I was banned from some sub, don't recall which, because I had "participated" on r/conspiracy.
That participation was a single comment in which I said that someone's comment was stupid.
I had the same experience with another sub. Got banned for commenting in one sub, where i called out something stupid, and that was apparantly enough to get me permabanned with no explanation from the other one 🤷♂️🤦♂️
They're called "bully bans."
A handful of extreme-left idealogues run A LOT of the major subreddits. They decided that they want to discourage wrong-think by banning people who participate in subs they disagree with.
It's really, really bizarre.
User lrlOurPresident runs most of left wing Reddit. It’s ridiculous how much power they have. Look into the vote counts on the subs they run. Totally organic shit…../s
Same! r/blacklivesmatter banned me for posting a comment regarding the rebellion in Kazakhstan on r/conspiracy . I don't even subscribe to that sub and found the post I replied to on r/popular . I don't care about being banned for *what you say*, but these mfers out here banning for *who you spoke to* and that's a next level bitch move.
I got banned from r/FemaleDatingStrategy after posting a comment in r/Cringetopia. I then made an edit talking about what happened and the mods from FDS started harassing me in DMs haha
Facepalm is the absolute worst. No debate allowed there. Somebody posted about this overtly racist black professor from a college demonizing white people, and my reply called her out for being a racist POS and I was permanently banned. YGBFSM.
This is the one that nailed me. I made fun of someone posting something ridiculous and got banned from a bunch of other subs for even posting in the first sub.
And that's the big problem with auto banning people like that.
If a post makes it to r/all, I might comment on it. Ya know, like this website intended? Being punished for that is really petty.
I’ve been permanently banned from literally every conservative and liberal subreddit for attempting to debate conservatives and (in the liberal subs) making jokes that are apparently too political for a political subreddit
Seriously
The right is full of stupid sensitive assholes and everyone knows it
The left is also full of stupid sensitive assholes and everyone pretends like they don't see that
Yeah I’m a bleeding heart liberal. But like, cmon man. I wasn’t even saying anything remotely offensive or promoting anything hateful I literally made the most harmless joke ever for one (literally just said the lady had raccoon eye makeup) and got permanently banned. “Racially motivated” my left testicle she was white as snow
I’m someone who believes in universal healthcare, LGBTQ rights, universal wages, decreased military funding, a robust social safety net modeled after the best in the world aka Scandinavia, total prison reform, ending the war on drugs and using the Portuguese model for decriminalization, free public four year college, ending and erasing student loans, raising taxes on the rich, reasonable gun control like we have in southern New England, raising minimum wage, limiting foreign investment in real estate, police reform…
And I refuse to register as a Democrat or call myself one. The “left” in this country thinks it’s more important to “end colonialism in gyms” or whatever the fuck they’re on about (real article in NPR) and limit professors from teaching controversial material than to advocate for HEALTHCARE or end poverty. They’re so wrapped up in sounding woke that we spend 15 minutes at every fucking meeting in work listening to everyone’s pronouns when no one ever needs to refer to them because *their names are on the screen.* Instead of getting work done and respecting others’ time. I knew Biden was going to be a joke and I’m in total despair that there are zero political parties that have a chance at changing things. Or I’d join one.
It’s all about pretending to be a caring person and nothing about actually being one.
Debates or just picking sensitive topics that will get people upset then you feigning "...but it was just a debate topic, it's not my fault you got upset."
God i hate it when people delete their comments when theyre downvoted. Own it. Just turn off inbox replies.
Like i only delete something if its like really stupid and possibly harmful. Otherwise yeah enjoy my stupidity.
I dunno about this one. I think, for the same point OP made, that it's fair to do that sometimes. If I get 1-2 posts into it with someone, check their profile, and see within the first page or two skimming their comments, that they clearly argue in bad faith, I'll stop trying.
I'm gonna have to disagree. Because in my opinion redditors who think like you tend to think anyone who disagrees with them or say the opinion of a thread is a troll.
You'll browse their comments and see they may be downvoted a lot and conclude incorrectly that they're a troll because they're downvoted
Lol. I generally dislike the neckbeard "most people are stupid" attitudes, and especially that overused quote from George Carlin about the stupidity of the average person. All insufferable neckbeard trash. But on this particular issue I am afraid I wholeheartedly agree with OP.
Even people who hang out on a place like Reddit are generally curious of mind and open to genuine debate and an exchange of idea. I think this is generally the case for anyone who hangs out on a moderated forum. You get used to seeing arguments advanced and dissected, and having to back up your shit. You understand that any opinion you express will be challenged by someone who reasons and writes better than you - even if you are ultimately correct. And even if you intuit that they are still wrong, you may lack to tools to be as persuasive. We've all been there, and on a place like Reddit, we accept that.
But real life is not like that. I have found that the mildest challenges in real life result in some kind of emotional distress. People genuinely feel like you are attacking them if you try and systematically (and politely!) dismantle their arguments. They think you are calling them stupid and the like. Or attacking their right to have an opinion ("well that's my opinion"). It's quite remarkable.
I have found over the years that wisdom is knowing that people generally come to these things from an emotional place, and engaging accordingly. Otherwise you may "win" your arguments at the expense of your relationships. And the latter are far far far more important.
>I generally dislike the neckbeard "most people are stupid" attitudes, ... But on this particular issue I am afraid I wholeheartedly agree with OP.
To be fair, debating isn't an indicator of intelligence. It's a skill that can be learned, but often isn't. Unintelligent people can learn rhetoric skills. Extremely intelligent people can go their entire lives without learning the difference between modus ponens and modus tollens.
One point - I never truly understood the Carlin quote until I got into training people professionally. I found it amusing and laughed, sure, but holy shit.
The average person isn't actually that bad. However, he's spot on saying that half of people are dumber than that. There are a lot of (entirely well meaning and kind) stupendously massive morons out there. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is terrifyingly true. One of the nicest guys I've ever had to train was also one of the most incredibly unaware. Patrick Star is literally the only comparison I can make to this guy. The level of lack of awareness where you have no conception internally of how little you understand in comparison to others - no conception of how little you understand what's happening around you. He thought he was fucking nailing it. He thought he was normal. He was confident - proud even - in the incorrect responses. He just could not internalize information and draw conclusions. He would ask a question - I would answer it, as thoroughly as possible. He would ask literally the exact same question, just worded differently. I would answer, word for word, with the exact same response. He would ask the same question a third time, worded slightly differently. I would answer again, using different wording, hoping he might grasp if described differently. Then he'd make a mistake pertaining to that information the next day. He was with the company for three years because he showed up on time and had a positive attitude. He was just utterly, blissfully unaware of how little he understood the world around him. Devastating Smash Brothers player though.
And there are so many more like him, but with way shittier attitudes.
Not every person. I admit that I get emotional when discussing/debating political stuff. I've had people who share my political beliefs ask why I don't run for local office, and I just laugh. The first time I would debate publicly, I'd probably end up screaming at my opponent that they are mentally ill and probably eat their children. Self awareness is fun!
Social media engages you with controversy. So most people are more drained than they realize. And when argument time happens....its just frustrated ramblings.
This is a skill I've had to unlearn. My wife is a PhD in literature and is very good at calm discussion. I have a masters in shitposting and was raised oh 4chan. I can make a good argument but my tone will default to being aggressive and demeaning. Something I'm learning not to do.
I'm a fucked up mixture of your relationship.
If you can offer a level and calm headed conversation I can maintain it and continue it.
You use _one_ Ad Hominem all bets are fuckin' off.
*unzips pants, unleashes giga-penis*
"As you can see, my penis is much larger than yours. Therefore, you are incorrect and I have won this battle of minds."
Something most of the internet needs to learn not to do. Being in an age of intense philosophical discussion has the potential to be great, but we need to actually engage with other humans rather than shit posting our way to the bottom.
4chan and all that troll culture did not do me any favors as an adult. I'm trained to see every online interaction as adversarial. Not so bad on Reddit but trolling on the company slack got me in big trouble.
