Do you argue to win or to lose?

[Gnostic Bishop]

that's quite irrelevant isn't it?

since both participants of the argument will have their own subjective impression of whether they won or lost, the entire concept lacks merit

True, but the winner will have gained something while the loser did not.

The winner will have something to show while the loser will have what he already knew.

If arguing is to have someone or something known in a deeper way, only information new to someone fits that bill.

The one who gets it, the loser, wins.

Seems relevant to me.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I fully agree,

With your concise explanation, ditto.

Regards
DL

 

[Antiprosynthesis]

True, but the winner will have gained something while the loser did not.

The winner will have something to show while the loser will have what he already knew.

If arguing is to have someone or something known in a deeper way, only information new to someone fits that bill.

The one who gets it, the loser, wins.

Seems relevant to me.

Regards
DL

I think you misspoke in your introduction, I suppose you meant the loser gained something and the winner not...

Otherwise Im not able to get what you are saying, but I consider this very well possible due to me being a highly flawed human being.

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I dont consider that to be what makes it irrelevant, but rather the fact that expressing improving to what its about rendering the outcome 'winning or losing' by definition irrelevant...

In the evolution of ideas, finding the fittest has a lot of relevance.

The best ideas end in being plagiarized into the Word of God.

Regards
DL

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

I think you misspoke in your introduction, I suppose you meant the loser gained something and the winner not...

Otherwise Im not able to get what you are saying, but I consider this very well possible due to me being a highly flawed human being.

I try to mimic the intelligentsia but often fail.

I rely heavily on the intelligent in these places to help me out.

Perhaps I should have left my betters speak for me. Here is one of those.

To Win You Must Lose: How to Argue Better

What does the 2,000-year-old tradition of rhetoric teach us about how to argue better today? Dr. David Sumner examines these ancient principles and applies them to one of our biggest argument minefields - the Thanksgiving dinner table.

www.ted.com

Regards
DL

 

[Antiprosynthesis]

I try to mimic the intelligentsia but often fail.

I rely heavily on the intelligent in these places to help me out.

Perhaps I should have left my betters speak for me. Here is one of those.

To Win You Must Lose: How to Argue Better

What does the 2,000-year-old tradition of rhetoric teach us about how to argue better today? Dr. David Sumner examines these ancient principles and applies them to one of our biggest argument minefields - the Thanksgiving dinner table.

www.ted.com

Regards
DL

Yet you are capable by stating this to make your theory about losing is winning become reality, and by adding that facsimile to your text you create a beautiful isomorphia between the notion being expressed, the underlying theory and the facsimile; I would say well done.

 

[December Flower]

True, but the winner will have gained something while the loser did not.

The winner will have something to show while the loser will have what he already knew.

If arguing is to have someone or something known in a deeper way, only information new to someone fits that bill.

The one who gets it, the loser, wins.

Seems relevant to me.

Regards
DL

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

 

[Antiprosynthesis]

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

However, the one that wins would be the one that gives the correct explanation, Im playing advocate of the devil here, I dont say I agree with him, none the less, is that in fact subjective that way? Or are you denying the existence of objective truth? If not, some more explanation seem needed... But again: Im just trying to see it from all angles, at this point Im not willing to take any position here, like I said, Im playing advocate of the devil now.

 

[December Flower]

However, the one that wins would be the one that gives the correct explanation, Im playing advocate of the devil here, I dont say I agree with him, none the less, is that in fact subjective that way? Or are you denying the existence of objective truth? If not, some more explanation seem needed... But again: Im just trying to see it from all angles, at this point Im not willing to take any position here, like I said, Im playing advocate of the devil now.

Incorrect. If my argument is factually correct and we discuss, you can still have the feeling you won, even most people could have that impression, maybe you argued louder, or were more verbose.

