Do you argue to win or to lose?

[Antiprosynthesis]

Yes that is correct
since so many factors of winning or losing an argument are subjective and rather arbitrary, sometimes or oftentimes even emotional. For example, you would most of the time declare a friend the winner, because they are a friend, and you are therefore more susceptible to their arguments and personal feelings play a role.

As a man, you could declare an attractive female the winner, just because you are attracted to her
As a narcissist you could always declare yourself the winner, even though your arguments are flat and nonsensical

get my drift? it's all subjective, and that's not what we should pursue in arguments

edit: sorry, I'm an Aspie, I often think people are insulting me or trolling me, or
because those are things I miss when they actually happen

Okay, its now clear to me what you mean and indeed this is problematic, Im going to think about this some more as Im not really sure this case reached it full conclusion yet but before I put forward any more possible notions I must gain some insights in to what I still feel is not clear to me even by now, or maybe I am just over thinking it...

I enjoyed this so far however.

 

[December Flower]

Winning the argument is simply saying the most true stuff.

Do you not believe in truth either?

Drop the facetious bullshit remarks, mr strawman.

Incorrect.

Or Bernie Sanders would sit in the White House

Just look at US presidential debates, do you think the one telling more truth "wins" in the eyes of the populus?
No, the one packaging their opinion better "wins", but again, not in the eyes of all, only in the eyes of some or even many

None of this makes it factual or empirically determinable

I don't understand that last remark

Okay, its now clear to me what you mean and indeed this is problematic, Im going to think about this some more as Im not really sure this case reached it full conclusion yet but before I put forward any more possible notions I must gain some insights in to what I still feel is not clear to me even by now, or maybe I am just over thinking it...

I enjoyed this so far however.

It's very problematic, yeah. But then again our world is ruled by those who speak the loudest or with the most confidence, or have the most lobbyists in their pockets, so it's also something we are used to, in a way

 

[Mjäll]

Incorrect.

Or Bernie Sanders would sit in the White House

Just look at US presidential debates, do you think the one telling more truth "wins"?
No, the one packaging their opinion better "wins", but again, not in the eyes of all, only in the eyes of some or even many

I don't understand that last remark


It's very problematic, yeah. But then again our world is ruled by those who speak the loudest or with the most confidence, or have the most lobbyists in their pockets, so it's also something we are used to, in a way

Did you read my posts? I distinguish the true winner from the winner in majority opinion. Beliefs are not necessarily true, including beliefs about who is right and who won an argument.

You're seemingly not reading my posts, and now you don't answer my question. I repeat: Do you believe in truth?

 

[December Flower]

Did you read my posts? I distinguish the true winner from the winner in majority opinion. Beliegs are not necessarily true, including beliefs about who is right and who won an argument.

You're seemingly not reading my posts, and now you don't answer my question. I repeat: Do you believe in truth?

If you determine the winner the person who gained the most knowledge, I agree,
but this is a subjective opinion, again. This is not the opinion of everyone, and I would dare say it's not even the opinion of many, so it's also no undeniably true statement. You see my conflict here, I hope

I believe that I believe in truth, but there is no way to determine it for a fact, only in the bounds of my own reality

 

[Mjäll]

If you determine the winner the person who gained the most knowledge, I agree,
but this is a subjective opinion, again. This is not the opinion of everyone, and I would dare say it's not even the opinion of many, so it's also no undeniably true statement. You see my conflict here, I hope

I believe that I believe in truth, but there is no way to determine it for a fact, only in the bounds of my own reality

As said, skepticism applies to everything. Not just arguments. You can deny the reality of anything using the same reasoning.

Arguments are about convincing, not gaining knowledge. And the factuality of gaining knowledge is subject to the same skepticism you're trying to use to debunk our natural view.

 

[December Flower]

As said, skepticism applies to everything. Not just arguments. You can deny the reality of anything using the same reasoning.

Arguments are about convincing, not gaining knowledge. And the factuality of gaining knowledge is subject to the same skepticism you're trying to use to debunk our natural view.

You lost me at

Winning the argument is simply saying the most true stuff.

now you change your argument, I guess that's also a way to determine oneself the winner
not going to change mine, and I know more entertaining things to spend my Feierabend than arguing about arguing

 

[Mjäll]

You lost me at

now you change your argument, I guess that's also a way to determine oneself the winner
not going to change mine, and I know more entertaining things to spend my Feierabend than arguing about arguing

I didn't change my argument. I just explained to you what the real winning is. The real winner is the one who is right, not the one people think is right for whatever reason.

You seemingly refuse to apply the concept of truth to arguments. Are you insecure about your ability to be right and support your position? Or why are you interested in denying the existence of truth in this particular context?

You are ignoring my response to your absurd alternative definition of winning an argument. Understandable, since the absurdity is totally undefensible, on par with saying that football is won by having the coolest team logo or by doing more laps on track in prepatation.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Again: since there is no way to factually or empirically determine who won, the entire concept is therefore subjective and meaningful only to those who put meaning into it, which i don't.

I argue for information, anything else seems illogical to me

Winning and winner is determined by exactly what you put. Information gained, be it objective or subjective.

That logic trail is in the O.P.

If you or I are to gain, we must lose an argument.

What do you gain if you win and gain nothing, information wise?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

maybe you argued louder, or were more verbose.

I think it more as the ancient intelligentsia saw it.

Winning an argument is more about leaving the interlocutor silent.

That is hard without judges to quiet those you describe.

The reason I push morality so hard is that Christians have no defense and must eventually just run away/stay quiet.

We need a new world Divine Council.

I hope you can see how intelligent the ancients were as compared to the mental efforts that modern preachers and theists are using with the literal reading of myths.

https://bigthink.com/videos/what-is-god-2-2

Further.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03132009/watch.html

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, said that when asked to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching, while he stood on one leg, said, "The Golden Rule. That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah. And everything else is only commentary. Now, go and study it."