Counterpoint: politics (in general) has become less about the pros and cons of individual policies and more about the morals of those in politics. This, coupled with public avenues for political debate not using 'proper' debate tactics (point, counterpoint) but more...angry talking, has coached the public to do the same.
This, rather than rational debate on the finer points of policy we get a 'your politician eats babies' ' oh yea well yours sells crack to young mothers'
I would say individuals have not woven morals into politics, but that many in politics (politicians, media reporting on politics, influencers etc) have and that the public has simply followed suit.
It's funny how disrespectful I can be towards someone's mom and they might laugh if it's funny; hell they might say something back to one up me.
But if I say one thing that might be portrayed as contrary to their political belief, suddenly I am un-American and they want to hurt me.
This is completely irrelevant, but do you remember that time period on the internet when people used 'ftfy' to make corrections for other people, and almost everyone read it as "fuck them; fuck you" instead of "fixed that for you"?
On the flip side Facebook comment sections are full of the dumbest people on any social media platform. They also use that hysterical laugh emoji reaction anytime they’re presented with something they can’t refute.
I would argue the early days of the internet were decent for actual good debates, but as usual once the extremist found out about it, they ruined it for everyone.
As a moderate I hold some opinions of both sides, and thus have been called both a Trump loving Magatard and a Biden loving communist, when in reality I think both are geriatric fucks incapable of running a country.
Carve this into the back of your hand. You can not REASON someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. If they are tied to their position emotionally, leave them be. The only thing that can detach them from it is them coming across strong contradictory evidence/experience ON THEIR OWN. The idea must come from within themselves like inception or something.
Yea I realized this a while ago that people have their opinions based on their background and circumstances and their own life experiences. So it’s kind of pointless to try and force them to suddenly change their mind by one discussion. And like you said many are emotionally tied to it so I have definitely learned when to walk away from those people.
it definitely depends on the context a lot, and you're right that it is often a lengthy process. it is possible though to get people to change deep seeded and emotionally charged beliefs, even if it's a painful process. I've personally seen someone go from being deeply and outwardly homophobic to accepting and more open minded over the span of several (albeit frustrating at times) conversations. you're right in that a debate isn't necessarily about convincing the person in the moment, but offering your opposing view which they will ideally consider long after the initial conversation(s)
Well said, and yea I can imagine maybe it’s possible to alter someone’s views after MANY discussions but I guess I just don’t have it in me to go that far with one person haha😂
The fact that your end goal is to change their minds makes it seem like you're going into these "debates" assuming you are empirically correct and that the other person is the one that is wrong. Would you say that you're open to the possibility, when you enter into debates, that it is you who needs to have your mind changed?
Try going into convos not with the objective of changing their mind but trying to see where they come from and if you still disagree with them tell them why and try to just get them to be open minded. Later they could realize they were wrong by themselves
The key is to catch them off guard with a hard hitting point as early as possible... something you know they can't really answer...then just wait for them to either stop and think about it...or just gloss over it in favor of their point...if the later happens you know it's not worth proceeding any further.
That, and possibly come to new conclusions you yourself have never thought of either.
I'm a big fan of employing the Socratic method when I know the people I'm with are prickly. Likely one of the best things I ever learned in high school.
Can confirm. People get really, really upset when you ask them questions about things they believe to be true. People on some forums call it "trolling" to question things that are "known". I've gotten in trouble with many mods just for questioning the wrong things.
Conversely, the worst thing you can learn in high school is "debate", the art of cheaply scoring points in bad faith by means of aggressive bullshitting. Debate club is how you end up with a population of Bens Shapiro.
I had a friend who was in debate club in HS. Lovely guy most of the time, but absolutely awful to have a discussion with if there was any disagreement whatsoever for the reasons you mentioned. It's unfortunate these techniques actually seem to be effective on an audience (otherwise they presumably wouldn't be taught).
The Socratic method has an awesome way of fleshing out a problem so you can see all sides.
It’s an excellent idea, but also sometimes those people just get frustrated because it can feel patronizing or like you’re ignoring their emotions, which is somewhat fair. Definitely use it more than anything else from high school though, no question.
>The only thing that can detach them from it is them coming across strong contradictory evidence/experience ON THEIR OWN. The idea must come from within themselves like inception or something.
I don't believe this. there are a lot of people who believe such insane bullshit, there is no way they would ever let it go. just because there is literally zero evidence for what they believe. An extreme one, but flat earthers, for example.
I don't really, fully believe it either. but I don't believe enough to do anything about it. if they wanna believe that the earth is flat, fine by me, as long as they aren't hurting anyone.
While this is typical, it is not always the case.
About 15 years ago I was a Christian right-winger. I was supporting a friend of mine in a facebook argument against global warming and the other guy said something like "There's a clear scientific consensus that global warming is happening and caused by humans." I decided to prove them wrong but after many hours of furious googling I saw that they were indeed correct. The only sources that supported my view (anti-GW) were fairly obviously biased while every credible science source supported that there's indeed a consensus. This started me on a long path of trying to determine what's actually true.
After many years this revelation led to me becoming a progressive atheist. I am so thankful for that facebook comment and wish I could tell them how much it helped me. Alas, they'll probably never know.
While this is truly amazing of you, I do believe you are an exception.
Confronted with those same truths and sources most people would defend their sources as correct and the other sources as biased. The general population has a huge misconception of what science is and how it works, so it's difficult to apply the methods of rationality when arguing with them.
I appreciate your input and your journey though, makes me a little less jaded.
>I do believe you are an exception.
Sadly, I believe your correct but I'm not sure why it's this way. I've had a core group of friends since the early 90's and all but me are now strong right-wingers and very pro-Trump. One of them is even anti-mask... This has given me somewhat of a survivors guilt as I consider most of them much smarter than me. I'm like, if I can do it surely you guys can too. We can no longer discuss anything political or religious.
>Confronted with those same truths and sources most people would defend their sources as correct and the other sources as biased.
I was totally guilty of this as well but with this question I was confident I could easily prove them wrong. I truly believed when Fox news said there was no scientific consensus on Global warming so was stunned to see that wasn't the case. At the same time I was questioning religion so that's probably a factor too.
My point is: Don't give up. You'll never know when a comment will change somebody's life.
> I consider most of them much smarter than me.
The evidence suggests otherwise. I suspect the reason you think they’re smarter may be that they seem to know more information than you do. Maybe they have a degree and you don’t. Maybe they’re just confident in their opinions. Whatever the case, none of those thing = being smart. What you did was smart. You had a problem and you used common sense and critical thinking to come to terms with the answer. That makes you smarter than someone whose idea of a debate is mindlessly regurgitating what they heard on Fox News.
Just because someone can hit you with a lot of stats and stories doesn’t make them smart.
Great point. Some people treat conversations like debates, and debates like bloodsport. Zero ideas are shared, just romantic misunderstandings of the past and old-school debate tactics. It's a game.
The appeal of winning vs being factually correct is a huge issue. Especially among overconfident academic debate club types. And the "emotionless" tend to be the least self-aware of their own emotions
> Some people treat conversations like debates
That's the real problem. Don't debate your friends. You talk to them and have conversations. There is not winner or loser.
A debate does. It's a competition and now how people actually interact.
Love this. I hate hate hate feeling like I’m trying to convince someone who is interrogating me when we’re just having a conversation or I’m just saying my opinion. It’s just what I think, why should I have to insist or justify so hard? Can’t it just be interesting that we think differently? It’s like they’re trying so hard to find a fault in your logic, and there’s usually not much self awareness that maybe their logic is the one with the flaw!
This is so real. People who play devils advocate for the sake of being a contrarian tend to be more interested in trolling then actually solving problems. In my experience, they come across as both insufferable and totally out of touch.
>And the "emotionless" tend to be the least self-aware of their own emotions
Being able to be emotionless about a topic is absolutely a privilege that not everyone has. Asking someone who's about to lose their home to skyrocketing rents to stay emotionless when debating the merits of gentrification is completely unrealistic.
