Why it's good to argue, and probably even better when you lose an argument

[Fireminer]

Argue is enternally important, but you must know When and Where! Debate with only the people who need it, and only when there mood is high.
Oh, and think REALLY careful before arguing. That is the reason why my twin brother usually finds himself in trouble!

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Jaden

If I do get into an arguement, I try to be as detached and open as possible, but...sometimes using your charisma or authority or showing your passion for the subject is necessary to get your point across.

People also have varying degrees or principles where they're not willing to relent. Some things just aren't open for debate, and some people are too immature to have a discussion with anyone who's mind is not a mirror of their own. It's important to identify when this is the case for yourself or your "opponent" so you don't even waste time trying to argue.

How do you define maturity?

[Fireminer]

I think he means rash, conservative (to the point of extreme) and insensetive. There isn't much point to argue with them, you know!
(Also, has any one read Dale Carnergie's "How to win friend and influent people"? He dedicated a part for Argument and Debate, which is reall, really helpful - like the rest of the book. You guys should really read it!)

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

How do you define maturity?

In this case, I just mean the ability to present oneself clearly, being reasonable and having good manners.

Whether someone can be argued with is somewhat reflected in these things. Presentation so we don't misunderstand each other. Reason so you can back up your claims and see the other's perspective. Manners so the argument doesn't become hostile. Knowledge and experience are sometimes important, too, depending on the actual content.

In reality, I judge quite whimsically and with gut feeling whether somebody is worthy of being argued with. If I think they're not, it's not like I call them out on it (unless it's 4chan), but rather just stay quiet. Maybe I'm missing out on things by writing people off too quickly and not engaging them, but at least I'm not wasting time in pointless arguments.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by Jaden

In reality, I judge quite whimsically and with gut feeling whether somebody is worthy of being argued with. If I think they're not, it's not like I call them out on it (unless it's 4chan), but rather just stay quiet. Maybe I'm missing out on things by writing people off too quickly and not engaging them, but at least I'm not wasting time in pointless arguments.

But you may also give the impression that you have given up on the debate !11!!!!

well, like you said, that's the reason why some debates needlessly being dragged out very long because both participants feel the need to have the last words

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by Ledgem

Finding common ground is necessary for being able to work together and to see eye to eye. Otherwise an adversarial relationship forms where both sides demonize the other, even though they have the same interest at heart. People speak as if the "other side" is comprised of aliens from another planet, when both groups are actually quite similar. Their positions simply take them on different, opposing paths.

I tend to agree with this. For some subjects, however, the differences are the result of a myriad of details that create radically differing worldviews in the contending parties. This is where all you can hope to do is to work at those details. Anything else just results in a longass flamewar.

This might be better suited for the Chinese culture thread, but in the Art of War there is the passage (roughly):
"It is best to prevent the enemy's plans, next best to attack his army in the field, and worst to besiege cities. Don't attack cities. If you do, you'll spend tons of men and resources on it, and you are likely to fail in the offensive anyway."

"preventing the enemy's plans" is akin to changing his point of view, "attacking his army in the field" is like arguing with him in a civil discussion, and "besieging a city" is like going on an all-out flamewar against the other poster. Note that these points get progressively more specific from 1 to 3. Basically, the more focused you are on the "battle" at hand, the more likely it is that you are confronting the other poster as an "enemy". The "enemy's plans" stem from his worldview, and if his worldview is transformed, there will be no more need for flaming. All three points can potentially fulfill the goal of changing his mind, but 2 and 3 are highly likely to push him to put up an obstinate fight. So yes, perhaps I like "negotiating" more.

A few years back I used to love debating on this forum. It was more than just comparing positions, it was almost like a verbal game of chess. Both sides would go farther and farther, trying to catch the other or tie them up. Some "trash talk" and insults would occasionally be interjected, something that likely wouldn't occur if the discussion were to take place face-to-face, but this was also part of the enjoyment. It was a game of wits, written presentation, and knowledge. I would imagine that many who entered such discussions with me didn't view it that way, but it was quite fun. It's too bad we don't have more of those types of discussions.

