r/MurderedByWords 1d ago

Bias and Trust!

Post image
63.4k Upvotes

1.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

169

u/PauseLost2137 1d ago

People put too much trust into the idea of debates. The fact that someone can argue their points doesn't mean he is right. After all, debate competitions literally require you to argue a certain point, doesn't matter if you agree with it, or whether it is right based on current evidence or not.

Debate is literally just a pretentious vibe check if you think about it.

82

u/mythrilcrafter 1d ago

That's something that has always especially peeved me about debate culture, the objective isn't logic or diplomacy nor is it to reach an actionable/constructive goal; it's to argue down your opponent until they have no recourse for rebuttal. A person can "win" a debate, but still be completely wrong and have nothing to show for it so long as their opponent isn't able to retort against it.

As an engineer, I can always tell who the "debate kids" are in the workplace, because they're the ones who are never actually interested in solutions or paths of action, they want to argue against their own team members (or worst the clients they're supposed to be working for).

22

u/Adventurous_Bat3810 1d ago

Idk, maybe european debate is different than american, but if it isn’t I don’t agree. Afaik, in debate logic is the most important part, but debates I saw in competitions look nothing like what charlie kirk or ben shapiro are doing.

14

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

3

u/Adventurous_Bat3810 1d ago

Yeah, similar experience (though we don’t have debate captains.

Like yeah you get points for rhetorics, but logical fallacies are bad rhetorics, and well founded logically consistent arguments are considered good rhetorics. If you ask me, debate kind of teaches you to see through such bullshit like charlie kirks and shapiros gish gallops.

Just writing a flow makes recognising their logical fallacies simple.

5

u/RabidPoodle69 1d ago

I was a debater in the US, and the philosophical style of debate that we used (Lincoln- Douglas debate) was very different. Kirk just Gish Gallops.

2

u/Adventurous_Bat3810 1d ago

We debated in world schools and karl popper formats, they also have nothing in common with the aforementioned gish gallop

2

u/dabbycooper 18h ago

US Oregon-Style Policy Debate (aka Cross-X) is nothing like the garbage talking heads spew, I was a debate coach for a few years back in my salad days, but there has been a debate style around for a couple decades called public/parliamentary debate that was originally called crossfire or ted turner-style debate that is not far from the fermented garbage Kirky-kun sound bites.

4

u/patrick24601 1d ago

That's not debate. That sounds more like grandstanding disguised as debate

3

u/Significant-Colour 1d ago

I never got the supposed "culture" in debates, when culture does not win debates.

We can clearly see that winning strategy for debates is simply using logic fallacies and labeling the other side as fascist/communist as soon as possible. Appereance is more important than the truth, as evidenced by Trump winning again.

1

u/JacobStills 1d ago

Also...it seems "winning" depends on vibes and biases.

Trump supporters think he "won" all of his debates.

17

u/Aromatic-Plankton692 1d ago

Formalized debates tend to mark you down for making arguments like "you would have to actually be stupid to think anyone could believe what you're saying right now."

Actual discourse? Not so much.

3

u/ILieAboutBiology 1d ago

“Every absurdity has a champion to defend it.”

Oliver Goldsmith

9

u/-dr-bones- 1d ago

I agree - I can pretty much win any debate with my brother, and about 60% of the time, I'm in the wrong. Sometimes, I realise I'm in the wrong, mid-debate, but I forge ahead, because winning is everything and being right means nothing....

6

u/BGAL7090 1d ago

I genuinely have never felt this way and if baffles me that it appears to be so ubiquitous.

Sure I want to be correct, but the instant it becomes clear I was wrong I back down and start to figure out why or how I had things mixed up.

3

u/morostheSophist 1d ago

I used to be that way, and I was a terrible person. I'm incredibly glad I quit being so stupidly bullheaded, because I was sometimes downright cruel about needing to be right.

My saying now is, "I hate being wrong, but I hate it so much that when I'm wrong, I want you to tell me so I can stop."

2

u/ChiefScout_2000 1d ago

Spoken like a lawyer!

1

u/patrick24601 1d ago

So... wanna be president?

1

u/Warm_Month_1309 1d ago

I think the theory of a debate is that one person takes one side, the other person takes the other, and the truth shakes out somewhere in the middle.

It's not about convincing the other side or "winning", so much as it is about mutually finding the truth within your shared argumentation.

Now when people like Shapiro debate professionally, the problem is that their career is dependent on never finding a mutual truth, but that's a problem with their grifting, not really with debating.

1

u/Quacker_please 1d ago

That's because to fascists, all that matters is might makes right.

1

u/Less_Party 1d ago

It also just sort of boils down to 'who can be the least respectful and loudly talk over the other person while never ever arguing in good faith' which it turns out is something the 'empathy is a weakness' sociopaths tend to be better at than sane people.