In truth this culture of winning and losing arguments is only proof that it's not the facts that decide who "wins" in some eyes or others is not necessarily correct, just more persistent or the better talker in general

 

[Mjäll]

Incorrect. If my argument is factually correct and we discuss, you can still have the feeling you won, even most people could have that impression, maybe you argued louder, or were more verbose.

In truth this culture of winning and losing arguments is only proof that it's not the facts that decide who "wins" in some eyes or others is not necessarily correct, just more persistent or the better talker in general

The winner is the one who is more right.

Don't confuse the territory with shitty maps drawn by losers.

 

[Antiprosynthesis]

Incorrect. If my argument is factually correct and we discuss, you can still have the feeling you won, even most people could have that impression, maybe you argued louder, or were more verbose.

In truth this culture of winning and losing arguments is only proof that it's not the facts that decide who "wins" in some eyes or others is not necessarily correct, just more persistent or the better talker in general

Im sorry to say this as I dont want to be a smartass.or something and should I be currently blind to something obvious to you do not hesitate to try to make me see my error, but I feel like you make a to me obvious error by mixing up that what he stated refers to the actual fact of who won ergo who gave the corrrect explanation and he does not refer to who might think he has won, so if I may assume we both can agree that there is something as, of course this is in a way also relative and Im willing to debate the following, that there is something like objective truth, than according to this axiom it is really irrelevant who thinks he won as there could easily be stated for a fact who won ergo it is not subjective but objective, do you see what Im trying to explain here be it not in the most elonquent way?

 

[December Flower]

The winner is the one who is more right.

Don't confuse the territory with shitty maps drawn by losers.

what? and who's more right then? who determines that, mofos?
I need a factual answer, not your personal feelings on things, if you want to counter my argument

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

Im sorry to say this as I dont want to be a smartass.or something and should I be currently blind to something obvious to you do not hesitate to try to make me see my error, but I feel like you make a to me obvious error by mixing up that what he stated refers to the actual fact of who won ergo who gave the corrrect explanation and he does not refer to who might think he has won, so if I may assume we both can agree that there is something as, of course this is in a way also relative and Im willing to debate the following, that there is something like objective truth, than according to this axiom it is really irrelevant who thinks he won as there could easily be stated for a fact who won ergo it is not subjective but objective, do you see what Im trying to explain here be it not in the most elonquent way?

OK let's do a little example here:
Say you claim the earth is flat, I say it's elliptical.
You start insulting me a bit in your arguments, or they just become too far off for me, and I lose patience and say "fuck off, i'm out"
did you win? who determines that? are you correct just because your opponent doesn't want to argue anymore?
because when people leave arguments, the other party will almost always claim the win, but again, this is subjective,
and no, there is no way to factually determine a "winner", as the argument hinges not on the truth, but on the two parties battling it out.
There is no simple carpet bomb solution, that will determine who is correct and who isn't, all this is subjective perception. Yes, there are things like debate classes, etc pp, but in that scenario you have an outside judge who makes the decision, again subjectively.


I'd go as far as claiming that the "winner" of an argument is by no means the "more correct one", but the one who had more determination. And again, often self-proclaimed

 

[Mjäll]

what? and who's more right then? who determines that, mofos?
I need a factual answer, not your personal feelings on things, if you want to counter my argument

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


OK let's do a little example here:
Say you claim the earth is flat, I say it's elliptical.
You start insulting me a bit in your arguments, or they just become too far off for me, and I lose patience and say "fuck off, i'm out"
did you win? who determines that? are you correct just because your opponent doesn't want to argue anymore?
because when people leave arguments, the other party will almost always claim the win, but again, this is subjective,
and no, there is no way to factually determine a "winner", as the argument hinges not on the truth, but on the two parties battling it out.
There is no simple carpet bomb solution, that will determine who is correct and who isn't, all this is subjective perception. Yes, there are things like debate classes, etc pp, but in that scenario you have an outside judge who makes the decision, again subjectively.


I'd go as far as claiming that the winner of an argument is by no means the "more correct one", but the one who had more determination

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

Again, the one who is perceived by a majority or himself as a winner is not necessarily the winner. There are such things as lies and ignorance. This is very simple stuff.