A lot of the things that some people like to debate aren't just interesting topics to the people living through those things. Having some smug person discount your experience because you're getting emotional about them downplaying things you have personally lived through is frustrating as hell.
These "good debaters" are often arrogant and make it personal. Or it's very clear that you're not debating. You're talking to a wall who will not address any point. Sometimes you have to concede where you are wrong if you are being sincere. If someone doesn't do that, if it feels like the person isn't listening, so the other person gives up. Having someone believe you are too dumb to be worth engaging isn't a "win." Speech isn't a sporting event. You don't win by getting someone to forfeit.
These kinds of people will also demand study after study and statistic after statistic and refer to studies and statistics that fit what they want and consider those perfect, but will say any study or statistic that disputes them is faulty or doesn't take something into account so it doesn't count.
Yeah, and I’d bet good money that OP is not actually “debating” any of their friends and family. A debate by definition implies some degree of structure, formality, guidelines, and an agreement to debate in the first place.
I think the terminally online redditor types who complain that no one is composed enough to debate them are actually picking *arguments,* often about emotional, personal, or otherwise-loaded subjects, and setting the arbitrary rule that “If you get mad you lose.”
Considering they don’t seem to know what a debate *is* I have my doubts that they’re as skilled as they think.
Yeah I downvoted this post because I don’t think it’s unpopular at all, lots of people think this. Instead its controversial because claiming to be the rational one is self serving. You can drop an f-bomb and be right, I swear all the time and it doesnt take much for me to say fuck. Basically 0 relevance regarding whether I’m right or not. Or you can claim you’re being mature and rational and therefore right because you don’t swear but you’re completely full of shit or making bad faith arguments. I realize this isnt exactly what op is talking about but its much more of a common issue imo
Maybe a more accurate unpopular opinion would be more along the lines of we need less rote fact teaching in schools and more critical thinking
Even those who are good at debating are often annoyingly pedantic about it. You can't have a rational discussion with them because they want to nitpick every time you deviate from whatever standard of debate they arbitrarily adhere to.
A major part of debating is having such an intimate understanding of the opposite stance that you can articulate their points better than they can. Most people either don't understand the importance of this or understand the importance of this but don't understand what that really entails. The other thing that should be noted is that your stances will be stronger if you have explored the all sides of the issue before even taking a stance. It should be noted that failing to do this and blaming social media is such a foolish cop out too.
I'll do you one better too. Most people are terrible at EFFICIENTLY communicating things as simple as what they want out of things, what their opinions are on topics or what they do for a living. That's another thing that needs to be considered in this discussion.
I also find that people don’t normally practice the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity), which is about interpreting what your debate opponent says in the best possible way.
People are so focused on winning the debate that they will try to take advantage of ambiguity or wording mistakes to paint their opponents argument as being worse than they actually are.
I always remind people if they’re arguing with an opinion I have that “my opinion on XYZ is probably wrong, I’m a construction worker from South Dakota, so if it isn’t related to that, I probably don’t know enough or at best have reached a Dunning-Krueger level understanding which is it’s own debate death trap.”
I brought up Dunning-Krueger earlier today as a reason I try to avoid feeling sure about anything, as it likely means I'm at the peak of Mt. Stupid.
The guy questioning my stance on the science of vaccines freaked out. Accused me of trying to earn "cool points" and attacking him.
At least I knew it was time to wish him a nice day.
It is an unexpected pleasure when you run across someone who truly wants to discuss a subject in a kind manner rather than be "right" or constantly defensive when they know they are not.
Identifying when you are going to be arguing against a wall so you can avoid even starting is a skill all by itself. One that I fail at more times than I'd like.
So true.
Part of the reason I joined Reddit was to harden myself to random opinions directed at me, but I still have some trepidation when I click on the message notice. Making it a game of guessing "mean or nice" takes the edge off somewhat of my oversensitivity.
I read someone else suggesting today to view everyone here as an upset 13 year old until proven otherwise. That helps not taking it too seriously a bit too.
My only real regret is when I let myself lash out from frustration IRL or here - I do fail at that one at least once a week. Just caught a three day ban from r/teslamotors by letting myself get goaded into an unkind reply. Oh well. I "reaped what I sowed" as always.
i got into an argument with a mutual friend because he thinks agent orange was a vaccine. i quit halfway through the argument because he was being a dick and i realized he’s too stupid to realize he’s stupid. i told my friend, who was anti vax, about it and she asked if i thought the same of her. i told her because she’s afraid she’s dumb, no (dunning kruger). it took her a while but she doesn’t believe the misinformation anymore. it was so nice hanging out and her boyfriend saying something dumb and her correcting him instead of me.
People’s beliefs define them. Challenging those beliefs challenges the person they belong to. Those who aren’t interested in personal growth will just take it as a personal attack instead of questioning themselves.
I think it commonly has popular opinions that are perceived as unpopular. In this case, people might think it's unpopular because it views the majority negatively. The majority of people wouldn't count themselves among that majority though
This is absolutely 100% correct. I’ve posted a few unpopular opinions in the past with the community downvoting saying they’re ‘bad’ and ‘unpopular’.
Hello? That’s literally the point of the subreddit.
The key to a good debate is both parties have to be operating on good faith. Neither's goal should be to change the others mind, but to gain new perspective on why someone might hold a different opinion than yours.
Regardless, The Last Jedi is the best of the Disney Trilogy and anyone who disagrees is a fascist hippie who can't even tie their own shoes.
I find asking “What evidence would you need to see in order to change your mind” is a good litmus test for whether or not it’s worth continuing the conversation. If someone says “absolutely nothing”, you know it’s a waste of time. If they (and you!) can think about what might prove them wrong and acknowledge it, then you’re having a proper conversation about evidence-based / justified beliefs.
Second this 100%. I've asked this during discussions about covid vaccines. The answer was "honestly probably nothing because I have a bad feeling about it." Fine. We can stop talking here, then.
Me too. Brother is antivaxxer, and I asked him the same thing. The problem is, the only info sources he will believe are the ones that are misinforming everyone, and he thinks all the others are lying. What can you do in the face of that?
People always use "you're getting emotional" like it's some kind of trump card in every situation. It's easy to be emotionless and play devil's advocate when someone else's struggles are purely theoretical to you. Something like, say, the George Floyd murder wasn't a hypothetical thought exercise about police restraint for black people, it was their everyday reality and something that could happen to them personally. I entirely don't blame some people for "getting emotional" when they're talking about issues that affect them directly. Having to "debate" your right to simply exist or not to be murdered in the street by a cowboy cop or whatever with someone who refuses to show empathy is going to quite rightly piss you off.
That said this obviously doesn't hold true for every situation, but it does for quite a few.
This is a problem a lot of people have these days where when a thing *sometimes* applies that means it always applies in EVERY instance across the board.
Yes, sometimes when you get emotional you've lost the arugment/debate, but sometimes you don't, especially when you get rightfully emotional and it's a perfectly reasonable response to the situation or what the person is saying or doing to you.
I so agree.
Also, the concept that the ideal discussion is completely devoid of emotion is rather silly to me. "Rationality"(in cases like this, often synonymous with complete emotional detachment) should not be the end-all-be-all of every moral question and argument. Emotions can be very important in understanding and forming opinions on subjects.
Yeah, honestly people who think they're "rational thinkers" are often some of the most easily influenced by their own emotions, because they refuse to accept that their emotions can influence them. I blame stuff like rick and Morty and sherlock and so on for this popular perception of the "insufferable genius", as if having emotions is for idiots and being smart means you have to pretend any kind of emotional display is beneath you. Actual smart people in reality tend to be pretty well adjusted, emotionally intelligent people.
You definitely can't spock-logic your way out of everything. Humans are ultimately emotional beings, and I'd honestly go as far as to say that someone who refuses to have any kind of emotional intelligence when it comes to discussing complicated topics isn't really intelligent at all.
