/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11844755]

Did you ever win a debate?

>pic very much related

[Anonymous No.11844781]

>>11844755
Only online, never in real life.

[Anonymous No.11844783]

What fight is Mickey talking about?

[Anonymous No.11844790]

>>11844755
debate is for the plebs

[Anonymous No.11845690]

>>11844755
The mouse is a faggot and wrong

[Anonymous No.11845729]

Debate team captain, actually won every debate I ever took part in for the duration of my career

Have been told it’s due to my ‘Hitler-like’ ability to capture attention and persuade

[Anonymous No.11845815]

>>11844755
Yes, but today I agree w/ the other debater's position

[Anonymous No.11845826]

>>11844755
Don wins, Im afraid, in the end,
as much as it pains me to admit.

[Anonymous No.11845855]

>>11845826
Obviously not

[Anonymous No.11845857]

>>11845826
You have to grow up and realize evolution/Darwinism is bullshit. That’s the solution.

[Anonymous No.11845863]

>>11844755
The second argument is actually p bad

[Anonymous No.11845871]

>>11845863
t. dog

[Anonymous No.11845876]

Engaging in debates is for plebs and peasants.

[Anonymous No.11845884]

>>11844755
>Debating anything that isn't objective

Might as well argue about why you think green is better than red desu.

[Anonymous No.11845890]

>>11844755
What does "winning a debate" even mean?
The obvious answer seems to be to convince your opponent that your viewpoint is the correct one but that would be impossible to verify without some kind of mindreading device which doesn't exist yet.

[Anonymous No.11845894]

>>11845884
>anything is objective

[Anonymous No.11845899]

>>11845894
>objectively nothing is objective

[Anonymous No.11845900]

Donald is objectively correct, the question is where we go from there.

[Anonymous No.11845911]

I argued Pereira v. Sessions at a undergrad moot-court last year. My case ended up being almost point-by-point what was actually argued in the SC and my side won in both cases. I don't brag a lot but I take a lot of pride in that. I also "win" debates against campus leftists pretty regularly, although that takes a lot less effort

[Anonymous No.11845920]

>>11845900
>Donald is objectively correct
yes, he is

[Anonymous No.11845925]

>>11845899
I never said objectively nothing is objective. This is babbys first positivist argument.

[Anonymous No.11845933]

>>11845900
How do you know, do you have a response to Mickey? If naturalism is true, why think your cognitive processes have evolved for truth-finding?

[Anonymous No.11845949]

>>11844790
tried having a debate about this with a pleb last week.
I think I won.

[Anonymous No.11846392]

I don't think debate is useful. I've never seen a big debate that didn't involve some amount of egostroking, and for some reason by the end neither side (including the actual participants AND their fanboys) thinks they lost or are willing to cede that the other side made a good point. Seems like the soccer of intellectual pursuits imo: absolutely no sportsmanship, everyone is a self-absorbed manchild PoS. Probably the most dishonest form of discourse there is.

[Anonymous No.11846434]

>>11844755
>for you trust the chemicals in your brain to tell you they are chemicals
what's the alternative here? how do you even fight it?

[Anonymous No.11846448]

>>11846434
Stop affirming naturalism

[Anonymous No.11846463]

>>11846448
/thread

[Anonymous No.11846486]

>>11846448
wow, you've done it, guys
much smart

[Anonymous No.11846493]

i win this debate SIR

[Anonymous No.11846505]

Oral debates are retarded. Formal debates are retarded too.

Serious discourse and arguement needs to happen over a textual medium and I hope for the 2020 burgerland elections we might see something like this.

[Anonymous No.11846514]

can you ever truly win a good debate? if each side stands firmly in his own perspective, then the goal of the debate is to bridge or discover what might lie between the two.

[Anonymous No.11846522]

>>11846514
>le synthesis meme
When will people drop the dialectian fallacy?

[Anonymous No.11846650]

Won all my debates in high school
Didn't win any in college because there was no decided winner, it was just about getting closer to the "truth" or some bullshit like that

[Anonymous No.11846671]

>>11844755
you got this from kantbot, didn't you?

[Anonymous No.11846786]

>>11846650
College is for fags

[Anonymous No.11846991]

>>11844755
Only in real life, never online.

