Shamitako

Well, I was referring to emotional debates. However in my experience political debates (even on a national level >_>) tend to be emotional debates But yes, what kind of disagreement does matter. There are cases where an answer must be decided upon and someone must be deemed right while another wrong. Those are the cases where a formal debate (you'll note my intentional avoidance of the word "debate" as often as possible, because I feel that word brings to mind the concept of a formal argument) matters and winning becomes the focus. In these cases you're generally not trying to convince your opponent of your point but the people around you (a courtroom has a jury, a debate club has a judge, politicians have voters, etc). This thread was purely referring to disagreements between two peers. I suppose I should have clarified that better originally, my apologies

My heart has been stolen from Medea Loli Bit of a weird one for me. I mean, obviously she's tiny and adorable. But her personality is less of a cutesy one and more of a spunky one. She reminds me a lot of Asaga, but even cuter. But, honestly, she's top waifu RN and will probably stay that way for a while

Not particularly an LP in the standard sense, but here, have my favorite episode of my favorite series from my favorite content creator on my favorite video sharing service

Apologies, because I only have the energy to reply to a small portion of your post and it is unlikely I will get around to replying to the rest in the future (for reasons which shall be stated shortly) I'm not talking about being in courtroom or a debate club or whatever place where the goal is to be the better arguer (keep in mind that these are about how you argue, not whether you're actually right... Which is one of the big frustrations for many when it comes to the court system in the US). I'm just talking about life and people having differing opinions. And again, if the only method you have for boosting your self-esteem is by tearing into other people, you need to seriously evaluate how it got to be so low I mean, I'm certainly frustrated that you only seem to care about proving me wrong. I could certainly make the same approach and I would be very surprised if you were not frustrated in return. And in fact, knowing myself, if this continues on then I inevitably will do so and we'll both end up very upset with each other and have accomplished nothing. So I'm simply going to bow out of this particular disagreement now before it gets out of hand

@Gaunt I didn't say to treat it as true. I said to treat it as a reasonable and legitimate argument. Just because I have counter-arguments prepared for when someone tries to explain to me why Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the "truth" doesn't mean I should treat it as anything less than a legitimate scientific theory And yes, you should accept the opinion of someone who claims to speak to a god or demon on a daily basis as equivalent to any facts you might try to argue by. If you're disagreeing respectfully then you're attempting to learn about the other person's point of view. If you discredit their experiences in life that's akin to discrediting them as having a valid PoV which completely defeats the point No, arguing is not about winning. Winning an argument accomplishes nothing (as I'm sure I've said many times, this isn't a courtroom, only humans talking to other humans about human issues). If you're arguing to win then all you're doing is spreading anger and hatred. You will never convince anyone of anything by arguing to win, because all you will be doing is tearing them down. The best you're going to do is boost your own ego. And if the only way to manage that is by tearing down someone else then you really need to think about how your ego became so fragile Really this entire thread boils down to my attempt to voice the futility of "winning" an argument. On the internet and in much of daily life, an argument is between two people who have differing opinions built on different foundations. Trying to uproot that foundation is pointless, at best you can destroy what stands above it. But an argument conducted to try to understand that foundation can help reinforce your own building by learning about how the opposing side constructed theirs

I confess to being a bit of a cynic myself. I don't really expect anyone to change just from this. But your statement of "every little bit counts" is pretty much exactly how I feel here. My belief is that people don't particularly change, but they have the capacity for many different ways of being themselves. So if someone who is usually very disrespectful in an argument sees this and has the capacity to not be so disrespectful, it's not implausible that this might nudge them a version closer to that which knows respect If nothing else, writing this down has helped me reflect on times where I have been disrespectful during arguments

First: WTF How is this a B? Like, is it really my CS? I have a good KDA, kill participation, adequate gold, I help with a couple towers... Like, I'm not demanding an S but B, really? :c Second: What The Fuck Just, look at this (I'm red side) So, like, I wrecked Zed in lane but our team kept getting destroyed in teamfights (Kha kept asking who fed Zed... >_>) so we were losing horribly. And the enemy team got us down to our nexus, the toplane inhib, and its turret. And it was just like "welp, Zed's gonna backdoor now." Except he couldn't, because I kept melting his face and my team kept getting Baron Even when they got 5 drag buff we somehow staved them off. Eventually we were somehow winning. I just had to sit in base and hit Zed with two stars so that he wouldn't kill our inhibs while my team went off and pushed It was just, it was an amazing game that could have easily gone against us with just the slightest misstep on my part. I mean, I'd positioned badly and been killed by Zed 1v1 earlier in the game. Or if Gnar TP'd in to help and I missed my ulti (I didn't miss it the first time he did that, which is probably why he didn't do it again ) It was so intense Also the end was funny. Their nexus got down to one hit and suddenly their inhib came back up. Dat troll inhib, buying them ten seconds while Cait realized what happened and killed it again