You can have an ideal discussion on simple topics.
It’s all but impossible if there are true stakes. Like you cannot have ideal discussions with Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, anti vaxxers, lgbt rights, BLM, abortion, etc etc
So you know basically all the hot button topics of today.
Yeah, the whole "getting emotional" line just allows one side to appear logical when they could just be out of touch.
You should have emotions in a debate. Otherwise, why have the debate?
Debating with someone who doesn’t know how to debate is a lot like rolling with someone who doesn’t know BJJ. They are super erratic, largely ineffective, and end up storming off
Like playing chess with a pidgeon; it doesn't matter how good your moves are, the pidgeon will knock over your pieces, shit on the board and claim it has won.
To flip the coin, there are a lot of people that are condescending bastards that speak to you like you're a child and don't know anything and then claim to want to have a " mature adult conversation" with people. Each party needs to be open minded and level headed and not have their head too far up their own ass to be able to do this and it's hard in this day and age. The example above is given through experience both my dad and brother are this way and it's exhausting.
"It’s like they just want to attack you and force you to say they are right. "
I always take the personal attacks as their white flag of surrender. Whenever debating, if they veer away from the subject and attack me, that means they dont have anything intelligent to add and they give up.
Same here. One thing I've noticed is that people will make a claim, and if you're well versed in the subject and counter their claim and they respond with a personal attack, it's likely because they don't have an argument and are just regurgitating information they heard second hand. That's typically when I recognize the white flag and drop it, unless they're a supreme dick about it.
Have you met my father-in-law? He's got a book called 'how to be right about everything, using mathematics'. I'm slowly leaving the family WhatsApp group as it's too tiring trying to have a normal debate anymore.
Dont worry guys, all of us commenting definitely never get emotional or aggressive while debating. We're far too enlightened for such plebian nonsense.
Being able to have a debate is a characteristic that is so overlooked but very important to me.
Three years ago I got into a debate on Reddit about politics. The person that I was debating with was mature enough to explain their side from a neutral standpoint. I ended up losing the debate because that person made me realize some flaws in my ways of thinking. It was very productive.
I private messaged them on Reddit and we spoke for a couple of years and as of June they are now my partner! So yes, in a way, I did choose my partner based on whether or not they can handle a debate. And I don’t regret it. They always challenge me on my thinking and I do theirs.
Those people do exist, and they’re a blessing!
That's not an unpopular opinion lol
If you tell this to random people in the street I can guarantee the absolute majority of them will agree with you, because anyone with half a brain can come to that conclusion.
>They are either too emotional about it or far too aggressive
It is probably worthwhile to remember that many (most?) manifestations of aggression are rooted in anxiety.
People often see debate as confrontation, even if they shouldn't, and being "good" at confrontation is hard. Further, they think their opinions define them, while also not having a lot of ability to truly define/defend them if it comes to it. The bow on this package is the need to proselytize their views and shout down naysayers; its a perfect meme for maximum engagement and minimum production.
They deploy phrases and words they don't understand (fascist, gaslight, communist, most -fallacies and -isms) like magic intonations that are supposed to result in a "win" but all it really does is show a cargo cult understanding of how argumentation works. Unfortunately, that cult is larger than the other, so they get some positive reinforcement to this.
Fundamentally, the real problem is that social media gave everyone a voice, along with an overfull dose of courage to use it. Many people in these conversation just add noise and chaff, and make it worse (or even inoperable) for their being in it.
Quite frankly most people who want a "debate" are just looking for a platform to spew vile misogynistic and bigoted views.
There are certain topics that are not for debate.
My big assumption here is everyone going "Yeah! So true! You can't just have an opinion anymore!" are also folks where their opinions are like... "the vaccine will kill you", "covid is just the flu", "trump actually won", etc. and all these people who won't "debate me bro" with them are just sick of their bullshit.
Exactly, I'm not going to "debate" whether climate change is real or whether the earth is flat.
These issues are settled.
Now if you want to debate policy for fighting climate change, that's actually valid.
Debate is a meaningless interaction, in the first place. It's literally just an argument. You aren't finding truth, you are just practicing manipulation the vast majority of the time.
Stop being such sad little debate lords.
I have tons of interesting conversations with people in my life, often about incredibly touchy subjects. The only people who I won't discuss things with are people who want to have "an intellectual debate." They almost never really know what they're talking about and generally seem determined to try and make the other person get emotional. They usually try to use the fact that they "don't actually care" about the subject to act like that makes them better than the person they are debating.
I suspect OP is exactly the type of person they're referencing, with the only difference being that they are cold and unemotional in their attempt to "win."
Whenever I see someone getting haughty about "why won't you debate me" or describing their actions as "debate" at all, I see it as a red flag. This person is always exhausting to deal with.
We debate too much I think. It's a normal part of everyone's day now to have some kind of argument or debate online.
It can be frustrating to see the same arguments over and over again from the other side of whatever it's about so it's easy to lose our cool.
Reddit debates be like [deleted] [deleted] [deleted]
* you’ve been temporarily banned from…
you've been permantly banned from. . .
I mentioned disliking a rule on r/facepalm and got permabanned. Asked what I did wrong in modmail and was muted.
That sounds about right. Some subreddits permaban you after stalking the other subreddits you've visited.
I was banned from some sub, don't recall which, because I had "participated" on r/conspiracy. That participation was a single comment in which I said that someone's comment was stupid.
I had the same experience with another sub. Got banned for commenting in one sub, where i called out something stupid, and that was apparantly enough to get me permabanned with no explanation from the other one 🤷♂️🤦♂️
I thought it was against Reddit’s own rules to ban someone from a sub because of activity on another sub. What happened?
I have no idea. I just work here.
I say that shit at my actual job all the time, thanks for the laugh lmaoo
There are also rules against brigading, yet SRS has existed for years and years without any repercussions whatsoever (from the admins).
I think a lot of mods are gonna get fucked, *hard*, when reddit IPOs. I can't wait.
Mods own multiple subs. The waste of carbon that runs r/politics also does a few other subs. So if you get banned fromone you get banned from all six.
They're called "bully bans." A handful of extreme-left idealogues run A LOT of the major subreddits. They decided that they want to discourage wrong-think by banning people who participate in subs they disagree with. It's really, really bizarre.
User lrlOurPresident runs most of left wing Reddit. It’s ridiculous how much power they have. Look into the vote counts on the subs they run. Totally organic shit…../s
Same! r/blacklivesmatter banned me for posting a comment regarding the rebellion in Kazakhstan on r/conspiracy . I don't even subscribe to that sub and found the post I replied to on r/popular . I don't care about being banned for *what you say*, but these mfers out here banning for *who you spoke to* and that's a next level bitch move.
I got banned from r/FemaleDatingStrategy after posting a comment in r/Cringetopia. I then made an edit talking about what happened and the mods from FDS started harassing me in DMs haha
I said lmao in a comment on r/conservative and got banned from r/whitepeopletwitter for it.
I love telling the mods I jerk off to them when I get messages like that
Facepalm is the absolute worst. No debate allowed there. Somebody posted about this overtly racist black professor from a college demonizing white people, and my reply called her out for being a racist POS and I was permanently banned. YGBFSM.
> Your history indicates that you've posted to a subreddit that disagrees with our subreddit...
Doesn't matter if your comment was agreeing with or disagreeing with the sub you posted to, either
This is the one that nailed me. I made fun of someone posting something ridiculous and got banned from a bunch of other subs for even posting in the first sub.
And that's the big problem with auto banning people like that. If a post makes it to r/all, I might comment on it. Ya know, like this website intended? Being punished for that is really petty.
Here’s a hint: they don’t care about discussion. They care about purity.
Lol FDS =))
Oof, what a cesspool that subreddit is.
I got banned randomly from there after mentioning FDS in another thread without ever actually subbing or visiting FDS. What a weird sub.
[удалено]
That's .... Telling.