Now I don't think it's any fun to argue meticulously, but I can see why you might think so. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the kind of argument you describe is only possible if you choose someone who can be dealt with civilly, someone who doesn't constantly move goalposts or make invalidating assumptions about your person, that sort of thing.

[Kirito]

Can debates be considered a "good argument"? I do enjoy sharing my thoughts or opinions with others and will make rebuttals unless it's necessary to. I wonder if it depends on the pretext, subtext, or context of the topic, the issue, and the contradiction. It varies from case to case and arguments can be considered good or bad depending on the person or people who can handle it in certain situations.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

You know those guys have a point and what they say is nice and all but I'm not fully convinced that the attitude that they promote is absolutely a good thing.

I believe it is wrong to adamantly defend your own position at any costs but I don't think it's healthy to not try to defend it. Sure you might be wrong, but you might also be right and if you don't have a certain degree of confidence in your beliefs how can you even go on and live?

Well, the point is to broaden your world view, which isn't quite the same as losing the debate.

For example, once in a while someone or other will tell me a mind-blowing new argument in favor of God's existence. Within a few words, I can tell he's talking about the Watchmaker God or the God of the Gaps or whatever. Old arguments done to death. Chances are, my world view isn't going to expand, no matter who "wins".

Or, even if you "win" a debate, as long as you consider the opposing arguments (preferably after your monkey brain's done fighting for dominance), you may learn something.


That said, if someone's goal in a debate is to win a moral victory by losing the debate, it'd be better for all involved if that person not bothered.

[Triple_R]

It's good to sometimes have discussions on complex, 'weighty' issues. They're like a form of exercise for your mind.

But for any discussion or debate to have worth, the key thing is to be intellectually honest in it.

What do I mean by intellectual honesty? Admit when the other person makes a valid point. You don't have to concede the entire argument to them, but there may be a point or two out of many that is reasonably strong and should be recognized as such.

Don't dismiss the other side out of hand because of known differences in viewpoints going into the debate (i.e. you're a conservative and you know the other person is a liberal, or you're a socialist and you know the other person is a libertarian). Try to avoid loaded language as much as possible, because this tends to heighten the emotions while lowering the quality of the discourse.
Recognize that we all have knowledge-based blind spots. Nobody knows everything, so it's conceivable that there's something out there (some research study, or some telling statistics, or some surprising quotes, etc...) that might shift your understanding of a particular issue or event. There's no shame in admitting this, as we're all human.


As long as intellectual honesty is maintained, it doesn't particularly matter who (if anybody) "wins" the bulk of the discussion/debate. Both sides can learn something out of it if both sides just remain moderately humble and open-minded.

We all, of course, have core beliefs and viewpoints that are firm and won't change barring something completely incontestable (and something like that is very rare). But I think it's good to be flexible on the margins and on the edges, because there's usually room for growth and expansion there.

[Fireminer]

Also, does anyone know how to get over the sour of losing a debate? I usually lost my temper in these situations.

[erneiz_hyde]

Oh hey, been a long time since I've been to the other parts of the forum and I found a nice thread. Just throwing in my 2 cents.

Personally, I make distinction between 'discussion' and 'arguments'/'debates'. The OP may be about how "losing" might broaden your horizon, but I drew the line before it; as in, there never was a battle in the first place. This is what I call a discussion, an event where two or more parties present their opinions and the rationale behind it, simply to get it into the open. Disagreements are expected, but the end goal really is just to broaden one's horizon. At the very least, one should realize that a train of thought that differs with one's own exists.

As for 'debates', I do think this is more about battles of wits and rhetorics, with rules named in fancy latin where there are winners and losers, though not necessarily in search for "the truth". Though the OP portrays it as something to be avoided, I'd say it's already a form of art refined over the long course of human language. Sadly though, "proper" debates are rare in form and usage, and more often degenerates into an unspeakable grotesqueries, especially after the invention of internet.