So I've been thinking a lot of thoughts and I felt like typing a few words about them In particular, I've been thinking about disagreements, arguments People are bound to disagree, we're all unique so it's going to happen. But it's possible to disagree without generating hate. I'm still friends with people who manage to like Dragon Ball Z and they're still friends with me despite my addiction to slice of life. Even when things are more serious than anime tastes, it's still possible to remain on good terms with people whom you disagree with Note that I'll be talking a lot about disrespect, keep in mind that I'm not on the auth team so my definition of disrespect isn't required to be in line with Reborn's. This is my feelings on the matter, and based on my experiences I tend to be a bit stricter than the auth team in what I find to be disrespectful. At least when it comes to arguments Also note that I'm hardly claiming to be perfect here, more often than not I fall on the side of a disrespectful disagreer. But as I'll mention later, I don't feel this should make my arguments in this thread invalid. EDIT: Owait, I didn't mention that (that was gonna be part of the debasing character comment thing) whoops Now then, to start off, I've come to the conclusion that there's two primary ways you can disagree with someone: Respectfully and disrespectfully. These are primarily differentiated by the motive behind the disagreement. When disagreeing respectfully, one looks to understand the other side's point of view and learn about why they believe what they do. This doesn't mean there can't be any attempts to try to convince in a respectful disagreement, just that when trying to convince one should also be open to being convinced. When disagreeing disrespectfully, one looks to tear down the other side's argument or outright ignores it in an attempt to prove oneself right Some common characteristics of a respectful disagreement are: Asking questions about what the other side thinks Admitting to arguments against one's own opinion holding water (even when one has prepared counters to these arguments) Admitting when one has made a mistake (such as misreading a sentence or stating something false as a fact) Accepting personal experience as evidence (provide counter evidence instead of discrediting the other side's evidence. This is the internet, not a courtroom) Never assuming that the other side understood you exactly as you did yourself Mentioning when you're not going to reply to a certain part of an opposing argument and providing a reason as to why so that the other party doesn't feel ignored Considering the other parties emotions as much as considering their logic. And also remembering that you have feelings too, not everything you say will be purely logical no matter how much you think so (Unless you're legitimately not human, in which case holy crap can I have your autograph? ) Some common characteristics of a disrespectful disagreement are: Completely discrediting any portion of the opposing argument you disagree with (by purposefully ignoring it or stating that you don't like it and thus refuse to take it into consideration. When in a position of power one can even choose to silence it) Picking specific pieces of an argument that are incorrect or that you can refute and discrediting their entire argument based on that Following from the above, searching only for contradictions or arguing semantics to discredit their entire argument Professional Arguing Skills as a weapon. Don't go looking for mistakes in how someone argues. Not everyone has spent years learning the nuances of a proper argument like you (and if you haven't dedicated your life to the study of argument and debate, then you really shouldn't be acting like you have) At best this makes you sound nitpicky and at worst it makes you sound like an asshole. Either way it seems like you don't respect the other person's right to disagree just because their arguing style isn't 100% perfect Attempting to debase the other side's character. I don't think I even need to explain how personal attacks don't belong in a respectful disagreement And most importantly, using the fact that you disagree with them on a fundamental level as a reason for why they are wrong. Not believing in grey morality when their argument is based in grey morality doesn't mean that you're right, it just means you don't understand where the other side is coming from. If you were making a respectful disagreement then you'd be listening to their argument in an attempt to understand the basis of it, not grabbing the base of the argument and flipping it on its head At the end of the day, disagreements are about fundamentals and how people think. A respectful disagreer understands this. In a disagreement where all sides are respectful, they can passionately argue their point of view in the hopes of understanding one another better. And at the end of the day, both sides will have a slightly different opinion than when they started But if even one party is disrespectful, inevitably the disagreement will fall into a loop of adamance where nobody understands anyone else any better. It is the irony of the human consciousness that in attempting to prove oneself completely and utterly right, one will inevitably end up doing quite the opposite. If you wish to convince someone of something, give them a chance to understand why you feel it's true With hope, Lexi

Dat panda tho. U mad brah?

7/10