Current Events > C/D: When the other side only has personal attacks you probably won the debate.

(+) Yeah! (+)

C.

D.

D. It's a good sign the other side doesn't know what they're saying, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're right. It may just mean they don't fully understand why they're right.

D, there is no debate.

Probably means you won the debate, but winning a debate and being correct are two different things.

D

most debates now adays arent grounded in reality or respect in the first.

it just be fun to insult people you dont respect who are actively annoying you.

rick_alverado posted...

Probably means you won the debate, but winning a debate and being correct are two different things.

Good point.

Perhaps if it was an official debate with moderators disqualifying people for resorting to being dishonest first. Because otherwise how else are you going to respond to people that just endlessly loop "why"s or insist "because I say so" and other forms of troll logic other than just calling them out as trolls, liars, hypocrites etc. Like one could just insist that the sky is purple and that there's nothing wrong with lying. Now if the personal attacks aren't related at all to the argument like saying someone enjoys horizontal drinking glasses in an EVO debate that's generally a good indicator.

Having more downvotes/people against you in the thread would be a bigger indicator you lost the debate and those aren't 100% applicable either.

Your well thought out argument has a typo. Checkmate, atheists.

Soliloquy_Rhap posted...

Having more downvotes/people against you in the thread would be a bigger indicator you lost the debate and those aren't 100% applicable either.

Isn't that argumentum ad populum tho?

The reason I say resorting exclusively to personal attacks loses the debate is because you are no longer challenging the point, but rather the one presenting the point, which should be irrelevant. And if one is no longer challenging a point the presumption is that they can't. Meanwhile one simply having more opponents in a debate doesn't say anything about the quality of either side's challenge.

I wouldn't even take a debate about the the morality of lying or the color of the sky. One is entirely subjective while the other is judged by individual perception that can't actually be verified as universal. Proving these stances is above my pay grade, so instead of futilely arguing them then throwing a tantrum when I can't and pretending I won just because most people say "lying is bad and the sky is blue", I'd simply avoid the discussion entirely.

When the other side only has personal attacks it isnt a debate.

Soliloquy_Rhap posted...

Having more downvotes/people against you in the thread would be a bigger indicator you lost the debate and those aren't 100% applicable either.

This isn't even close to correct

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9688d8ed.jpg

Vicious_Dios posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9688d8ed.jpg

The thing about you is that you think youre winning an argument, and then people start insulting you

but theyre insulting you because your opinions deserve to be insulted

D. It can also mean that you're being stubborn in the face of defeat and they're fine with calling you an idiot because the facts they presented aren't sinking in.

D

If in a true debate if you are raising good points and all they have are insults, then yes, you are winning.

If you are a moron whose only appeal is insulting the opponent, and you have the right audience for that, it doesn't matter how right you are.

I remember when GWB was campaigning against Al Gore. GWB said: if Al Gore invented the internet, then why is it spelled DUBYA DUBYA DUBYA? Repubs lapped it up, even though every part of it was complete rubbish.

Absolute disagree. Some people have opinions that even dont deserve to be, or cant even be properly debated.

Someone racist or homophobic for example. Theres no debating purely racist ideas. You insult them because theyre ridiculous.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Absolute disagree. Some people have opinions that even dont deserve to be, or cant even be properly debated.

Someone racist or homophobic for example. Theres no debating purely racist ideas. You insult them because theyre ridiculous.

True, but I don't think this applies since there was no debate in the first place in that scenario

joaquintall posted...

I remember when GWB was campaigning against Al Gore. GWB said: if Al Gore invented the internet, then why is it spelled DUBYA DUBYA DUBYA? Repubs lapped it up, even though every part of it was complete rubbish.

To be fair if the original point is bullshit then the rebuttal doesn't need to not be bullshit. Al Gore did not invent the internet so it doesn't really matter how they responded to the concept that he did.

When the other side only has personal attacks you probably won the debate.