[Anonymous No.11847046]

If you prove your enemies wrong, they win

[Anonymous No.11847055]

>>11847046
How so?

[Anonymous No.11847118]

It's better to study them using their own tools like cognitive neuroscience desu

[Anonymous No.11848616]

>>11845925
It's obviously implied. To be able to say that nothing is objective, objective truth is necessitated. Don't be a turd.

[Anonymous No.11848885]

>>11844755
Yeah. the trick is to argue with someone outside the field of expertise they're in. I remember in one of my English classes this girl was talking about feminism or something so I mentally bludgeoned her to death with a bunch of biology and evolutionary psychology jargon; initially related until I segued into statistical analysis boring math crap. Online I take the twitter method and try and make some sort of clever joke/ just be a sarcastic asshole unwilling to put my positions out there while criticising theirs. That and checking if they use the wrong "there" because that's an auto win.

[Anonymous No.11848892]

>>11847055
because they gained knowledge and you gained nothing but some extra neurotransmitter release, duh

[Anonymous No.11848896]

>>11846671
little zoomer, this is much older than kantbot

[Anonymous No.11848897]

>>11845884
>Not thinking green is the best color.

[Anonymous No.11848907]

Okay, this thread is epic.

[Anonymous No.11848923]

>>11844755
No, Ben Shapiro always shows up with facts and logic.

[Anonymous No.11848946]

>>11845729
Me too, except I only argue with my parents and I've never actually been on a debate team
>26
>still leeching off of mommy
>got dad kicked out so I can be house alpha male

Feels good

Also this board is about books so I feel compelled to inform you all that I'm reading beyond good and evil by Nietzsche and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me

[Anonymous No.11848958]

>>11845920
>Donald is not Donald
one job

[Anonymous No.11848994]

>>11845900
>where do we go from here
Mickey

[Anonymous No.11849498]

>>11848923
[uncomfortable] facts and logic

[Anonymous No.11849781]

>>11844755
I win every debate, especially when its about cartoon horses.

[Anonymous No.11849782]

>>11848946
Have you started fucking her yet my dude?

[Anonymous No.11849806]

>>11848946
It doesn’t make sense because you are an untermensch—it wasn’t written for you.

Go back to showily debating over whatever superficial partisan politics issues you tackled on your debate team and leave the intellectual heavy lifting to the thinkers

[Anonymous No.11849856]

>>11844755
Never against an idiot, though sometimes against someone capable of reason, but either misinformed, too pressed with other matters to have thought the one in question through, or some combination of both. Not that pigheaded obstinacy is always a bad thing. It's simply that for idiots, it's the only course there is to getting things your way, and there is always weaker game, just as dumb, who by sheer force of habit yield to the more willful party, who also never sees that in discourse it is positions, and not persons, that the tournament has been set up to rank.

[Anonymous No.11850082]

Yeah. I debated a lot on reddit, 4chan, used to in real life as well, not very much anymore.

It's crazy how close it is to fighting once you break it down. Well, how close it is to boxing. I don't do martial arts, fag shit. Most of the time you're arguing against this person because you're bigger than they are. You got more facts or information, so you just gish gallop them, but you have to make sure you're not saying too many things at once. It's an art-form, you kinda gotta sneak it in there. On internet boards everyone tries to be so factual and verbose, they end up with these long paragraphs quoting every single line you say ad nauseam. What you do is take their 2 to 3 weakest points and pound them as hard as you can. Should only be about 3-4 sentences. If you're stupid it still never ends, but at least you're not getting sent to the looney bin off some dipshit's fumes.

The real trick is to never reveal your actual stance, only really respond with rhetorical questions. Sometimes you gotta use a bit of dressing and make them feel stupid. Everyone doing these debates is messed up in the head just looking for some self-recognition, remember that. Sometimes you get an easy knock-out with some laconic bullshit. People make lots of mistakes in their logic, and when they're going paragraph by paragraph they get tired.

But why? Why do any of this? Because those pieces of shit gotta learn. They'll never understand anything you say to them anyways. People don't believe, belief is a lie. People know. They know they're right. And 95% of them, no matter what you say, they don't give a shit.