 

[December Flower]

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

Again, the one who is perceived by a majority or himself as a winner is not necessarily the winner. There are such things as lies and ignorance. This is very simple stuff.

Well, ofc you can be right, but you cannot factually declare someone the winner of an argument, as the deciding factors are entirely subjective. I don't understand how this is hard to understand or accept, I'm getting the feeling I'm being trolled.

And yes, that is exactly why I said the concept of winning arguments is BS, as even the majority can be fooled into thinking A the correct party, while B was the factually correct party. B still didn't "win" the argument in the eyes of the majority, so what the fart is "winning" an argument worth?

 

[Mjäll]

Well, ofc you can be right, but you cannot factually declare someone the winner of an argument, as the deciding factors are entirely subjective. I don't understand how this is hard to understand or accept, I'm getting the feeling I'm being trolled.

And yes, that is exactly why I said the concept of winning arguments is BS, as even the majority can be fooled into thinking A the correct party, while B was the factually correct party. B still didn't "win" the argument in the eyes of the majority, so what the fart is "winning" an argument worth?

How do you know no-one can ever know who won an argument?

I have won many arguments. It is my responsibility to fact-check myself and ensure that i don't falsely believe that, and it's your decision if you wanna believe me.

Skepticism applies to everything.

A simple thought experiment can illustrate for you the principle of winning an argument. No one says all complex real world cases are clear-cut, just like no-one believes in a "lord of arguments" (a strawman of yours, of course, assisting you in losing this argument).

 

[Antiprosynthesis]

what? and who's more right then? who determines that, mofos?
I need a factual answer, not your personal feelings on things, if you want to counter my argument

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


OK let's do a little example here:
Say you claim the earth is flat, I say it's elliptical.
You start insulting me a bit in your arguments, or they just become too far off for me, and I lose patience and say "fuck off, i'm out"
did you win? who determines that? are you correct just because your opponent doesn't want to argue anymore?
because when people leave arguments, the other party will almost always claim the win, but again, this is subjective,
and no, there is no way to factually determine a "winner", as the argument hinges not on the truth, but on the two parties battling it out.
There is no simple carpet bomb solution, that will determine who is correct and who isn't, all this is subjective perception. Yes, there are things like debate classes, etc pp, but in that scenario you have an outside judge who makes the decision, again subjectively.


I'd go as far as claiming that the "winner" of an argument is by no means the "more correct one", but the one who had more determination. And again, often self

Okay, I see your point, you also put it into words very well, I only considered the scenario where both parties actually had a reasonable discussion and with the only outcome that one would be factual right and one would be factual wrong, I right away saw this.as a flaw in my reasoning since its an arbitrary axiom I assumed, however things are not in any way more clear to me now - on the contrary - since I find it problematic that your notion makes use of a similar assumed arbitrary axiom being that the discussion will reach no conclusion, or do you disagree with me saying this?

Im not quite sure where to go from here, if you are still certain you have a firm grip on this and if you are willing I would like it if you tried to make me see things more clearly, while I awsait if you might reply again Im going to try to think this thru...

 

[December Flower]

How do you know no-one can ever know who won an argument?

I have won many arguments. It is my responsibility to fact-check myself and ensure that i don't falsely believe that, and it's your decision if you wanna believe me.

Skepticism applies to everything.

Because no one can factually determine it. Am I speaking Chinese or Hindu? I'm so confused

I would challenge that by saying you won no arguments, but instead were declared the winner by yourself or someone else
OK so what were your factors of "winning" said arguments? What did you do that made you "win" in your eyes (again, subjective)

also: wtf people?! I say my personal subjective opinion why I think this concept is BS, and why I don't live by it, and you fucks all like "NO YOU'RE WRONG." we're not that fascist in Germany anymore, I'm not going to be swayed by one of your opinions to change my own, as I've been living by this for over 20 years, and never saw the use in arguing for "the win"

Okay, I see your point, you also put it into words very well, I only considered the scenario where both parties actually had a reasonable discussion and with the only outcome that one would be factual right and one would be factual wrong, I right away saw this.as a flaw in my reasoning since its an arbitrary axiom I assumed, however things are not in any way more clear to me now - on the contrary - since I find it problematic that your notion makes use of a similar assumed arbitrary axiom being that the discussion will reach no conclusion, or do you disagree with me saying this?