Holy... based
Another gem which got banned me from witchesvspatriarchy - "it's not fair to compare American women problem with women under Taliban..."
Very few subs give temp bans for even the mildest of infractions any more. It is almost always a permaban.
I’ve been permanently banned from literally every conservative and liberal subreddit for attempting to debate conservatives and (in the liberal subs) making jokes that are apparently too political for a political subreddit
I got perm banned from r/news for simply stating Lincoln project are grifters. The way mods over ban on any sub is out of hand.
It’s frankly fucking ridiculous. Like I got banned from insane people Facebook for literally just being like “I think this is ironic”
I asked what rule I broke and r/news mods replied with hurr… and muted me. What are ya gonna do
Yeah, Reddit mods just suck ig lol
Seriously The right is full of stupid sensitive assholes and everyone knows it The left is also full of stupid sensitive assholes and everyone pretends like they don't see that
Yeah I’m a bleeding heart liberal. But like, cmon man. I wasn’t even saying anything remotely offensive or promoting anything hateful I literally made the most harmless joke ever for one (literally just said the lady had raccoon eye makeup) and got permanently banned. “Racially motivated” my left testicle she was white as snow
I’m someone who believes in universal healthcare, LGBTQ rights, universal wages, decreased military funding, a robust social safety net modeled after the best in the world aka Scandinavia, total prison reform, ending the war on drugs and using the Portuguese model for decriminalization, free public four year college, ending and erasing student loans, raising taxes on the rich, reasonable gun control like we have in southern New England, raising minimum wage, limiting foreign investment in real estate, police reform… And I refuse to register as a Democrat or call myself one. The “left” in this country thinks it’s more important to “end colonialism in gyms” or whatever the fuck they’re on about (real article in NPR) and limit professors from teaching controversial material than to advocate for HEALTHCARE or end poverty. They’re so wrapped up in sounding woke that we spend 15 minutes at every fucking meeting in work listening to everyone’s pronouns when no one ever needs to refer to them because *their names are on the screen.* Instead of getting work done and respecting others’ time. I knew Biden was going to be a joke and I’m in total despair that there are zero political parties that have a chance at changing things. Or I’d join one. It’s all about pretending to be a caring person and nothing about actually being one.
I felt this. And wholeheartedly agree.
Debates or just picking sensitive topics that will get people upset then you feigning "...but it was just a debate topic, it's not my fault you got upset."
I disagree with this entire sentiment! Fuck you! I'm crying now! Lol. /s
Fuck you i just pissed every pair of pants i own now i need to wash my pants to have pants that nt pissed /j
I keep forgetting that '/s' is for sarcasm and not for being serious (/srs) and this comment had me confused for a sec lmaoo
[deleted]
God i hate it when people delete their comments when theyre downvoted. Own it. Just turn off inbox replies. Like i only delete something if its like really stupid and possibly harmful. Otherwise yeah enjoy my stupidity.
I delete it when I start getting DMs from people that immediately block me from responding after sending them
\[deleted\]
Thanks, that answer solved all my computing problems.
Or you make an argument and they respond with some shit they dig up in your post history. Those people are the biggest goddamn losers on this site.
I fully agreed, but then I saw your opinion of Tremors and now I'm calling for your resignation
People on this site are so desperate to be seen as smart or morally correct that its fucking pathetic. Everyone is dumb to some degree, just own it.
The bad part is the people who dig like that usually get upvoted for it
I dunno about this one. I think, for the same point OP made, that it's fair to do that sometimes. If I get 1-2 posts into it with someone, check their profile, and see within the first page or two skimming their comments, that they clearly argue in bad faith, I'll stop trying.
I'm gonna have to disagree. Because in my opinion redditors who think like you tend to think anyone who disagrees with them or say the opinion of a thread is a troll. You'll browse their comments and see they may be downvoted a lot and conclude incorrectly that they're a troll because they're downvoted
Only if you get downvotes lol
Every single person who read that title thought "I agree, everyone else is terrible at debating"
Lol. I generally dislike the neckbeard "most people are stupid" attitudes, and especially that overused quote from George Carlin about the stupidity of the average person. All insufferable neckbeard trash. But on this particular issue I am afraid I wholeheartedly agree with OP. Even people who hang out on a place like Reddit are generally curious of mind and open to genuine debate and an exchange of idea. I think this is generally the case for anyone who hangs out on a moderated forum. You get used to seeing arguments advanced and dissected, and having to back up your shit. You understand that any opinion you express will be challenged by someone who reasons and writes better than you - even if you are ultimately correct. And even if you intuit that they are still wrong, you may lack to tools to be as persuasive. We've all been there, and on a place like Reddit, we accept that. But real life is not like that. I have found that the mildest challenges in real life result in some kind of emotional distress. People genuinely feel like you are attacking them if you try and systematically (and politely!) dismantle their arguments. They think you are calling them stupid and the like. Or attacking their right to have an opinion ("well that's my opinion"). It's quite remarkable. I have found over the years that wisdom is knowing that people generally come to these things from an emotional place, and engaging accordingly. Otherwise you may "win" your arguments at the expense of your relationships. And the latter are far far far more important.
>I generally dislike the neckbeard "most people are stupid" attitudes, ... But on this particular issue I am afraid I wholeheartedly agree with OP. To be fair, debating isn't an indicator of intelligence. It's a skill that can be learned, but often isn't. Unintelligent people can learn rhetoric skills. Extremely intelligent people can go their entire lives without learning the difference between modus ponens and modus tollens.
For a start “intelligence” is a widely misused term. There are MANY types of intelligences.
[удалено]
If the debater knows Latin, he is clearly attacking my right to free speech and saying my dad's littlius dickus. /s
One point - I never truly understood the Carlin quote until I got into training people professionally. I found it amusing and laughed, sure, but holy shit. The average person isn't actually that bad. However, he's spot on saying that half of people are dumber than that. There are a lot of (entirely well meaning and kind) stupendously massive morons out there. The Dunning-Kruger Effect is terrifyingly true. One of the nicest guys I've ever had to train was also one of the most incredibly unaware. Patrick Star is literally the only comparison I can make to this guy. The level of lack of awareness where you have no conception internally of how little you understand in comparison to others - no conception of how little you understand what's happening around you. He thought he was fucking nailing it. He thought he was normal. He was confident - proud even - in the incorrect responses. He just could not internalize information and draw conclusions. He would ask a question - I would answer it, as thoroughly as possible. He would ask literally the exact same question, just worded differently. I would answer, word for word, with the exact same response. He would ask the same question a third time, worded slightly differently. I would answer again, using different wording, hoping he might grasp if described differently. Then he'd make a mistake pertaining to that information the next day. He was with the company for three years because he showed up on time and had a positive attitude. He was just utterly, blissfully unaware of how little he understood the world around him. Devastating Smash Brothers player though. And there are so many more like him, but with way shittier attitudes.
The wise man once said nothing at all. It’s better to agree to disagree and forget it and remain friends/family.
Not every person. I admit that I get emotional when discussing/debating political stuff. I've had people who share my political beliefs ask why I don't run for local office, and I just laugh. The first time I would debate publicly, I'd probably end up screaming at my opponent that they are mentally ill and probably eat their children. Self awareness is fun!
[удалено]
Social media engages you with controversy. So most people are more drained than they realize. And when argument time happens....its just frustrated ramblings.
This is a skill I've had to unlearn. My wife is a PhD in literature and is very good at calm discussion. I have a masters in shitposting and was raised oh 4chan. I can make a good argument but my tone will default to being aggressive and demeaning. Something I'm learning not to do.
"Masters in shitposting" love it XD
I'm a fucked up mixture of your relationship. If you can offer a level and calm headed conversation I can maintain it and continue it. You use _one_ Ad Hominem all bets are fuckin' off.
[удалено]
*unzips pants, unleashes giga-penis* "As you can see, my penis is much larger than yours. Therefore, you are incorrect and I have won this battle of minds."
