Here is the reason you cannot win any arguments on CD.
https://medium.com/editors-picks/adfa0d026a7e
“A MAN WITH A CONVICTION is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”
People’s deep-seated views about morality, and about the way society should be ordered, strongly predict whom they consider to be a legitimate scientific expert in the first place—and thus where they consider “scientific consensus” to lie on contested issues.
A hierarchal individualist finds it difficult to believe that the things he prizes (commerce, industry, a man’s freedom to possess a gun to defend his family) (PDF) could lead to outcomes deleterious to society. Whereas egalitarian communitarians tend to think that the free market causes harm, that patriarchal families mess up kids, and that people can’t handle their guns.
Head-on attempts to persuade can sometimes trigger a backfire effect, where people not only fail to change their minds when confronted with the facts—they may hold their wrong views more tenaciously than ever.
If you want someone to accept new evidence, make sure to present it to them in a context that doesn’t trigger a defensive, emotional reaction.
In other words, paradoxically, you don’t lead with the facts in order to convince. You lead with the values—so as to give the facts a fighting chance.
True.
Side Score: 10
|
 |
I don't buy any of that crap.
Side Score: 13
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
1
point
Has elements of true, but I find most of the people on here, like my self, who join sites like these to not just debate, but let everyone know of their opinions. And one is not about to change ones lifelong opinions based on what some douchebag 10,000 miles away is telling you. That's why, because 9/10 times, the person you are arguing with won't accept your arguments, or simply won't bother to read them, as in their mind, they know they're right anyway. Side: True.
|
That's ridiculous, you can totally win on CD. Who has ever heard of the website you posted? Nobody. And even if the article is correct, it talks about aliens, what does that have anything to do with debates, I don't see the point. I don't even know why I read this, I am just going to turn away from the computer now. Side: I don't buy any of that crap.
1
point
•Akulakhan(2302) Disputed 1 point Thats an impractical and irrelevant question: for there are no perfectly identical twins. And that's avoiding the problem; the problem still remains. You made an inherited claim that the genetic code from one individual isn't adequate to create another human, when the individual his/her/itself is the converse example, a contradiction. In fact, the reproduction of genetic code from a single code, is called cloning. And if there were, then it would still be irrelevant, for the sperm would be an extension of that person's, which ever twin it happened to be, self Which again changes nothing, because the clone is just as "being" as the original. 1) We have no absolute rights. So why would it matter if the fetus was some precious human with dignity and importance? 2) Nothing, except God, is sovereign Everything but God is sovereign. If no one talked about God, He'd be non-existent within one generation. 3) Sovereignty, in the sense of commanding one's life in the narrow sense of how we perceive, does not necessitate the affirmation of "right," in the constitutional sense. 4) Ability to act does not necessitate the [being] of those same types of rights either. And again you are shooting yourself in the foot. So you are telling me you don't believe that a sovereign individual is necessarily entitled to rights? Then why not abort after birth? Physically healthy, maybe so. But physical goodness does not necessitate moral goodness. This is a separate debate I'd love to have later, would be too much fun. •lolzors93(1561) Disputed 1 point I'm not going to debate with you. You, unlike most people, have good points. I just am too lazy to actually debate them; and yes, I do disagree with them on logical grounds. The problem is that it reverts into too many sub-debates. Side: True.
There are some people on here that it is impossible to convince that they are wrong because they are just too close minded and refuse to see another point of view except their own but there are some people on here who are open minded and interested in learning and seeing things from another point of view, it all depends who you are debating. Side: I don't buy any of that crap.
1
point
1
point
"Open up your mind and see like me". Haha. I have seen a few people alter their position. Usually only a little and after great effort. What is most bothersome is when a person drops the whole context of debating and just starts insulting the opposition. Side: I don't buy any of that crap.
There are some that just insult people because they are arrogant and believe they are a lot smarter than the people they are debating, I can never figure out why they bother debating, there are some who get insulting when they lose their temper which is normally when their debating "skills" disappear Side: I don't buy any of that crap.
|
