I want to get better at arguments, help?

[Ulquiorra Cifer]

I don't really know how else to write this besides the title, lol.

To not go too deep into :powerlevel: territory, I've got issues with understanding arguments, I think. I'm in a chat with some DnD friends with a bunch of channels for topics, and a few times I've joined in on arguments I've apparently come off as overly negative. The major problem I'm personally aware of is that I don't think I quite get a lot of arguments being presented to me.

I also want some help on something that offends me but I feel like it shouldn't. Recently whenever my channel gets into a conversation, I chime in, and lately I've been getting told that whatever I'm saying is wrong with some shades of "it's not relevant to the conversation". I don't know how else to react to that besides being a dumb animal and going "no, it is relevant".

I know I could probably google this but this site does a lot of back and forth arguments, and I feel like asking here where I can at least get an honest reply would help.

 

[CrunkLord420]

Sounds like your friends are telling you to lurk more.

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

Don't get mad.

Sounds obvious, but for real once somebody is able to piss you off in a debate they're able to start changing the direction of the conversation to where they want you to go.

Also, don't get distracted with bait for the same reason. They'll try to bring up a completely different point to confuse you or divert the conversation.

If you want some really good examples, watch almost any debate with Metokur.

 

[Ulquiorra Cifer]

Sounds like your friends are telling you to lurk more.

Lurk more here? Or lurk more in discussions?

Don't get mad.

Sounds obvious, but for real once somebody is able to piss you off in a debate they're able to start changing the direction of the conversation to where they want you to go.

Also, don't get distracted with bait for the same reason. They'll try to bring up a completely different point to confuse you or divert the conversation.

If you want some really good examples, watch almost any debate with Metokur.

What's a good video? I looked some up but I couldn't tell which ones were just clips of him on random tangents.

 

[8777BB5]

Hopefully this'll help you

 

[dunbrine47]

Put some more E's at the end of your REEEEEEEE's

 

[Diesel Boogaloo]

Convince me to help you.

 

[Some JERK]

lately I've been getting told that whatever I'm saying is wrong with some shades of "it's not relevant to the conversation". I don't know how else to react to that besides being a dumb animal and going "no, it is relevant".

How about explain how it is relevant? If you can't, then guess what...?

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

Lurk more here? Or lurk more in discussions?




What's a good video? I looked some up but I couldn't tell which ones were just clips of him on random tangents.

Here is a great one against that cunt Destiny:

Kinda long, but definitely worth watching.

 

[Ulquiorra Cifer]

Convince me to help you.

However I respond I feel like I'm going to :powerlevel: something fierce. But I really do want to learn how to get better at arguments for numerous "woe is me" reasons, though the largest one is "I want to stop feeling like an asshole or an idiot and right now this is the only way I'm self-aware that I am an asshole". I really, honestly do appreciate any help I can get because I want to become a better person and what routes I have at my disposal currently I either am not getting much out of or it's only close friends I can talk to.

This board's really good at discussions and occasionally lolcows come by to defend themselves. I trust you guys.

 

[kinglordsupreme19]

The KingLordSupreme19 guide to getting mad pussy and being a philosopher king​

1) Do not seek to 'win' at arguments. You should approach arguments as an opportunity to learn; instead of seeking to 'beat' opponents, approach their arguments as if you want to improve their arguments or make them more robust.

EXAMPLE:

Me: "If she breathes, she's a thot."
You: "Interesting. I am inclined towards the 'All women are queens' school. This is because I think the identification of respiratory function with thottery results in some counter-intuitive conclusions. Ifyou wish to pursue your line, I think you can make a similar claim by stating 'If she breathes and is not a tomboy mommy gf, she is a thot'. This avoids labelling tomboy mommy gfs as thots, which to me is one of the counter-intuitive conclusions of your initial argument."

2) Do not be afraid to ask for sources for more extraordinary claims, but also have enough good faith in your interlocutor to believe they are not making shit up when what they're talking about seems reasonable.

EXAMPLE:

Me: "As I'm sure you agree that the data shows, if she breathes she is a thot."
You: "This is compelling. I know from my impression that the data can be used to support your interpretation. However, I think this lacks the nuance that you characteristically show. I think we need further data to fully establish your link, as the relationship is not wholly ironclad."

3) Always begin from a position of good faith. Be polite to your interlocutor, but be merciless the moment they begin to be rude. You should seek ideally to find the high-level generator of disagreement - the key philosophical or psychological difference between you two that is irreconcilable but to which you can both reasonable disagree over.

EXAMPLE:

Me: "That if she breathes, she is a thot. This must be true."
You: "And why do you reach this conclusion?"
Me: "For I am an intellectual descendent of Hobbes and De Maistre; man and woman is inherently wicked and requires sociocultural restraint to be made into a facsimile of good."
You: "Fascinating. I disagree and am more an inheritor of Rousseau; I think natural man is beautiful and noble and is corrupted by society. But I know that our disagreement on this cannot be reconciled at the present, so I can merely respectfully note our difference."

4) Don't be an insecure little bitch who thinks that disagreement means that your opponent is necessarily with bad intent. This is a consequence of rule 3, but is also something you should realise when someone fails at logic; people can be wrong and not utterly corrupt. If someone is wrong, use the Socratic method.

EXAMPLE:

Me: "If she breathes, she's a thot."
You: "And why do you reach that conclusion?"
Me: "Girls haven't touched my penis."
You: "And why do you think that sample is representative of the entire female sex?"
Me: "This is true. Let us reconsider."

 

[MrTroll]

I've never met an argument that couldn't be won by calling the other person a faggot.

 

[POWER IN MISERY]

call them a faggot

 

[Y2K Baby]

Arguments are for faggots. If you have to "win it", it probably isn't worth it.

 

[Ryker]

Start at the beginning.

Read Aristotle's writings on the art of rhetoric. Persuasive stuff.

 

[AF 802]

Stop fucking Orihime for once and start reading some books, you edgelord.

 

[Eryngium]

Call them niggers, rinse and repeat untill fences are painted as instructed.

 

[Tragi-Chan]

If you don’t get the arguments being presented, then ask the person to explain or elaborate. People are usually fine with that unless they’re being deliberately obscure.

 

[Autopsy]

1) Do not seek to 'win' at arguments. You should approach arguments as an opportunity to learn; instead of seeking to 'beat' opponents, approach their arguments as if you want to improve their arguments or make them more robust.

This is the only thing that is a necessary prerequisite to argumentation. If you are not approaching the conversation with true and honest intent to make both parties come out stronger afterwards, or at least to ensure an impartial third party observer comes out stronger, then you are not engaged in an argument (logical), you are engaged in an argument (colloquial, meaningless heated spat).
"but what if I just want to win and be the winner and not learn shit"
Then you better get really fucking good at pretending to be true and honest because people intuitively through your tone, body language, and manner (even word choice and conversation pace digitally) whether or not you're approaching the topic with the correct mindset. If those sirens go off, they catch on quick and you get eviscerated.

edit: also if you chime into conversations for the sake of chiming into conversations, don't, wait for one you actually care about and build future conversations with other people in your group who also care about related topics. People don't take well to homeless Machiavellis.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I chime in, and lately I've been getting told that whatever I'm saying is wrong with some shades of "it's not relevant to the conversation". I don't know how else to react to that besides being a dumb animal and going "no, it is relevant".

That's literally just an argument by dismissal and you should just point that out whenever they blow you off, and then throw the burden of proof on them by demanding they prove that it is irrelevant by explaining how it could be.