Something changed in me. I realized I was a victim of my own ways. The only debates I have nowadays are ones where we prove everything we're saying is wrong. No one has those debates, son.

[Anonymous No.11850087]

>>11844755
When you win a debate online, your opponents stop posting. No one ever concedes on the internet. And yes, it has happened many times.

[Anonymous No.11850569]

>give compeling argument
>opposite side relies on moving the goalpost or posting normie memes
like clockwork

[Anonymous No.11850586]

>>11844755
i've never been in a debate but i can't imagine i'd do well. i get so nervous just talking to people that even if i were right i would just get destroyed because i'd be stuttering and stammering and be unable to organize my thoughts.

[Anonymous No.11851132]

>>11844755
This pic is one of my favourite cringe of all time. Something about it is so bizarre. 4chan proto-reddit thing. What the fuck did he mean by that last sentence

[Anonymous No.11851258]

>>11846392
this desu

[Anonymous No.11851291]

>>11845826
Then die retard

[Anonymous No.11851303]

The best strategy to win a debate is to ask the person you are debating what they take as the evidence for their belief. Then, you use evidence that smells like theirs to prove them wrong. The only people who win are the ones who don't believe in anything.

[Anonymous No.11851323]

Never did formal debates. I did win a lot of arguments in highschool by claiming that we are trapped in language and even if arguments make sense structurally, are logically consistent, that does not mean they have any relation to reality. I can't say I really won arguments with this, or really believed it, but it was a fun to use to shut people down for a while, although if pressed I would not be able to argue for it (but this being high-school no one ever did).

I am sure there are some thinkers who have forwarded something similar in the past but I can't say I know them, I am not in to philosophy. It was great for trolling people with though.

[Anonymous No.11851341]

>>11851132
What do you mean? Its just calling for something akin to absurdist courage

[Anonymous No.11851440]

Holy shit Mickey Mouse browses 4chan

[Anonymous No.11851464]

>>11848897
>not realising red is the better color

[Anonymous No.11851471]

>>11845857
Is this the power of /lit/ intellectuals

[Anonymous No.11851535]

>>11844781
Why tho ?

[Anonymous No.11851544]

>>11845826
>>11844755
Everything we do is extrapolatable to higher realms like ideas, memes, spooks and forms. Nothing can be reduced, only expanded and separated.

[Anonymous No.11851561]

>>11844755
Every time I try to even argue with someone on the internet they just hide behind being a troll and saying “u mad bro” or some shit like that, but I did once manage to have a debate with someone about the Android vs Apple stuff a couple years ago, which I won because he resorted to insulting me

[Anonymous No.11851593]

>>11850082
this is a good guide for winning debates
>>11846392
this is a good explanation of why debates aren't worth winning
>>11848946
this is based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.11851623]

I once successfully defended the legitimacy of government regulated and lawful prostitution to a woman.

[Anonymous No.11851629]

>Be philosophy student
>Some dumb vegan makes a post about animal rights on a fb grou page which includes all of the university's philosophy students
>Reply that rights don't exist
>Now stuck in an internet debate

fuck

[Anonymous No.11851637]

>>11851629
>expressing philosophical views that are anything other than comfortably to the left around fellow philosophy students

Enjoy being expelled lad

[Anonymous No.11851649]

>>11851629
>tfw stopped posting publicly on facebook because of constantly getting into internet fights
normies can't handle shitposting or banter of even the lightest variety

[Anonymous No.11851662]

>>11845826
Plotwist: both are actually right

[Anonymous No.11851684]

>>11851471
seriously lol nothing makes academics ree as much as Darwin, they are so fucking mad about that guy and what his theory means for the study of humanity

[Anonymous No.11851822]

>>11851637
Rights not existing is a Marxist point of view

[Anonymous No.11851833]

>>11851464
Red is a good color. You could do without all that dumb shit in the middle though.

[Anonymous No.11851886]

I can never find anyone willing to make a positive case for anything or have the ability to process and answer an argument. You can only deal with so many internet atheists before abandoning the whole idea of rationality.

[Anonymous No.11851899]

>>11851637

I wrote a fairly long reply 20 mins ago to the veggie's post and my comment just dissapeared and won't show up in my comment history.

wtf

[Anonymous No.11851924]

>>11851822
Literally what?