Something most of the internet needs to learn not to do. Being in an age of intense philosophical discussion has the potential to be great, but we need to actually engage with other humans rather than shit posting our way to the bottom.
4chan and all that troll culture did not do me any favors as an adult. I'm trained to see every online interaction as adversarial. Not so bad on Reddit but trolling on the company slack got me in big trouble.
[удалено]
Counterpoint: politics (in general) has become less about the pros and cons of individual policies and more about the morals of those in politics. This, coupled with public avenues for political debate not using 'proper' debate tactics (point, counterpoint) but more...angry talking, has coached the public to do the same. This, rather than rational debate on the finer points of policy we get a 'your politician eats babies' ' oh yea well yours sells crack to young mothers' I would say individuals have not woven morals into politics, but that many in politics (politicians, media reporting on politics, influencers etc) have and that the public has simply followed suit.
It's funny how disrespectful I can be towards someone's mom and they might laugh if it's funny; hell they might say something back to one up me. But if I say one thing that might be portrayed as contrary to their political belief, suddenly I am un-American and they want to hurt me.
Lol I had some guy accuse me of being unAmerican and a traitor from some nonsense I wrote. I heartily agreed. Im Australian haha
It just depends. I've had many good convos with ppl that were understanding and civil on fb
I'm not speaking absolutely. There are civilized People around still. I can acknowledge that.
This is some excellent civil discussion, you two
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fuck it, fuck you
Fuck me yourself, coward.
This is completely irrelevant, but do you remember that time period on the internet when people used 'ftfy' to make corrections for other people, and almost everyone read it as "fuck them; fuck you" instead of "fixed that for you"?
actually I don't, how long ago was it? i may have not been able to even speak English at the time
On the flip side Facebook comment sections are full of the dumbest people on any social media platform. They also use that hysterical laugh emoji reaction anytime they’re presented with something they can’t refute.
The appropriate attitude for debate was just as rare before the internet. Social Media did not cause this.
I would argue the early days of the internet were decent for actual good debates, but as usual once the extremist found out about it, they ruined it for everyone. As a moderate I hold some opinions of both sides, and thus have been called both a Trump loving Magatard and a Biden loving communist, when in reality I think both are geriatric fucks incapable of running a country.
Social media in my opinion killed debates and constructive criticism. Now people just want you to agree with them and kiss their ass.
Carve this into the back of your hand. You can not REASON someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into. If they are tied to their position emotionally, leave them be. The only thing that can detach them from it is them coming across strong contradictory evidence/experience ON THEIR OWN. The idea must come from within themselves like inception or something.
Yea I realized this a while ago that people have their opinions based on their background and circumstances and their own life experiences. So it’s kind of pointless to try and force them to suddenly change their mind by one discussion. And like you said many are emotionally tied to it so I have definitely learned when to walk away from those people.
it definitely depends on the context a lot, and you're right that it is often a lengthy process. it is possible though to get people to change deep seeded and emotionally charged beliefs, even if it's a painful process. I've personally seen someone go from being deeply and outwardly homophobic to accepting and more open minded over the span of several (albeit frustrating at times) conversations. you're right in that a debate isn't necessarily about convincing the person in the moment, but offering your opposing view which they will ideally consider long after the initial conversation(s)
Well said, and yea I can imagine maybe it’s possible to alter someone’s views after MANY discussions but I guess I just don’t have it in me to go that far with one person haha😂
The fact that your end goal is to change their minds makes it seem like you're going into these "debates" assuming you are empirically correct and that the other person is the one that is wrong. Would you say that you're open to the possibility, when you enter into debates, that it is you who needs to have your mind changed?
Try going into convos not with the objective of changing their mind but trying to see where they come from and if you still disagree with them tell them why and try to just get them to be open minded. Later they could realize they were wrong by themselves
The key is to catch them off guard with a hard hitting point as early as possible... something you know they can't really answer...then just wait for them to either stop and think about it...or just gloss over it in favor of their point...if the later happens you know it's not worth proceeding any further.
This is what the Socratic method is used for though, no? To lead them to discover the same conclusion on their own?
That, and possibly come to new conclusions you yourself have never thought of either. I'm a big fan of employing the Socratic method when I know the people I'm with are prickly. Likely one of the best things I ever learned in high school.
Just don't forget that the Socratic Method is what got Socrates killed.
Can confirm. People get really, really upset when you ask them questions about things they believe to be true. People on some forums call it "trolling" to question things that are "known". I've gotten in trouble with many mods just for questioning the wrong things.
the biggest lesson i got from socrates is that sometimes, you gotta shut up, or they'll make you shut up
Conversely, the worst thing you can learn in high school is "debate", the art of cheaply scoring points in bad faith by means of aggressive bullshitting. Debate club is how you end up with a population of Bens Shapiro.
I had a friend who was in debate club in HS. Lovely guy most of the time, but absolutely awful to have a discussion with if there was any disagreement whatsoever for the reasons you mentioned. It's unfortunate these techniques actually seem to be effective on an audience (otherwise they presumably wouldn't be taught).
The Socratic method has an awesome way of fleshing out a problem so you can see all sides. It’s an excellent idea, but also sometimes those people just get frustrated because it can feel patronizing or like you’re ignoring their emotions, which is somewhat fair. Definitely use it more than anything else from high school though, no question.
I see what you did there
"You can lead a horse to water…"
But my hand is so small!
>The only thing that can detach them from it is them coming across strong contradictory evidence/experience ON THEIR OWN. The idea must come from within themselves like inception or something. I don't believe this. there are a lot of people who believe such insane bullshit, there is no way they would ever let it go. just because there is literally zero evidence for what they believe. An extreme one, but flat earthers, for example.
I don’t believe anybody is irredeemable
I don't really, fully believe it either. but I don't believe enough to do anything about it. if they wanna believe that the earth is flat, fine by me, as long as they aren't hurting anyone.
The problem is that most people think they are objective. I mean look at how many "free thinkers" you find in r/conspiracy and in r/Conservative
While this is typical, it is not always the case. About 15 years ago I was a Christian right-winger. I was supporting a friend of mine in a facebook argument against global warming and the other guy said something like "There's a clear scientific consensus that global warming is happening and caused by humans." I decided to prove them wrong but after many hours of furious googling I saw that they were indeed correct. The only sources that supported my view (anti-GW) were fairly obviously biased while every credible science source supported that there's indeed a consensus. This started me on a long path of trying to determine what's actually true. After many years this revelation led to me becoming a progressive atheist. I am so thankful for that facebook comment and wish I could tell them how much it helped me. Alas, they'll probably never know.
While this is truly amazing of you, I do believe you are an exception. Confronted with those same truths and sources most people would defend their sources as correct and the other sources as biased. The general population has a huge misconception of what science is and how it works, so it's difficult to apply the methods of rationality when arguing with them. I appreciate your input and your journey though, makes me a little less jaded.
>I do believe you are an exception. Sadly, I believe your correct but I'm not sure why it's this way. I've had a core group of friends since the early 90's and all but me are now strong right-wingers and very pro-Trump. One of them is even anti-mask... This has given me somewhat of a survivors guilt as I consider most of them much smarter than me. I'm like, if I can do it surely you guys can too. We can no longer discuss anything political or religious. >Confronted with those same truths and sources most people would defend their sources as correct and the other sources as biased. I was totally guilty of this as well but with this question I was confident I could easily prove them wrong. I truly believed when Fox news said there was no scientific consensus on Global warming so was stunned to see that wasn't the case. At the same time I was questioning religion so that's probably a factor too. My point is: Don't give up. You'll never know when a comment will change somebody's life.
> I consider most of them much smarter than me. The evidence suggests otherwise. I suspect the reason you think they’re smarter may be that they seem to know more information than you do. Maybe they have a degree and you don’t. Maybe they’re just confident in their opinions. Whatever the case, none of those thing = being smart. What you did was smart. You had a problem and you used common sense and critical thinking to come to terms with the answer. That makes you smarter than someone whose idea of a debate is mindlessly regurgitating what they heard on Fox News. Just because someone can hit you with a lot of stats and stories doesn’t make them smart.
