Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
You may think that, but your brain has already formed opinions on anything you hear before you even consciously process the words. I think this is called the affect heuristic.
People can and do change the opinions all the time, but they ALWAYS have an opinion on everything.
By the way, once again you are presenting an argument /for/ research before posting...
Because I am also a supporter of research before "posting" (in my case: speaking).
Maybe we subconsciously do form opinions. I'm not a supporter of expressing opinions without arguments though.
f=m*a syens
Originally Posted by Arglax
The face-to-face Socratic method can discern people who follow their emotions from people who have a well-founded point of view.
An example:
I ask someone in real life whether they are pro-abortion or not.
Without thinking, this person may respond that he or she is completely pro-abortion.
Then I continue and ask "why?".
The person has actually never thought about the query before and simply followed his or her emotion.
Same scenario, but in correspondence debate:
I ask someone whether they are pro-abortion or not.
The person says they are completely pro-abortion.
I ask "why"?
The person has never thought about the query before. Now they go and read a few books or look some arguments up on the internet. Then they return with a bunch of arguments. They purposefully left out all arguments contra-abortion.
Originally Posted by Arglax
No, the opposite is truth. I like someone to research before forming an opinion.
Originally Posted by Arglax
Because I am also a supporter of research before "posting" (in my case: speaking).
Maybe we subconsciously do form opinions. I'm not a supporter of expressing opinions without arguments though.
Ok but these are three separate arguments aren't they?
Post 1 says you prefer face-to-face because you don't like it when people go and research.
Post 2 says you like it when people research before forming an opinion
Post 3 says you don't care if people research or not before forming an opinion, but you do care if people post before researching.
There are three explanations as to why your argument changes so much:
A. You didn't really think about your thesis statement first and just followed your emotions and dived in., which isn't great, but it is inline with your argument in post 1, and you listed it as your preference.
B. You are changing your mind with the argument, which is of course fine - it's the epitome of the socratic method!
C. You have just been expressing yourself poorly and your opinion has never changed, which is not good at all! But our incremental discussion will chip away at the language barrier and uncover your true opinion.
So I'd like to super-bump this to add a new concept into the fray.
Suppose someone is rambling on or whatnot, expressing their ideas and so on under this subforum. And say you want to respond to this individual. In your response, do you feel obliged to respond to every single individual idea expressed in his or her post? For example, say that an individual has made a pro-life post with three independent reasons as to why he is pro-life. Now suppose that you are pro-choice and wish to argue with this person's views, do you feel obligated to address each and every idea against abortion he expressed? Or is it sufficient to address only some of the ideas he brought up? Consider the opposite situation, when you have made a post with multiple points. Do you expect those who disagree with your views to address each and every idea you present? Or are you okay with only some of those concepts being addressed?
For me it's a matter of debate or discussion. In my opinion no concept or argument by either parties should be dropped in a debate. But, for something informal like a discussion one-liners addressing only a single concept is reasonable. Albeit in my opinion they typically don't help either party express his or her views or advance the discussion for that matter. But more importantly, I feel like distinguishing what should be done for a debate or discussion isn't very helpful, since discussions in here tend to wane in-between lax discussions and actual debates.
Suppose someone is rambling on or whatnot, expressing their ideas and so on under this subforum. And say you want to respond to this individual. In your response, do you feel obliged to respond to every single individual idea expressed in his or her post? For example, say that an individual has made a pro-life post with three independent reasons as to why he is pro-life. Now suppose that you are pro-choice and wish to argue with this person's views, do you feel obligated to address each and every idea against abortion he expressed? Or is it sufficient to address only some of the ideas he brought up? Consider the opposite situation, when you have made a post with multiple points. Do you expect those who disagree with your views to address each and every idea you present? Or are you okay with only some of those concepts being addressed?
For me it's a matter of debate or discussion. In my opinion no concept or argument by either parties should be dropped in a debate. But, for something informal like a discussion one-liners addressing only a single concept is reasonable. Albeit in my opinion they typically don't help either party express his or her views or advance the discussion for that matter. But more importantly, I feel like distinguishing what should be done for a debate or discussion isn't very helpful, since discussions in here tend to wane in-between lax discussions and actual debates.