I dunno about. I do know however, when the other side busts out the "I have a right to my opinion/free speech", then that definitely means you won the debate. Because the only time someone busts out that line, is when they have been cornered, and can't wiggle their way out. So they use that line, as a way to not only end the debate, but them getting the last word in, thus making them (in their mind) the winner, when really, it's quite the opposite.

Goderator posted...

True, but I don't think this applies since there was no debate in the first place in that scenario

Many people hinge their arguments on racist and homophobic ideas, even if it might not be clear at first.

If the debate progresses and that finally comes out, i think its totally fair to insult those ideas.

If you said something that indicates you are a bigot/fascist/etc and then feigned outrage by calling someone pointing that out a personal attack, then that definitely isn't proof you won.

Using the general "you" for the record, not saying the TC has done this.

Eh, I mean, in the conventional sense that makes sense. However it's pointless arguing with MAGA because literally everything they say comes from right-wing indoctrination and propaganda, where they live in an entirely false reality and are very nasty & hostile about it because they think only they are the chosen ones on "real facts".

There's no point in giving them facts because their response will be shitty so honestly all there's left to do is to personally attack and insult them. No amount of genuine debate or explanations will make a difference and they seek a fascist take over of this nation to ensure white supremacy doesn't end.

rick_alverado posted...

Probably means you won the debate, but winning a debate and being correct are two different things.

This

D. It can be the case, but it's also entirely possible that there's no point in bothering with an actual debate if one guy is just kinda dumb and bad.

D maybe its just a waste of time to "debate" with someone so horrendously wrong or with such horrific opinions

No

Ive seen court cases where the obvious guilty party got roasted by people giving testimony. Stuff like how does it feel to be the most hated person this year. They did get told to stop, but there was no doubt he was in the right, as dumb as that comment was.

Depends.

What do you mean by 'won the debate'? Claiming victory because the other person has violated a fallacy with a Latin name doesn't always convince people outside of a debating society bubble.

Playing the man, and not the ball, (to use a football/soccer term), is a time honoured tactic. If you can make your opponent seem ridiculous, uncomfortable, unqualified, unpleasant, untrustworthy, etc., then it is likely viewers will think you have won.

Many observers thought that Nixon had technically out-debated JFK, but the audience largely disagreed because Nixon looked sweaty and shifty, and JFK had a great haircut.

ai123 posted...

outside of a debating society bubble.

I quit debate club precisely because it was about presentation more than fact.

I don't care if the results are good or bad or morally whatever, I wish there were debating societies that really were just pathologically concerned with truth outputs. God I miss debate.org.

I dunno, if one person is incredibly thick the other person has to be amazingly patient or really self controlled to not get mad enough to insult them.

So some people are wrong and get called a "stupid fuck" and think they're winning when they're way off base.

D.

if you're in an actual debate then yes.

if you're on the internet it probably means you're an idiot and people don't want to spend the energy to debate you in the first place

"Winning" a debate has little to do with being right.

Diceheist posted...

Isn't that argumentum ad populum tho?

The reason I say resorting exclusively to personal attacks loses the debate is because you are no longer challenging the point, but rather the one presenting the point, which should be irrelevant. And if one is no longer challenging a point the presumption is that they can't. Meanwhile one simply having more opponents in a debate doesn't say anything about the quality of either side's challenge.

I wouldn't even take a debate about the the morality of lying or the color of the sky. One is entirely subjective while the other is judged by individual perception that can't actually be verified as universal. Proving these stances is above my pay grade, so instead of futilely arguing them then throwing a tantrum when I can't and pretending I won just because most people say "lying is bad and the sky is blue", I'd simply avoid the discussion entirely.

It is. Claiming someone automatically loses just because of using personal attacks is also technically a fallacy, Argument from fallacy. The point is that arguments like a nihilistic rapist claiming morality is subjective, nothing really matters in the grand scheme except themselves and so that it's fine that they rape and murder people then it's fine to just point out that people like them don't belong in society. Although perhaps at that point one can say someone who just resorts to "because I say so" automatically loses but irritatingly that doesn't seem to be an official fallacy itself mostly because it's automatically assumed someone who uses that is an idiot.