Personally I like discussions more than debates, largely because I suck at debates

[Qilin]

Originally Posted by erneiz_hyde

As for 'debates', I do think this is more about battles of wits and rhetorics, with rules named in fancy latin where there are winners and losers, though not necessarily in search for "the truth". Though the OP portrays it as something to be avoided, I'd say it's already a form of art refined over the long course of human language. Sadly though, "proper" debates are rare in form and usage, and more often degenerates into an unspeakable grotesqueries, especially after the invention of internet.

These debates however, are usually done with the purpose of impressing a particular audience, as opposed to actually convincing an opponent. As such, it's in practice much closer to a performance where there is a relatively greater emphasis on how something is said. I won't say that content doesn't matter because it still does, just that its impact is often muted in proportion to the number of people in the designated audience. Not to mention, these sorts of debates are bogged down by all sorts of unnatural hindrances like time limits and fixed turn orders.

While it is quite the respectable art form, I feel that true debates have no place in a free-flowing discussion forum like this one, or anywhere on the internet for that matter.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Also, does anyone know how to get over the sour of losing a debate? I usually lost my temper in these situations.

The more the matter touches you, the more it hurts to loose. If you go even so far as to regard the opposing position to be a personal attack against your principles... and you loose that argument, it can destroy (a part of) you... or change you for the better. So, depending on how you look at it, you could say: Sometimes there is no gain without pain.

[Triple_R]

Well, for a lot of people, when they think of "debates", the first thing they think of are political debates, like the three regular Presidential debates in American elections.

While there is some degree of actual debating here, this is mostly like very long, thorough, competing campaign ads running against each other.

Another form of staged debates are ones that universities and other places of learning sometimes hold on contentious and/or topical issues of the day.

Each staged debate, including Presidential debates, definitely has its own distinct rules, form, and structure. They usually aim to ensure close to even talk time for each side of the debate to ensure a certain degree of fairness. But the way these debates are regulated and structured do give them a certain feel of unnaturalness or even a touch of artificiality.


There are more natural debates that arise when different people converge on a particular topic of discussion, and some back-and-forth comes forth from that involving clearly discernible sides (usually at least 2 or 3 people on either side). I'm seen this a few times here on Anime Suki over specific anime shows, characters, and/or episodes, and I myself have participated in some of these debates.

Some of the more memorable AS debates I can remember that I myself took part in extensively:

1) Over Haruhi's E8.
2) Over the character Kyubey.
3) Over the character Sayaka Miki.
4) Over Hanasaku Iroha Episode 3.
5) Over a certain famous toothbrush episode in the Monogatari Series.
6) Over political/philosophical issues raised by Psycho-Pass.
7) Over Nanoha 2nd A's Movie.

Mind you, out of all of these, the only one that touched extensively on real life worldviews unrelated to entertainment alone would be the Psycho-Pass debates.

On the whole, I would say I enjoyed these debates and found them to be good intellectual exercise at least. I don't necessarily look for debates here on Anime Suki, but I do love it when more cerebral shows like Madoka Magica and Psycho-Pass provide excellent discussion fodder.

[Qilin]

Originally Posted by Triple_R

There are more natural debates that arise when different people converge on a particular topic of discussion, and some back-and-forth comes forth from that involving clearly discernible sides (usually at least 2 or 3 people on either side). I'm seen this a few times here on Anime Suki over specific anime shows, characters, and/or episodes, and I myself have participated in some of these debates.

The way I use the word "debate" is when talking about arguments that go on, not for the sake of convincing the opposing party, but as a means of winning over a particular audience. I tend to dislike it because it tends to degenerate to both sides discrediting each other over trivial matters with both sides refusing to back down in spite of contrary evidence.

But then I do admit that my nitpicks as to how a word is used is just a petty matter of semantics, so I'm not going to press it.

In any case, I do agree that some interesting discussions pop out here every now and then, and I have participated in a few of them. All I can say is that this forum is an enriching setting to get to know a vast diversity of perspectives out there. That diversity was a great deal more than I initially imagined when I first started using this site, so it was quite a surprise back then.