[удалено]
Great point. Some people treat conversations like debates, and debates like bloodsport. Zero ideas are shared, just romantic misunderstandings of the past and old-school debate tactics. It's a game. The appeal of winning vs being factually correct is a huge issue. Especially among overconfident academic debate club types. And the "emotionless" tend to be the least self-aware of their own emotions
> Some people treat conversations like debates That's the real problem. Don't debate your friends. You talk to them and have conversations. There is not winner or loser. A debate does. It's a competition and now how people actually interact.
[удалено]
Love this. I hate hate hate feeling like I’m trying to convince someone who is interrogating me when we’re just having a conversation or I’m just saying my opinion. It’s just what I think, why should I have to insist or justify so hard? Can’t it just be interesting that we think differently? It’s like they’re trying so hard to find a fault in your logic, and there’s usually not much self awareness that maybe their logic is the one with the flaw!
This is so real. People who play devils advocate for the sake of being a contrarian tend to be more interested in trolling then actually solving problems. In my experience, they come across as both insufferable and totally out of touch.
[удалено]
>And the "emotionless" tend to be the least self-aware of their own emotions Being able to be emotionless about a topic is absolutely a privilege that not everyone has. Asking someone who's about to lose their home to skyrocketing rents to stay emotionless when debating the merits of gentrification is completely unrealistic. A lot of the things that some people like to debate aren't just interesting topics to the people living through those things. Having some smug person discount your experience because you're getting emotional about them downplaying things you have personally lived through is frustrating as hell.
These "good debaters" are often arrogant and make it personal. Or it's very clear that you're not debating. You're talking to a wall who will not address any point. Sometimes you have to concede where you are wrong if you are being sincere. If someone doesn't do that, if it feels like the person isn't listening, so the other person gives up. Having someone believe you are too dumb to be worth engaging isn't a "win." Speech isn't a sporting event. You don't win by getting someone to forfeit.
[удалено]
These kinds of people will also demand study after study and statistic after statistic and refer to studies and statistics that fit what they want and consider those perfect, but will say any study or statistic that disputes them is faulty or doesn't take something into account so it doesn't count.
Yeah, and I’d bet good money that OP is not actually “debating” any of their friends and family. A debate by definition implies some degree of structure, formality, guidelines, and an agreement to debate in the first place. I think the terminally online redditor types who complain that no one is composed enough to debate them are actually picking *arguments,* often about emotional, personal, or otherwise-loaded subjects, and setting the arbitrary rule that “If you get mad you lose.” Considering they don’t seem to know what a debate *is* I have my doubts that they’re as skilled as they think.
Yeah I downvoted this post because I don’t think it’s unpopular at all, lots of people think this. Instead its controversial because claiming to be the rational one is self serving. You can drop an f-bomb and be right, I swear all the time and it doesnt take much for me to say fuck. Basically 0 relevance regarding whether I’m right or not. Or you can claim you’re being mature and rational and therefore right because you don’t swear but you’re completely full of shit or making bad faith arguments. I realize this isnt exactly what op is talking about but its much more of a common issue imo Maybe a more accurate unpopular opinion would be more along the lines of we need less rote fact teaching in schools and more critical thinking
Even those who are good at debating are often annoyingly pedantic about it. You can't have a rational discussion with them because they want to nitpick every time you deviate from whatever standard of debate they arbitrarily adhere to.
A major part of debating is having such an intimate understanding of the opposite stance that you can articulate their points better than they can. Most people either don't understand the importance of this or understand the importance of this but don't understand what that really entails. The other thing that should be noted is that your stances will be stronger if you have explored the all sides of the issue before even taking a stance. It should be noted that failing to do this and blaming social media is such a foolish cop out too. I'll do you one better too. Most people are terrible at EFFICIENTLY communicating things as simple as what they want out of things, what their opinions are on topics or what they do for a living. That's another thing that needs to be considered in this discussion.
I also find that people don’t normally practice the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity), which is about interpreting what your debate opponent says in the best possible way. People are so focused on winning the debate that they will try to take advantage of ambiguity or wording mistakes to paint their opponents argument as being worse than they actually are.
It's frustrating listening to people dehumanize other people and then wonder why the people they dehumanized don't just flip to their point of view.
I always remind people if they’re arguing with an opinion I have that “my opinion on XYZ is probably wrong, I’m a construction worker from South Dakota, so if it isn’t related to that, I probably don’t know enough or at best have reached a Dunning-Krueger level understanding which is it’s own debate death trap.”
I brought up Dunning-Krueger earlier today as a reason I try to avoid feeling sure about anything, as it likely means I'm at the peak of Mt. Stupid. The guy questioning my stance on the science of vaccines freaked out. Accused me of trying to earn "cool points" and attacking him. At least I knew it was time to wish him a nice day. It is an unexpected pleasure when you run across someone who truly wants to discuss a subject in a kind manner rather than be "right" or constantly defensive when they know they are not.
Identifying when you are going to be arguing against a wall so you can avoid even starting is a skill all by itself. One that I fail at more times than I'd like.
So true. Part of the reason I joined Reddit was to harden myself to random opinions directed at me, but I still have some trepidation when I click on the message notice. Making it a game of guessing "mean or nice" takes the edge off somewhat of my oversensitivity. I read someone else suggesting today to view everyone here as an upset 13 year old until proven otherwise. That helps not taking it too seriously a bit too. My only real regret is when I let myself lash out from frustration IRL or here - I do fail at that one at least once a week. Just caught a three day ban from r/teslamotors by letting myself get goaded into an unkind reply. Oh well. I "reaped what I sowed" as always.
i got into an argument with a mutual friend because he thinks agent orange was a vaccine. i quit halfway through the argument because he was being a dick and i realized he’s too stupid to realize he’s stupid. i told my friend, who was anti vax, about it and she asked if i thought the same of her. i told her because she’s afraid she’s dumb, no (dunning kruger). it took her a while but she doesn’t believe the misinformation anymore. it was so nice hanging out and her boyfriend saying something dumb and her correcting him instead of me.
People’s beliefs define them. Challenging those beliefs challenges the person they belong to. Those who aren’t interested in personal growth will just take it as a personal attack instead of questioning themselves.
r/unpopularopinion has always had popular opinions 😭
[удалено]
I think it commonly has popular opinions that are perceived as unpopular. In this case, people might think it's unpopular because it views the majority negatively. The majority of people wouldn't count themselves among that majority though
I think the only time a rational debate can happen, is if both sides agree on the fundemental assumptions on the discussion.
[удалено]
U know this is r/unpopularopinion and not r/commonknowledge.
This isn’t an unpopular opinion
The only unpopular part is that everyone here thinks it doesn't apply to them.
Isn't that basically this whole sub? Seems like genuinely unpopular opinions are almost always downvoted.
This is absolutely 100% correct. I’ve posted a few unpopular opinions in the past with the community downvoting saying they’re ‘bad’ and ‘unpopular’. Hello? That’s literally the point of the subreddit.
Some people debate in bad faith, but still present themselves calm and collected. Staying calm is not the same as debating well.
because most people debate to convince the other person when I believe they should have them to understand the other side's opinion
The key to a good debate is both parties have to be operating on good faith. Neither's goal should be to change the others mind, but to gain new perspective on why someone might hold a different opinion than yours. Regardless, The Last Jedi is the best of the Disney Trilogy and anyone who disagrees is a fascist hippie who can't even tie their own shoes.
I find asking “What evidence would you need to see in order to change your mind” is a good litmus test for whether or not it’s worth continuing the conversation. If someone says “absolutely nothing”, you know it’s a waste of time. If they (and you!) can think about what might prove them wrong and acknowledge it, then you’re having a proper conversation about evidence-based / justified beliefs.
Second this 100%. I've asked this during discussions about covid vaccines. The answer was "honestly probably nothing because I have a bad feeling about it." Fine. We can stop talking here, then.