Although perhaps one could even say claiming someone can only resort to personal attacks is itself a personal attack on them by referring to them as someone who can only resort to personal attacks.
Goderator posted...

This isn't even close to correct

I'm saying it's more of an indicator than "your other opponent just making personal attacks means you won". This at least shows you visibly have more supporters in the current debate at your current venue. Meanwhile you can just be a troll using insane troll logic to intentionally infuriate people so that you can claim people who call you out for it " can only address the speaker and not attack the actual argument". Like with that logic a literal baby being completely incoherent automatically wins the argument by someone pointing out that it's a baby who isn't capable of being articulate.

Try going to Steam Off Topic Forum.
You will see how pointless it really is to try and debate the other side.
It's the worst, because they literally just attack and accuse Biden and the Democrats of everything they are most guilty of, including fake news/propaganda.

Edit 1:

Same thing with free speech , and freedom to express one self. It's okay for them, but not for people they don't like, they are not allowed to speak freely.
They claim to be against censorship, but want to censor anyone or anything that is ever so slightly different from them or that they disagree with

ZaruenKosai posted...

Try going to Steam Off Topic Forum.
You will see how pointless it really is to try and debate the other side.
It's the worst, because they literally just throw attack and accuse Biden and the Democrats of everything they are most guilty of, including fake news and propaganda.

It's pretty much CE, just the hive mind is right instead of left.

Soliloquy_Rhap posted...

Although perhaps one could even say claiming someone can only resort to personal attacks is itself a personal attack on them by referring to them as someone who can only resort to personal attacks.

Retaliatory and conditional though; the recipient could debunk the suspicion by simply doing something else.

A lot of times a personal attacks debater is simply stating the insult as fact and leaving no room to challenge it, further betraying the notion of debate.

Soliloquy_Rhap posted...

Like with that logic a literal baby being completely incoherent automatically wins the argument by someone pointing out that it's a baby who isn't capable of being articulate.

Well the baby hasn't presented an argument yet, meaning there's no obligation for the other side to do so.

Not having an argument is only problematic if the other side does.

Diceheist posted...

Retaliatory and conditional though; the recipient could debunk the suspicion by simply doing something else.

A lot of times a personal attacks debater is simply stating the insult as fact and leaving no room to challenge it, further betraying the notion of debate.

It's still a personal attack though. The fact that you consider retaliatory and conditional justified exceptions to make a personal attack shows that there are instances where personal attacks are fine. And that's my point. Of course, the majority of personal attacks when used on someone still having an honest debate paints the personal attacker as the one that's the problem but there are definitely exceptions like brick-minded narcissists and trolls and that's what people are keeping in mind right now.

Although you bringing up that the opposing side not having an argument brings up a good point. The main point of this is that the people (trolls, instigators, sea lions etc.) being personally attacked don't have legitimate arguments but pretend like they do. Things like endless repetition of "that doesn't make any sense". So in my hypothetical example of the baby acting like the baby's babbling is an "argument".

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

On the other hand, winning a debate doesn't make you correct. It mostly just means you're better at ignoring and/or distracting the other party.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

It wouldn't be if these things were objective, but they're not.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is the type of person who believes the topic title to be correct.

If the other side only has personal attacks completely unrelated to the topic at hand(some can be) then, yeah, C.

At the very least when it gets to that point it's not worth debating any more, just going to be spinning wheels.

masterpug53 posted...

Marjorie Taylor Greene is the type of person who believes the topic title to be correct.

Marjorie Taylor Greene starts every debate with personal attacks bereft of any substance whatsoever, so you might want to re-examine who agrees with who.

Big confirm

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

1. Yes, this is exactly what I mean. In an ideal world, winning a debate would mean being correct and vice-versa. But since we don't have an ideal world, it's possible to have won the debate while being wrong.

2. Hell no I never took debate class, lmao.