side is the way to go.

This post was thumped by the Stick of Off-Topic Thumping.
Stay on topic, please.

That's also what I'm talking about. In any sort of argument you have to lay out what your premises are and why we should accept them.

Maybe that's why philosophical works are long. You have to convince the reader that 2+2=4 otherwise you're not doing it thoroughly.

I'm not Myrmidon, but as I understand there is a school of philosophy that does this, resulting in books that are half-dictionary, whereas many philosophers seem more inclined to just cite the billion people before them, like in a science paper.

Point out and explain stuff like Ad Hominem to the arguee.

It's fun. ^_^

In my experience, outside an academic setting, that accomplishes - wait for it - nothing, though.

That doesn't stop it from being fun, though.

Not only that, but done properly, it can have some effect. Either that or it annoys the hell out of 'em.

I'm talking about real-world debates, not the stuff we learn in lectures and seminars. About convincing regular people about why your side is the way to go.

The point of that is to get people to believe you regardless of the actual sense of your position, obviously.

Of course, but that only works if they're not as committed to their position one way or another. If they already are hardcore, isn't arguing with them pointless?

If you can't get someone to see your side, look for common ground instead.

For example, if the other person hates X, instead of convincing them to like X, your arguing should focus on both educating them and drawing them to a different position such as "is OK with X".

Even if you can't convince the other party, everyone watching can still get something out of the experience by seeing where the different sides stand. Part of the reason why public debates make for great spectator experiences.

That too.

It's a great exercise, even if the one you're arguing against gets nothing.

edited 20th Feb '11 3:11:04 PM by TheMightyAnonym

"doesn't even accept the basic premises needed for such a debate?"

It's not their fault of the basic premise is flawed or abhorrent.

I could say the same way of the other side and the premises they bring to the table. From my point of view, their premises are just as abhorrent, perhaps even evil.

So why do you bother debating at all then if everyone on the opposing side is so obviously the spawn of Liberal Satan?

I don't think they're the spawn of Satan, no. Deluded, yes. And I debate because I have to spend my free time doing something remotely intellectually stimulating, otherwise bad things start to happen.

Satan is a Liberal?

I was so certain that he was a communist...

Satan has no ideology. Personally, I don't think social liberals are evil, merely subject to wishful thinking. That aggravates me, though.

Satan is an anarchist (or pseudo-anarchist, at least. Maybe libertarian). God's the communist.

...You consider Internet debates intellectually stimulating? Dude, read a book or something. The only reason I come here is to yell at people I dont like. If anything, I can feel my brain cells dying when I read a particularly bad argument. Its pretty much the opposite of intellectual stimulation.

I guess a importent thing about debates is to point out that your position is no better.
Only after doing that, you can really start debatting on why a direction is better.
But yeah: Never try to convince people, it never works. Instead try to give them new opinions.

Satan is an anarchist (or pseudo-anarchist, at least. Maybe libertarian). God's the communist.

I'll take communism over anarchy, myself. Better way to describe them, yes.

@SS: Yes, debates online can be very stimulating.

Especially on these fora.

I'll take anarchy over communism any day, but I don't think Satan is strictly an anarchist. He's more of an egotist.

The only reason I come here is to yell at people I dont like.

Please don't do this. It's very much not what these forums are for, and the people who run this site would not approve.

In any case, I think such an attitude would go some way towards explaining why you never find online debates intellectually stimulating.