Im not quite sure where to go from here, if you are still certain you have a firm grip on this and if you are willing I would like it if you tried to make me see things more clearly, while I awsait if you might reply again Im going to try to think this thru...

exactly my point. thanks for understanding


what point was unclear to you? maybe i'd start with that

yes, declaring that many arguments do not have a clear solution, and a clear ending is pretty much entirely correct.
and yes, in a civil discussion, the "loser" for example could indeed declare the other party the winner (again, subjectively)

but there is no way of factually winning, only a way of being declared a winner(by whoever)
this does not make it fact. There was an exchange of opinion and or knowledge, that's about all we can state for a fact

the value of each party's opinions, words and knowledge is subjectively determined by whoever watches the argument unfold, or the participants. None of this makes it factual.

 

[Antiprosynthesis]

Because no one can factually determine it. Am I speaking Chinese or Hindu? I'm so confused

I would challenge that by saying you won no arguments, but instead were declared the winner by yourself or someone else
OK so what were your factors of "winning" said arguments? What did you do that made you "win" in your eyes (again, subjective)

also: wtf people?! I say my personal subjective opinion why I think this concept is BS, and why I don't live by it, and you fucks all like "NO YOU'RE WRONG." we're not that fascist in Germany anymore, I'm not going to be swayed by one of your opinions to change my own, as I've been living by this for over 20 years, and never saw the use in arguing for "the win"


exactly my point. thanks for understanding


what point was unclear to you? maybe i'd start with that

Do you mean it are actual these arbitrary assumptions that make it impossible to consider one to be a factual winner? This indeed is a problem in doing so. If this is not what you mean, pls explain as in that case I am still blind to what seems to be very obvious to you...

Just for the record,.I am absolutely not trolling, I actually really want to understand it...

 

[December Flower]

Do you mean it are actual these arbitrary assumptions that make it impossible to consider one to be a factual winner? This indeed is a problem in doing so. If this is not what you mean, pls explain as in that case I am still blind to what seems to be very obvious to you...

Just for the record,.I am absolutely not trolling, I actually really want to understand it...

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,
because those are things I miss when they actually happen

 

[Mjäll]

Because no one can factually determine it. Am I speaking Chinese or Hindu? I'm so confused

I would challenge that by saying you won no arguments, but instead were declared the winner by yourself or someone else
OK so what were your factors of "winning" said arguments? What did you do that made you "win" in your eyes (again, subjective)

also: wtf people?! I say my personal subjective opinion why I think this concept is BS, and why I don't live by it, and you fucks all like "NO YOU'RE WRONG." we're not that fascist in Germany anymore, I'm not going to be swayed by one of your opinions to change my own, as I've been living by this for over 20 years, and never saw the use in arguing for "the win"


exactly my point. thanks for understanding


what point was unclear to you? maybe i'd start with that

yes, declaring that many arguments do not have a clear solution, and a clear ending is pretty much entirely correct.
and yes, in a civil discussion, the "loser" for example could indeed declare the other party the winner (again, subjectively)

but there is no way of factually winning, only a way of being declared a winner(by whoever)
this does not make it fact. There was an exchange of opinion and or knowledge, that's about all we can state for a fact

the value of each party's opinions, words and knowledge is subjectively determined by whoever watches the argument unfold, or the participants. None of this makes it factual.

Winning the argument is simply saying the most true stuff.

Do you not believe in truth either?

Drop the facetious bullshit remarks, mr strawman.