The Self-Criticism Thread (Mormons, agnostics, quote, marriage)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The traditional argumentative style is to "win" an argument by convincing an opposing party to agree with one's own argument. On this thread, the goal will be to demolish one's own argument. There should be no positive support of one's own perspective. Mormons should not make any comments explaining that Mormon beliefs are true. Agnostics are encouraged to denounce agnosticism, but not to defend it. Vegetarians should be arguing that being vegetarians is wrong or pointless in some way, etc.
Here's an example - I support gay marriage, so to argue against it, I'd say:
Marriage is between a man and a woman. Homosexuals may love eachother, but homosexual unions are not formed between a man and a woman. Therefore they cannot be married. That's all there is to it. Maybe there should be another ceremony created for homosexuals, but legalizing same-sex marriage is like mandating that adolescent boys must be allowed into the Girl Scouts. Right or wrong, the Girl Scouts is not for boys. Marriage is not for homosexuals.
I also eat pork so:
Pigs are intelligent as three year old children. Though a three year old would rapidly become more intelligent, a sufficiently retarted person will not. Therefore, when pork is eaten, it is not so different from eating a retarted person.
And I seldom watch sports so:
Anyone who doesn't watch sports is selfish and anti-social. The sports- hater understands that discussing sports brings communities together. It acts as a wonderful conversation starter to ease tension. Sports knowledge is an invaluable diplomatic tool...which the sports-hater neglects to spend even a couple hours per week studying, out of either shortsightedness or laziness.
Ideally this will show how important argumentative skill is compared to having a solid argument for one's position. I'm assuming most of us will have good reasons for their values, and so must rely upon shifty strategies/pretty words/leaving out important information to defend viewpoints we disagree with.
We will also hopefully see whether this style works better or worse than the traditional argumentative style, insofar as parties successfully learning from other parties is concerned.
It's a curse; I usually end up arguing for the sake of arguing. Not that developing argumentative skills is bereft of merit, it's just that's where it took me.
I think the "traditional argumentative style" is the only way you can get real honest opinions and convictions of the way people feel...and the argument would be basically the same...when I read a couple of your examples....had you not told how you "really" feel.....I could see from the words you wrote what your true feelings were.
I think the "traditional argumentative style" is the only way you can get real honest opinions and convictions of the way people feel...and the argument would be basically the same...when I read a couple of your examples....had you not told how you "really" feel.....I could see from the words you wrote what your true feelings were.
But did it help you to understand how I see, or might see, those other viewpoints? Because that was the goal. Now, it's not just my argumentative skill against theirs, it's both of us on the same side trying to find all the benefits of a viewpoint. Ideally, they'd be on my side for my viewpoints too...returning the favor. Therefore, we might more quickly find a more realistic truth than by relying on one person versus the other. It's easier for two people to think of all the potential ways something could be correct than for one person to do it. Then, the full benefits of both sides could be compared more realistically...the benefits seen through the eyes of oppositely biased parties, or at least parties who frequently will view eachother as biased, perhaps both percieved biases canceling eachother out to form a more realistic conclusion, or at least a more likely-to-be agreed upon conclusion.
And yes, the traditional argumentative style is better because we must hear others' true and complete-as-they-know-how-to-make-them opinions at some point, to understand their honest thoughts about their side...but the thing about this is it doesn't usually explain why the other side is wrong, only that one side is right. To say why the other side is wrong, I'd think the first step to the fastest route would be to list ways the other side could be correct, for all sides to see. Later would come the denouncement of each of these ways it could be correct, but that doesn't necessarily need to be stated. It could probably simply be seen if all the benefits of both sides are listed. No accusations of attacking. No nervousness causing limited dialogue skills. No escape from truth for all who want to participate, and no one is being coerced into participating. Arguments solely in favor of the opponent's position must be unreliable (if they could provide reliable arguments for their opponent's position...they'd be on their opponent's side...not their own), and the reasonable person will realize this, therefore the style will not be viewed as mockery...merely how one party is forced to imagine how the other party might think. There are no winners except the person who loses the argument, having gained knowledge, and they themselves will have come to this conclusion by viewing the facts they and another have concluded...and they never need to admit having lost the argument, because their opponent can say nothing negative about their position. Although, it would likely become clear to most who which side was more correct...but there'd be no escaping this, having the culmination of information from two sides easily visible. No backing out to save face. What better way is there to get information out of someone than by asking for how their viewpoint could be correct, and forcing the other side to also think of how it could be correct? I'm assuming in most cases we wouldn't even need to ask a party to tell why their viewpoint is correct, but we'll definitely need for force the side which disagrees with that viewpoint to tell how it could be correct, and that's why the emphasis of this thread is about showing how the opposing side's argument might be correct.
Yes...but in a roundabout way......but not in the way that (I think) was your goal....I see in your "positive support" examples... dicrimination..judgement,and glaring dislike that nullifys "both of us on the same side"....I do agree that it's easier for two people to "think of all the potential ways something could be correct"...but I believe that if that other person already has bias towards that subject, and has already a predetermined opinion about it...whatever they have to say will (like yours)..not hold weight, as it is not from the heart....(being forced to imagine how the other party thinks)...I suppose they could just say the things that some people might DEEM are positive...but then it's only because they're being "forced" to play the game.........not that they believe it...or ever will......I don't really think there is ever a "winner" in an argument...though I do know a good debate is sometimes good for the mind.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