Last edited by GoodBox; Sep 16, 2013 at 01:58 AM.
(>^_^)>
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Ok but these are three separate arguments aren't they?
No, I think there's some miscommunication.
What I want: people researching and THEN forming an opinion.
What I don't want: people forming an opinion and then researching premade arguments to back up their points, leaving out all arguments they encounter that contradict them.
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Post 1 says you prefer face-to-face because you don't like it when people go and research.
Correct
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Post 2 says you like it when people research before forming an opinion
Correct
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
Post 3 says you don't care if people research or not before forming an opinion, but you do care if people post before researching.
I think you think I am contra research to back things up. The nuance is about when it happens. If the research happens before the definite opinion is formed, I can only applaud that. If the research happens after the definite opinion is formed, I do not applaud that. Also, "Post 3 says you don't care if people research or not before forming an opinion", from which words exactly do you deduce this? (I didn't re-read the whole thread, and it's been a while, so it's possible I am contradicting myself.)
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
There are three explanations as to why your argument changes so much:
[...]
But it doesn't change
. I think there is some form of miscommunication here.My initial point:
I dislike it when people form an opinion without prior research, and then go research the subject in a biased way, ignoring all arguments that do not fit in their opinion.
Originally Posted by GoodBox
So I'd like to super-bump this to add a new concept into the fray.
Suppose someone is rambling on or whatnot, expressing their ideas and so on under this subforum. And say you want to respond to this individual. In your response, do you feel obliged to respond to every single individual idea expressed in his or her post?
Personally, yes.
Originally Posted by GoodBox
For example, say that an individual has made a pro-life post with three independent reasons as to why he is pro-life. Now suppose that you are pro-choice and wish to argue with this person's views, do you feel obligated to address each and every idea against abortion he expressed? Or is it sufficient to address only some of the ideas he brought up?
Depends on the arguments. In most cases, both sides of the discussion have their pros and their cons. Usually, it's the art of picking the ones with the strongest pros and weakest cons. If one side would only have cons and the other only pros, there would be little room for argument.
My point is, I will often admit that an argument makes sense, but often I pick for the other side of the debate because it has stronger arguments.
Following your example, I understand that when foetuses are aborted, potential geniuses will never live. This is a strong argument on the contra-abortion side. However, the loss of a genius does, to me, not compare to the amount of lives that could be "saved" (i.e. improved) by an abortion, or when the "potential child" would not have a good childhood in a certain family.
Whereas I admit that one argument of the opposition makes sense, the arguments of the other side are simply stronger so I choose that side anyway.
Originally Posted by GoodBox
Consider the opposite situation, when you have made a post with multiple points. Do you expect those who disagree with your views to address each and every idea you present? Or are you okay with only some of those concepts being addressed?
By the logic I stated earlier, I don't expect every argument to be countered. I tend to stay out of arguments I don't know much about, though.
Originally Posted by GoodBox
For me it's a matter of debate or discussion. In my opinion no concept or argument by either parties should be dropped in a debate.
I may be interpreting the sentence incorrectly, but if no party is willing to budge from the start of the debate, what's the point?
Originally Posted by GoodBox
But, for something informal like a discussion one-liners addressing only a single concept is reasonable. Albeit in my opinion they typically don't help either party express his or her views or advance the discussion for that matter. But more importantly, I feel like distinguishing what should be done for a debate or discussion isn't very helpful, since discussions in here tend to wane in-between lax discussions and actual debates.
From what I understand, in discussions among friends, it's more important to defend yourself and 'win' (not necessarily being right) the 'discussion'. When I discuss stupid things among friends (we do it all the time) I use logical fallacies and may childish arguments like incorrect usage of words by the opponent. I might even support a viewpoint I would never support 'for real' just for the fun of it/to play advocate of the devil. When this occurs, both parties are aware (I hope. Poe's law may apply).
In a debate, I would only defend a point I completely support and know a lot about. Debates tend to be regulated, with rounds, pauses, a moderator, ... Debates have rules, discussions don't. At least, that's what I think.
f=m*a syens