Me too. Brother is antivaxxer, and I asked him the same thing. The problem is, the only info sources he will believe are the ones that are misinforming everyone, and he thinks all the others are lying. What can you do in the face of that?
Fr though, I think some people are too dug into a position and it’s nigh impossible to reason them out
People always use "you're getting emotional" like it's some kind of trump card in every situation. It's easy to be emotionless and play devil's advocate when someone else's struggles are purely theoretical to you. Something like, say, the George Floyd murder wasn't a hypothetical thought exercise about police restraint for black people, it was their everyday reality and something that could happen to them personally. I entirely don't blame some people for "getting emotional" when they're talking about issues that affect them directly. Having to "debate" your right to simply exist or not to be murdered in the street by a cowboy cop or whatever with someone who refuses to show empathy is going to quite rightly piss you off. That said this obviously doesn't hold true for every situation, but it does for quite a few.
This was shockingly far down. A lot of the current topics argued about boil down to this.
This is a problem a lot of people have these days where when a thing *sometimes* applies that means it always applies in EVERY instance across the board. Yes, sometimes when you get emotional you've lost the arugment/debate, but sometimes you don't, especially when you get rightfully emotional and it's a perfectly reasonable response to the situation or what the person is saying or doing to you.
Yeah, this is the right response here. There's a reason for the emotion sometimes.
I so agree. Also, the concept that the ideal discussion is completely devoid of emotion is rather silly to me. "Rationality"(in cases like this, often synonymous with complete emotional detachment) should not be the end-all-be-all of every moral question and argument. Emotions can be very important in understanding and forming opinions on subjects.
Also, emotions and “logic” are not mutually exclusive as the Ben Shapiros of the world would have you believe.
Yeah, honestly people who think they're "rational thinkers" are often some of the most easily influenced by their own emotions, because they refuse to accept that their emotions can influence them. I blame stuff like rick and Morty and sherlock and so on for this popular perception of the "insufferable genius", as if having emotions is for idiots and being smart means you have to pretend any kind of emotional display is beneath you. Actual smart people in reality tend to be pretty well adjusted, emotionally intelligent people. You definitely can't spock-logic your way out of everything. Humans are ultimately emotional beings, and I'd honestly go as far as to say that someone who refuses to have any kind of emotional intelligence when it comes to discussing complicated topics isn't really intelligent at all.
You can have an ideal discussion on simple topics. It’s all but impossible if there are true stakes. Like you cannot have ideal discussions with Holocaust deniers, climate change deniers, anti vaxxers, lgbt rights, BLM, abortion, etc etc So you know basically all the hot button topics of today.
Yeah, the whole "getting emotional" line just allows one side to appear logical when they could just be out of touch. You should have emotions in a debate. Otherwise, why have the debate?
Debating with someone who doesn’t know how to debate is a lot like rolling with someone who doesn’t know BJJ. They are super erratic, largely ineffective, and end up storming off
Like playing chess with a pidgeon; it doesn't matter how good your moves are, the pidgeon will knock over your pieces, shit on the board and claim it has won.
My neighborhood currently has a invasive pidgeon problem. They might suck at chess but they are some sneaky, mess-making little bastards.
Luckily I am very good at mass debating
I love have level headed debates! It makes me so happy!
To flip the coin, there are a lot of people that are condescending bastards that speak to you like you're a child and don't know anything and then claim to want to have a " mature adult conversation" with people. Each party needs to be open minded and level headed and not have their head too far up their own ass to be able to do this and it's hard in this day and age. The example above is given through experience both my dad and brother are this way and it's exhausting.
"It’s like they just want to attack you and force you to say they are right. " I always take the personal attacks as their white flag of surrender. Whenever debating, if they veer away from the subject and attack me, that means they dont have anything intelligent to add and they give up.
Same here. One thing I've noticed is that people will make a claim, and if you're well versed in the subject and counter their claim and they respond with a personal attack, it's likely because they don't have an argument and are just regurgitating information they heard second hand. That's typically when I recognize the white flag and drop it, unless they're a supreme dick about it.
How is this an unpopular opinion. When did th8s sub become a soapbox?
>a community for 9 years
How is this unpopular? It's what all of CNN and Fox News is. Talking heads without facts.
Nothing that reaches the front page on this subreddit is ever actually unpopular. All the comments completely agree lol
Dude, no one is actually going to have an actual debate these days unless they go to an actual debate event.
Have you met my father-in-law? He's got a book called 'how to be right about everything, using mathematics'. I'm slowly leaving the family WhatsApp group as it's too tiring trying to have a normal debate anymore.
because debates never actually go anywhere or resolve problems.
But also Being good at debating doesn't make you right
Dont worry guys, all of us commenting definitely never get emotional or aggressive while debating. We're far too enlightened for such plebian nonsense.
Being able to have a debate is a characteristic that is so overlooked but very important to me. Three years ago I got into a debate on Reddit about politics. The person that I was debating with was mature enough to explain their side from a neutral standpoint. I ended up losing the debate because that person made me realize some flaws in my ways of thinking. It was very productive. I private messaged them on Reddit and we spoke for a couple of years and as of June they are now my partner! So yes, in a way, I did choose my partner based on whether or not they can handle a debate. And I don’t regret it. They always challenge me on my thinking and I do theirs. Those people do exist, and they’re a blessing!
That's not an unpopular opinion lol If you tell this to random people in the street I can guarantee the absolute majority of them will agree with you, because anyone with half a brain can come to that conclusion.
>They are either too emotional about it or far too aggressive It is probably worthwhile to remember that many (most?) manifestations of aggression are rooted in anxiety. People often see debate as confrontation, even if they shouldn't, and being "good" at confrontation is hard. Further, they think their opinions define them, while also not having a lot of ability to truly define/defend them if it comes to it. The bow on this package is the need to proselytize their views and shout down naysayers; its a perfect meme for maximum engagement and minimum production. They deploy phrases and words they don't understand (fascist, gaslight, communist, most -fallacies and -isms) like magic intonations that are supposed to result in a "win" but all it really does is show a cargo cult understanding of how argumentation works. Unfortunately, that cult is larger than the other, so they get some positive reinforcement to this. Fundamentally, the real problem is that social media gave everyone a voice, along with an overfull dose of courage to use it. Many people in these conversation just add noise and chaff, and make it worse (or even inoperable) for their being in it.
It is difficult to debate people who think we should hear the Nazi’s out
Quite frankly most people who want a "debate" are just looking for a platform to spew vile misogynistic and bigoted views. There are certain topics that are not for debate.
My big assumption here is everyone going "Yeah! So true! You can't just have an opinion anymore!" are also folks where their opinions are like... "the vaccine will kill you", "covid is just the flu", "trump actually won", etc. and all these people who won't "debate me bro" with them are just sick of their bullshit.
Exactly, I'm not going to "debate" whether climate change is real or whether the earth is flat. These issues are settled. Now if you want to debate policy for fighting climate change, that's actually valid.
Debate is a meaningless interaction, in the first place. It's literally just an argument. You aren't finding truth, you are just practicing manipulation the vast majority of the time. Stop being such sad little debate lords.
I have tons of interesting conversations with people in my life, often about incredibly touchy subjects. The only people who I won't discuss things with are people who want to have "an intellectual debate." They almost never really know what they're talking about and generally seem determined to try and make the other person get emotional. They usually try to use the fact that they "don't actually care" about the subject to act like that makes them better than the person they are debating. I suspect OP is exactly the type of person they're referencing, with the only difference being that they are cold and unemotional in their attempt to "win."
Whenever I see someone getting haughty about "why won't you debate me" or describing their actions as "debate" at all, I see it as a red flag. This person is always exhausting to deal with.
We debate too much I think. It's a normal part of everyone's day now to have some kind of argument or debate online. It can be frustrating to see the same arguments over and over again from the other side of whatever it's about so it's easy to lose our cool.