Please listen as to what is said about the literal reading of myths.

"Origen, the great second or third century Greek commentator on the Bible said that it is absolutely impossible to take these texts literally. You simply cannot do so. And he said, "God has put these sort of conundrums and paradoxes in so that we are forced to seek a deeper meaning."

Matt 7;12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

This is how early Gnostic Christians view the transition from reading myths properly to destructive literal reading and idol worship.



Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Who is the Lord of Arguments where I can claim all my victories?

Who but you can judge what only you can see it so perfectly?

My victories are legion, but I seek loses.

In my religion, life is seen as evolving perfection. The only thing that evolves our minds are facts and fictions.

Victories are stagnations to my evolution and mind.

A paradigm shift from a lose, with it's gain of new facts, --- a great gift, --- is like the mind being born again.

Regards
DL

 

[Mjäll]

Winning and winner is determined by exactly what you put. Information gained, be it objective or subjective.

That logic trail is in the O.P.

If you or I are to gain, we must lose an argument.

What do you gain if you win and gain nothing, information wise?

Regards
DL

This is an absurdity. Winning the argument is simply winning the argument. Gaining something from the experience is a separate matter.

One may learn in many ways and there is no need to try and make learning the paramount value of debate, which is clearly about demonstrating and convincing, not learning. Also, one may obviously train logic and reason by successful debate, so winning doesn't even preclude learning.

Your idea could be a cope for people who are not very good at arguing but still want to feel like they won a debate. I see no other use for it. Care to explain?

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

No one claimed there is a "lord of arguments" who knows everything. We just consider it possible to be right about things.

I test my own positions viciously to insure I am correct. I am also bolstered when I bring out the inquisitors, as compared to debaters, who are only good for statements of claim, without arguments.

They win every argument they engage in, yet never on points.

Regards
DL

 

[AbbeyLee]

Arguing is a power thing -- a desire to feel power over someone. My mother's done it to me all my life (and my father who left her 25 years ago because he couldn't stand it). Unless I find myself dragged into it I avoid it, especially online because it's easy to walk away.

Debating is a different thing but people rarely debate properly.

 

[Mjäll]

One common misconception is that debate is about convincing the opponent, of all people. Judging by this misconception, many people see fit to declare debate a childish or even anti-intellectual activity compared to "open discussion", since it is unrealistic to expect the opponent to change his/her mind. This is symptomatic of pseudoscientism and part of an intellectual degeneracy of our culture.

I test my own positions viciously to insure I am correct. I am also bolstered when I bring out the inquisitors, as compared to debaters, who are only good for statements of claim, without arguments.

They win every argument they engage in, yet never on points.

Regards
DL

Okay

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

rdity. Winning the argument is simply winning the argument. Gaining something from the experience is a separate matter.

One may learn in many ways and there is no need to try and make learning the paramount value of debate, which is clearly about demonstrating and convincing, not learning. Also, one may obviously train logic and reason by successful debate, so winning doesn't even preclude learning.

Your idea could be a cope for people who are not very good at arguing but still want to feel like they won a debate. I see no other use for it. Care to explain?

What do you gain if you win and gain nothing, information wise?

What is the paramount reason for debates if not to have us learn things?

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

since it is unrealistic to expect the opponent to change his/her mind.

IDK.

Anything is possible and I have had a few successes.

I apply what you put to sheeple, not people.

Face to face is different than in these places.

Here, all you can judge is how fast the interlocutor runs out of worthy points or turns to insults.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Arguing is a power thing -- a desire to feel power over someone. My mother's done it to me all my life (and my father who left her 25 years ago because he couldn't stand it). Unless I find myself dragged into it I avoid it, especially online because it's easy to walk away.

Debating is a different thing but people rarely debate properly.

Mjall pointed out the difficulty of changing minds.

The losers will not usually tell winners that they have given up. Too much pride perhaps.

One can only know they are correct is by challenging the issue often.

Regards
DL

 

[Mjäll]

What do you gain if you win and gain nothing, information wise?

What is the paramount reason for debates if not to have us learn things?

Regards
DL

Gaiing and winning are not the same concept. It is a good thing to be able to gain from losing a debate, but that doesn't mean losing a debate is winning a debate.

The concept is simple. A debate is in fact a contest.

I made a good analogy with sports earlier. Think of debate like a sport. It doesn't have to be the noblest expression of learning in all respects. It just is what it is. Would you say winning a game of football is done by learning things rather than simply winning the game of football?

The absurdity is there. Do you want to see it? Do you want to learn?

 

[Mjäll]

IDK.

Anything is possible and I have had a few successes.

I apply what you put to sheeple, not people.

Face to face is different than in these places.

Here, all you can judge is how fast the interlocutor runs out of worthy points or turns to insults.

Regards
DL

Sure, it happens. I'm not very cynical about that myself - just referencing a common attitude!

If someone openly changes his/her mind after being defeated, that is a welcome surprise. Usually they stop arguing or keep on producing non-arguments in the hope of getting the last word and demonstrating fake power to a dumb emotional mob.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

Gaiing and winning are not the same concept. It is a good thing to be able to gain from losing a debate, but that doesn't mean losing a debate is winning a debate.

The concept is simple. A debate is in fact a contest.

I made a good analogy with sports earlier. Think of debate like a sport. It doesn't have to be the noblest expression of learning in all respects. It just is what it is. Would you say winning a game of football is done by learning things rather than simply winning the game of football?

The absurdity is there. Do you want to see it? Do you want to learn?

Yes, that is why I ask questions, but you are not answering them.

I gain no answer, and without your bottom line, I refuse to waste time in the definitions of words.

Regards
DL