persuading an audience is an entertaining metric, but it does tend to favor ad hominem attacks
i try to relate debate skill to real-life one-on-one communication
if you fail to convince the person you disagree with
your argument has failed and you have lost the debate
So, as long as one refuses to be convinced, one can always win.
well, it's easy for both sides to lose (both sides remain unconvinced)
and it is possible for both sides to win (both sides learn something valuable)
There are texts or statements that I accept as ‘unassailable’. This means that if I see/read something as unassailable, I agree with the meaning of the statement.
Which I do here.
In principle, if I do not meet with the person who made this statement, I basically do not know whether my agreement actually corresponds with his giving of meaning. But since I assume that I agree with the statement, there may be no encounter.
What I still can do is to make an additional expression of what the person just expressed himself.
That is what I do :)
The dialogue as a meeting space has the potential to exchange views on aspects of meaning that agree or disagree.
100 % so.
Two people who want to win scenario:
The interest of philosophical exchange lies in reducing the mass of disagreement through a quick question-and-answer game. Like a sculpture on which both chiselling down the incongruous. At the end of this dialogue, a figure appears from the sculpture, which both can recognise as a ‘man with a discus’, for example.
Yes.
Two people both losing scenario:
In an uninterested dialogue, the dialogue partners are not focused on the block of gypsum that they are carving together, but on experiencing the other as the winner or loser. This neglects the object of the dialogue content and overemphasises the subject of the speakers.
beautiful
The best debates/arguments are ones where both/all participants honestly seek to find the truth. Most people unfortunately see them as little more than pissing contests.
i heard a story told by a high ranking government official about how they "destroyed" one of their detractors in an important meeting
and later, when they bragged about it to their son
the son asked them, "did you convince them you were right ?"
and that's when they realized that simply embarrassing people is far less valuable than actually winning them over to your view
It's simple and fairly self-evident, so I'm always amazed how many people can't seem to grasp this whatsoever.
no kidding