[Anonymous No.11851943]

>>11851822
Figuratively what?

[Anonymous No.11851956]

My win percentage irl is probably >.700
Its impossible to win an argument on 4chan btw. I have never seen anyone admit that they were wrong. Maybe over an empirical detail, but nothing evaluative

[Anonymous No.11851964]

>>11851623
most women I know support that

[Anonymous No.11851987]

>>11851629
Rights exist as much as money does, and for the same reason.

[Anonymous No.11852012]

>>11851956
I win arguments on 4chan all the time. You don’t ‘win’ an argument by having someone admit they were wrong, that’s not how it works. Everyone knows that an argument is won on 4chan when the opposing side cannot come up with any counterevidence for their claim/philosophy

[Anonymous No.11852020]

>>11851899
You’ve lost through censorship

[Anonymous No.11852129]

>>11846505
There's this video going around about a politician in my country where he was asked a question and he didn't have an immediate answer ready, so he said he had to think about it. And he did, for like 15 seconds, which caused everyone in the room to laugh at him and people online use it to mock him as well. Now, I don't agree with his politics in any way, but I think it's troubling that someone gets completely shat on for think about a question, rather than just spouting out what's comes in their mind first.
Rhetorical debates are shit, because the way you carry yourself is equally, if not more important to "win" than the actual information you're trying to convey

[Anonymous No.11852404]

>>11852020

Made another comment and copy-pasted it to a word document ; it got deleted too and now I'm sure I'm not hallucinating.

Well, moral victory for me.

[Anonymous No.11852746]

>>11844755
Only IRL. Showing people facts that they cannot refute tends to change their way of thinking, especially in a group setting. When you have no other outs you can only accept that you've been wrong this whole time.

On the internet people just retreat into their hugboxes and reaffirm their incorrect beliefs.

[Anonymous No.11852771]

>>11844755
Used to do parli debates back in college, got to final round in one state competition (phi rho pi iirc) but only walked away with a silver medal.

[Anonymous No.11852783]

How do debate competitions even work? If it's about interpretation or policy then it should be pretty obvious at the outset that one position is objectively better than the other, and if it's about subjective bullshit like intention or morals then it's just a popularity contest.

[Anonymous No.11852786]

Just trick your opponent into defending an untenable position and badabing badaboom

[Anonymous No.11852846]

>>11845857
Is this a joke?

[Anonymous No.11852853]

>>11848616
Doesn't your opinion differentiating from his yet still having the same merit prove that though?

[Anonymous No.11852873]

>>11845826
Mickeys right, but expresses his argument so shittily. So I have to agree.

[Anonymous No.11853688]

>>11848885
>Online i take the twitter method and try and make some sort of clever joke/ just be a sarcastic asshole unwilling to put my positions out there while criticising theirs.
Anyone who does this should be shot God i hate twitter

[Anonymous No.11853702]

>>11851833
Gay and blue pilled

[Anonymous No.11853783]

>>11851684
In what way?

[Anonymous No.11853982]

>>11845900
How are atoms conscious? We are nothing but atoms, yes? And we are conscious. So how are atoms conscious?

[Anonymous No.11854012]

>>11852846
Not a joke
It’s hella woke

[Anonymous No.11854049]

>>11853982
They aren't.
The shifting amalgamation they compose is.
A brick wont shelter you, but a house made of them will.

[Anonymous No.11854060]

Some guy tried to argue that science wasn't being held back by ethics. I tried to explain to him the rabid pitbull that science was.

The only argument against this I think is that ethics guides science to a more sustainable long term prosperity...of course he didn't say that. He went the route of saying that science wasn't being held back much, if at all.

[Anonymous No.11854071]

>>11845815
Playing the long game.

[Anonymous No.11854074]

>>11854049
What is the energy in J or the mass in kg of this amalgation?

[Anonymous No.11854085]

>>11853982
>The brain is conscious.
>The brain is made of neurons
>Therefore individual neurons are conscious.
Spot the mistake.

[Anonymous No.11854089]

>>11854074
About the mass of your average human brain.

