Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So I was talking with a leftist friend recently about race-swapping in movies, as well as the general topic of racism, and we clashed on a bunch of things. I'm not sure how well I did, and I'm worried I capitulated too much - I usually take more moderate stances when speaking with leftists IRL than I do online, since I'm usually trying to persuade and shift them towards a point of view which is more critical to wokeness and the usual mainstream narrative.
If you go "Your entire worldview and perception is wrong, here's the evidence" from the outset all you're going to have is an opponent that won't listen to you. It's a fine line you have to tread and I'm still finding my feet as to how to navigate real-time debate. He did capitulate to quite a good portion of my points too (or at least seemed to, from my perspective), but again it's hard to know how hard to push your ideas. There's also the fact that they've got a lot of "common wisdom" on their side which is a big boon in conversations because they can simply make statements and disproving big claims in real-time communication can't be effectively done, as opposed to online where you can take the time to organise things and fully make your case against certain common preconceptions.
What are your methods of debating with people in the real world, and how do you know how hard to press your point?
Almost always Socratic Method.
I know where I'd like the conversation to end up, and I know the series of questions I would ask in order to lead someone along a trail of breadcrumbs to come to that point, and then confront them with the final argument after we've already hashed out most of the terms leading up to it, and see if they resolve the cognitive dissonance in my favor or not.
And maybe in the process of such questioning they'll bring up a point that I myself would find convincing and I can examine that within the discussion.
Also, be absolutely willing to surrender a point that isn't critical to your position or argument. The quickest route to a discussion degenerating is to haggle over every minor point when you could just say "I accept that as true at least for the sake of argument" and keep moving. This tempers the tendency to be emotionally invested in your position to the point of refusing to cede an inch as it would run against your own principles.
Occasionally someone will react very poorly to being Socratic Method'd into a position they find distasteful and get angry at being 'tricked,' however I try to make it clear that I'm always honest in my questioning and willing to accept different arguments they may present, so its not as if I'm hiding the ball.
Its really the only way to have a meaningful 'debate' in a format where there are no rules, no judges/refs to enforce rules, and the audience probably doesn't have the training to identify which side is actually making better arguments. Better to just frame it as a collaborative discussion where you are working towards a mutually agreeable answer, instead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link