EPTScience: You'll never win on the internet. - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Malarkey817
United States163 Posts
| ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
Your article creates a logical paradox, and thus, must die. | ||
|
Gnial
Canada907 Posts
Rather, I hope that someone else reading the discussion who may not have been informed previously may be informed by the ongoing debate, and come to have my point of view. If some idiot keeps posting the same retarded crap about his opinion over and over, becoming more entrenched in his opinion, and you provide a good argument, any 3rd party viewer should be able to see through the crap. It is with that 3rd party viewer that you have succeeded, even if you never get the gratification of being told that you're right at the end of the day. If I want to change someone's mind, I'll discuss with them in PMs, phone, skype, in person, etc. The more private you make such discussions, the less likely they are to feel like they are going to lose face. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: That's why you close-to-never see these words on the internet: "I'm sorry, my bad" "I was wrong, I guess you're right" Basically that article is just proving what was pretty obvious before! to be fair to people, most arguments start off with something along the lines of "and you are a massive faggot" "you piece of shit" so telling them publicly they are correct is more about not wanting to appear to be their bitch than anything | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
| ||
|
Batch
Sweden692 Posts
On July 13 2011 07:21 Kleinmuuhg wrote: That's why you close-to-never see these words on the internet: "I'm sorry, my bad" "I was wrong, I guess you're right" Basically that article is just proving what was pretty obvious before! I have actually taken a step back and said such things several times when I have been in discussions about different things and found out I was wrong. I haven't read more from this article than what is written in the OP but the fact that I have lost argumentations online is proof enough for me that it is possible to win an discussion online. | ||
|
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
However, I fail to see how you reached the conclusion that one can never win on the internet. Seeing as how all the experimenting in the world can't prove such a claim, only predict an unlikelihood of winning on the internet. To quote Anne Frank, where there's hope, there's life. | ||
|
Kleinmuuhg
Vanuatu4091 Posts
On July 13 2011 08:01 Mr. Wiggles wrote: I don't believe this, and that article only makes me more sure of my correctness. Dude, stop before the universe explodes. It's like pinocchio saying: "I'm lying" On July 13 2011 08:12 Batch wrote: I have actually taken a step back and said such things several times when I have been in discussions about different things and found out I was wrong. I haven't read more from this article than what is written in the OP but the fact that I have lost argumentations online is proof enough for me that it is possible to win an discussion online. Thats honorable, but by far not the norm. It IS possible to win, but I wouldn't want to know the odds. | ||
|
Calm
Canada380 Posts
Nuh-uh! You're wrong because... j/k This article just confirms what I already knew and generally practice: there's no point in arguing in most cases. There's no real "win". You can debate, and that's good and fun. But in passionate arguments it's just best to agree to disagree and move on to more productive things. | ||
|
Titusmaster6
United States5937 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On July 13 2011 07:21 BlackJack wrote: I though this was rather well known. Colbert had a guy on his show last night that was talking about another effect: instead of seeking out evidence to form opinions, you form opinions and then seek the evidence to confirm your opinion. More people need to read Sherlock Holmes. )=< | ||
|
GoldenH
1115 Posts
And perhaps your logic has a common error that seems obvious to everyone but you. But this is just speculation we need science to tell us that! | ||
|
nemo14
United States425 Posts
| ||
|
MidKnight
Lithuania884 Posts
| ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
On July 13 2011 07:21 BlackJack wrote: I though this was rather well known. Colbert had a guy on his show last night that was talking about another effect: instead of seeking out evidence to form opinions, you form opinions and then seek the evidence to confirm your opinion. Whether values precede rationality or vice versa is imo one of the most interesting philosophical questions. Even when people do change their opinions, the cause often has nothing to do with rational analysis. | ||
|
jdseemoreglass
United States3773 Posts
You are sure of some conviction you picked up at the university, and you go spouting it off, ie "97% of climate scientists think global warming is man-made!" When people reject your claim, you assure yourself that you are smarter than they are, because you have the facts on your side, while they are doing psychological acrobatics in order to deny and not accept your obviously superior and correct view of everything in the universe. Of course, you have to lie to yourself by saying that you also succumb to psychological errors and biases, but you do this only to once again prove your intellectual superiority to yourself, which makes the whole exercise extremely circular and ironic without you even realizing it. Once you have your "people are really stupid" mentality firmly entrenched in your mind, excluding yourself of course, you can hold yourself above debate by saying something along the lines of "you never win on the internet," preventing you from actually justifying your convictions, thereby again ironically confirming the theory you already invented. We could go in circles for days here. Sorry, but I've changed my mind on many, many different issues, politics included. I changed my opinions because I read opinions from people much smarter than I am. Those people aren't found in online forums, they are found in great literature and philosophical works. I read Chomsky and Rothbard at the same time. That just goes to prove the convictions I have now are better than anyone else's and there's no point in me accepting any contradictory arguments.  | ||
|
Alabasern
United States4005 Posts
| ||
|
ghrur
United States3786 Posts
On July 13 2011 09:09 jdseemoreglass wrote: We could go in circles for days here. Sorry, but I've changed my mind on many, many different issues, politics included. I changed my opinions because I read opinions from people much smarter than I am. Those people aren't found in online forums, they are found in great literature and philosophical works. I read Chomsky and Rothbard at the same time. That just goes to prove the convictions I have now are better than anyone else's and there's no point in me accepting any contradictory arguments. Chomsky AND Rothbard??? MY GOD! I THINK YOU DEFY THIS THREAD! | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
However, I have to say that over the past 2 years there actually was one thread, where the debate changed my position on the topic. I didn't admit it in a post, though. I just left the discussion... Actually, there was another thread where I also shifted my position during the debate. However, it wasn't a 180° turn around like the first thread. Obvisiouly, I was right every other debate I engaged in :p Also, I find this to be quite true: On July 13 2011 08:03 Malarkey817 wrote: The aim of debate isn't to prove that you're right or to change the other person's beliefs. It's to show that the other person is wrong, because if they're wrong then you're right. I thought everyone knew that. edit: I think it would be interesting if the OP added a poll: Poll: Have you ever changed your position after an online debate? I don't engage in online debates. (13) >5 times (6) No. (4) 1-2 times (4) 3-5 times (3) 30 total votes Your vote: Have you ever changed your position after an online debate? (Vote): No. | ||
| ||