[Anonymous No.11854093]

>>11852012
pssh, everyone knows you win an argument by the number of (You)votes your post gets

[Anonymous No.11854102]

>>11853982
>How can cells jump? We are nothing but cells, yes? And we can jump. So how do cells jump?

[Anonymous No.11854131]

>>11854085
>>11854089
Ok. What is consciousness made of?

[Anonymous No.11854150]

>>11851535
Too autistic to express myself properly when speaking

[Anonymous No.11854196]

>>11854131
waves, so to speak.

[Anonymous No.11854227]

Consciousness is not chemicals, but the countless interactions those chemicals produce.
Its a subtle difference, but an important one.

[Anonymous No.11854342]

>>11845690
The mouse is right, it's called structuralism

[Anonymous No.11854347]

Why does Donald need to fight? What is Mickey implying?

[Anonymous No.11854348]

>>11845690
Using a materialist perspective begs the question of a more fundamental viewpoint to measure the universe

[Anonymous No.11854364]

>>11844755
>There is no way to obtain objective knowledge.
>But my method is better than yours.
Hypocrite you say?

[Anonymous No.11854369]

>>11854364
Mickey is talking about dogs perishing horribly. Doesn't that imply something about Pluto, or maybe even Goofy.

[Anonymous No.11854370]

>>11854348
Why?

[Anonymous No.11855170]

>>11854364
Mickey doesn't affirm any position the way Donald does with naturalism, he simply critiques him on the ridiculous statement

[Karl Pilkington No.11855186]

>>11844755
Hi.

[Anonymous No.11855222]

>>11844755
Feels defeatist and almost wrong for the mouse to assume all knowledge is outside the grasp of human understanding. Similarly to stoicism it has a negative predispositions to life, so cannot create anything constructive in relation to the discussion of purpose of our consciousness. Stoicism and other forms of ultimately negative outlooks on life are incapable to be impartial to the objectivity of life, and merely give a shorthand answer of "keep going" ; they are pseuds
What the duck suggests is sound, except for the latter part in which he makes a conjecture: that because our cognition and mind can not be explained they are beyond understanding and reason
I feel like the words make sense when you read them, and you think its a conversation. But when you read what each is trying to convey you understand that it mirrors real life- where people talk over each other and convince other's based on their skill in regurgitating baseless information and dramatic~ism
Sorry but English is not my mother tongue

[Anonymous No.11855254]

>Similarly to stoicism it has a negative predispositions to life, so cannot create anything constructive in relation to the discussion of purpose of our consciousness.
Wait that doesnt follow at al-
>Sorry but English is not my mother tongue
Oh

[Anonymous No.11855266]

>>11855254
Please elaborate, what i was trying to say is that the mouse was coming from a indifference to the meaning of life, and stoicism is generally bad in explaining the human condition

[Anonymous No.11855268]

>>11846392
This guy gets it. I don't bother engaging in debates because I know what I know and I know the other guy can say nothing to change my mind and I know he thinks the same thing. What's the point if not to just make yourself seem superior? And I'm not even talking about online debates with strangers.

>that cold feeling in your throat when you can't explain yourself properly even though you know in your mind that you're right

[Anonymous No.11855274]

>>11850082
Too much truth in one post, anon.

[Anonymous No.11855343]

>>11855266
All Mickey ultimately says is that we don’t have access to a priori knowledge. Whether you think it’s a pessimistic outlook or not is irrelevant to the validity of the argument so I’m not sure where you’re trying to go with that. Mickey could easily proceed with a Nietzschean philosophy which doesn’t seem all too likely based on his challenge to Donald

[Anonymous No.11855423]

>>11844755
>arguing with a stupid mouse
Patrician Duck is right

[Anonymous No.11855679]

>>11854369
Don’t bring Goofy into this, he is obviously plowing women with his 8 ft dick off camera

[Anonymous No.11855784]

>>11855170
>he simply critiques him on the ridiculous statement.
Critique is meaningless when every stance is equally absurd.

[Anonymous No.11856049]

>>11854227
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.11857455]

>>11844755
>we cant know nuthin, so the way you personally interpret the world is wrong.
How do you know that mickey?

[Anonymous No.11857464]

>all the posters ITT losing the debate with a static cartoon animal