Mine:
which debate
Perhaps all of them.
Imho debates are a sports for the smart but bored bunch. It can be a fun way to pass the time, but it's quite rare that something useful comes out of it besides entertainment. My motivation for debating Inquirer stems mainly from the fact that he called me stupid, slow, idiot, retard and what-not several times after I was nice to him. I wanted to show him how even an idiot can beat him in a debate. And I did. Says a lot about him.
I'm by no means a good `debater.` I'm just not shit.
last edit on
9/30/2020 5:53:00 PM
which debate
Perhaps all of them.
Imho debates are a sports for the smart but bored bunch. It can be a fun way to pass the time, but it's quite rare that something useful comes out of it besides entertainment. My motivation for debating Inquirer stems mostly from the fact that he called me stupid, slow, idiot, retard and what-not several times after I was nice to him. I wanted to show him how even an idiot can beat him in a debate. And I did. Says a lot about him.
I'm by no means a good `debater.` I'm just not shit.
You don't think debating keeps you sharper? People get so rigid and hazy as they age, and the more a person cloisters themselves among the likeminded, or simply refuses to engage with alternate opinions (almost regardless of their value), the more difficult it is for them to process new information and review their own perspective.
And at least for me, debate usually motivates more research. Even if I don't necessarily need it to win, it sends me on interesting study tangents.
which debate
Perhaps all of them.
Imho debates are a sports for the smart but bored bunch. It can be a fun way to pass the time, but it's quite rare that something useful comes out of it besides entertainment. My motivation for debating Inquirer stems mainly from the fact that he called me stupid, slow, idiot, retard and what-not several times after I was nice to him. I wanted to show him how even an idiot can beat him in a debate. And I did. Says a lot about him.
I'm by no means a good `debater.` I'm just not shit.
But is your girl cumming?
The blood on my hands covered the holes
You don't think debating keeps you sharper? People get so rigid and hazy as they age, and the more a person cloisters themselves among the likeminded, or simply refuses to engage with alternate opinions (almost regardless of their value), the more difficult it is for them to process new information and review their own perspective.
And at least for me, debate usually motivates more research. Even if I don't necessarily need it to win, it sends me on interesting study tangents.
I think I agree with a lot of what you say. If you look at people like Matt Dillahunty, he's extremely quick-writted at age 50+.
However, at least in my experience, I find that, post-debate, people are ooften wrapped even closer around the ideas they held before the debate -- even if said ideas are shown to be fallacious. That could mean I'm just exceedingly good at making detrimental points for my own view or it could mean that they went into the debate without any intention of changing their minds.
I do think what you say about debate forcing people to think and research further is true.
So I guess I was wrong. I take back some of what I said.
last edit on
9/30/2020 6:27:14 PM
You don't think debating keeps you sharper? People get so rigid and hazy as they age, and the more a person cloisters themselves among the likeminded, or simply refuses to engage with alternate opinions (almost regardless of their value), the more difficult it is for them to process new information and review their own perspective.
And at least for me, debate usually motivates more research. Even if I don't necessarily need it to win, it sends me on interesting study tangents.
I think I agree with a lot of what you say. If you look at people like Matt Dillahunty, he's extremely quick-writted at age 50+.
However, at least in my experience, I find that, post-debate, people are often wrapped even closer around the ideas they held before the debate -- even if said ideas are shown to be fallacious. That could mean I'm just exceedingly good at making detrimental points for my own view or it could mean that they went into the debate without any intention of changing their minds.
I do think what you say about debate forcing people to think and research further is true.
So I guess I was wrong. I take back some of what I said.
Immediately after the debate they're probably feeling defensive of the stance. Some of it may sink in more well after the fact. But it is also true that most people don't go into a debate looking to have their mind changed. That doesn't mean however that it has to be unproductive in that way. I don't really go into a debate looking to have my mind changed, I just compulsively want to tell people about it when I think they're wrong. lol But if I lose, I don't let that stuff go. It serves either to help change my mind or to spur me to do ten times as much research to shore up the holes in my arguments. Losing is the best thing about a debate. It's the most a person can get out of it. And while I'm sure a lot of people don't feel that way, I imagine it does still leave an impression, even if subconsciously. What they do with that impression is kind of a wild card, but it's mobility at all. Occasionally someone will surprise me and evolve to a new stance, which is really nice to see even if that new stance isn't mine. It means they were open to being wrong, which I think is the most important quality a person can have.
