Inability to Counter Points in Debate

[aviet]

I have been hyper-sensitive to logical issues and emotional conflicts that infest people's speech and postings since a child. It is a skill that become more attuned since listening to FDR. Unless the discussion could be characterised as some sort of debate, I don't always point out inconsistencies. In speech-debate however, I have found that when an individual fails to rebut your points (usually consisting of a personal attack), it tends to lead to you winning the argument. When you point out that they have failed to rebut you, this seems to so flummox them that they both waver and at best typically fail to rebut the point a second time. Due to facial expressions and tone, you can tell you have won. When it comes to online debate, you don't have that and that individual will typically scurry off.

My question is: how do you think it is possible for people to have no argument for or against a position, while maintaining their position. If anything it seems to strengthen their resolve.

[RichardY]

My question is: how do you think it is possible for people to have no argument for or against a position, while maintaining their position. If anything it seems to strengthen their resolve.

 

I think it has something to do with pattern mismatching with words and images in the frontal and parietal areas of the brain, reinforced by the activation of more primitive areas of the brain . For instance Krankenschwester(german) is nurse in English, but if you take the literal translation you get sick sister.

 

Someone may call a Bailiff a Villain based on the uncomfortable experience of having property removed that they would like to maintain hold of, but if you take the origin of the word villain you get villein which means a landless peasant. So people associate Villain with Evil, as people don't want to call Evil by its true name Lord Voldemort(crappy joke).

[aviet]

I think it has something to do with pattern mismatching with words and images in the frontal and parietal areas of the brain

This is the sort of deep explanation I was hoping for, but I fail to see the full train of thought.

[Will Torbald]

There's an FDR video/podcast called The Death of Reason if I recall correctly. It's about how listening to counter arguments will actually manage to reinforce people's initial position out of pure emotion. It's a huge blow to the idea that people can change if only they listened to reason, but that is only for a minority of people.

[aviet]

There's an FDR video/podcast called The Death of Reason if I recall correctly. It's about how listening to counter arguments will actually manage to reinforce people's initial position out of pure emotion. It's a huge blow to the idea that people can change if only they listened to reason, but that is only for a minority of people.

Thanks. I will check that out now.

[dsayers]

My question is: how do you think it is possible for people to have no argument for or against a position, while maintaining their position. If anything it seems to strengthen their resolve.

Indeed it does. This is why it is so troubling seeing people waste so much time trying to effect a result they literally can't. If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. You cannot use logic, reason, and evidence to talk somebody out of a position they didn't arrive at by way of those vehicles.

 

Also, a criticism if I may. If logic, reason, and evidence are your tools and the truth is your goal, there is no personal investment in a discussion. If you think 2+2=5 and I prove that 2+2=4, I have not won. I think approaching/addressing a discussion from a win/lose perspective ensures a "lose." If you are unable to convince somebody, it's not that you've lost. And if you can get somebody to relinquish falsehoods in favor of truth, THEY have won, not you. Taking personal investment out of it is hugely liberating and makes it easier to stay focused and not get distracted.

 

At least that's my take. My most sophisticated abuser is fantastic at deflection. So it could be that staying focused being so important is merely my bias. I've just noticed how much people who are incorrect will use obfuscation to adhere to their position.

[aviet]

Indeed it does. This is why it is so troubling...

 

Thank you. Those are some useful directions to think in.

[Mister Mister]

Thanks. I will check that out now.

I would also recommend the Bomb in the Brain series if you haven't seen it, it's really essential.  Stef also did a speech condensing the info from all 4 parts, into about an hour.

 

I noticed that you said something about "winning the argument".  I think that herein lies the problem - as soon as we set ourselves in opposition to someone who has a differing opinion from us, we are in a win/lose scenario: most people, in their history with their parents, siblings, teachers, priests, and so on, are humiliated and have it "rubbed in their face" if they admit they are wrong.  The more adversarial you make yourself, the more you are potentially recreating this scenario in their mind.  Rather than working together to solve a puzzle, to expand our understanding, you have entered a winner-take-all boxing match.  I always try to be diplomatic as possible, and if the other person escalates first, bring attention to this.  Otherwise I don't think anything productive can be achieved.  Just a thought I had.  I have the same challenge with this as the rest of you.

[violet]

I think it's an emotional defense mechanism. If you've built up a life on certain premises or a specific worldview, it is disorienting to have that challenged. Accepting one truth, how many others need to be challenged as well? I think it's very difficult and time-consuming to think rationally about everything, so many people follow the culture, a political group, or a religion. Whether you are open to debate depends on whether you want to pursue hard truth or happy ignorance.

[aviet]

I noticed that you said something about "winning the argument".

I completely agree with your following remarks. When I talk to people, it will typically be a discussion, rather than a debate. However, when I was referring to winning, I was thinking more of winning in the minds of other listeners, not who you are debating. I agree that the person you are debating will be unlikely to change their mind via forward or gung-ho tactics, but I think that this influences others listening.

 

As an example, in the Republican primary debate Trump used forward tactics to win in people's minds, but obviously not Jeb's. I think if it wasn't for that Jeb would have done a lot better.

 

The inspiration for this was an argument that arose in which I was arguing against the dictatorial nature of the European Union. I was rebuffed as a tyrant for doing so, without any reference to anything I said. So I tersely pointed out that I did not see how my comments could be construed as such and that their statement does not appear to counter anything I said. They went on to say that my argument was not an argument, but propaganda followed by a snide remark that may have been clever other than the fact it was completely subjective and had nothing to do with what I said. So I pointed out that they were again unable to address any points. If it is a propaganda, then they could argue against a point or points. Followed by an insult. They again made a statement, which had no bearing on anything I said and said that they will not dignify the points with a rebuttal because they are irrational. To which I replied they had done it again, if all people had to do to win an argument is say 'you are wrong' and 'I don't have to tell you why you are wrong', then the art of debate is over. I then pointed out that if my points are irrational, then it should be child's play to demolish them. At this point they were ruined and I had obviously won in the minds of other or at least cast their side as weak. But yes, I had probably only reinforced their position - though I never got to know their position. I guess this is the obfuscation mentioned above.

[algernon]

They went on to say that my argument was not an argument, but propaganda followed by a snide remark that may have been clever other than the fact it was completely subjective and had nothing to do with what I said. So I pointed out that they were again unable to address any points. If it is a propaganda, then they could argue against a point or points. Followed by an insult. They again made a statement, which had no bearing on anything I said and said that they will not dignify the points with a rebuttal because they are irrational. To which I replied they had done it again, if all people had to do to win an argument is say 'you are wrong' and 'I don't have to tell you why you are wrong', then the art of debate is over.

 

Nothing quite like the mind bending, head exploding hypocrisy of someone doing to you, what they just accused you of doing.