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

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

And yet, you've won this one.

There's no way of objectively determining who is "correct" about a specific issue unless you are omniscient. Otherwise there is always the potential that you're unaware of some detail that invalidates your conclusion.

All that can be determined is who presented more evidence in their favor. And someone pivoting to personal smears is abandoning the call to provide evidence.

Diceheist posted...

There's no way of objectively determining who is "correct" about a specific issue unless you are omniscient. Otherwise there is always the potential that you're unaware of some detail that invalidates your conclusion.

All that can be determined is who presented more evidence in their favor. And someone pivoting to personal smears is abandoning the call to provide evidence.

Not all evidence is equal either though. If someone posts more newsmax articles than you that doesnt mean they win.

Someone engaging in dishonest tactics will also probably be insulted. That doesnt make them right.

Diceheist posted...

There's no way of objectively determining who is "correct" about a specific issue unless you are omniscient. Otherwise there is always the potential that you're unaware of some detail that invalidates your conclusion.

All that can be determined is who presented more evidence in their favor. And someone pivoting to personal smears is abandoning the call to provide evidence.

Ah, if it's about who can provide the most reliable evidence I can see that. But what about someone who just makes up lies and when that lie is exposed just makes new lies? At some point you have to bring up them being a habitual liar and thus that makes them non-credible.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Not all evidence is equal either though. If someone posts more newsmax articles than you that doesnt mean they win.

One could debunk the Newsmax articles by finding contradictory reports from media outlets rated more credibly by neutral arbiters. There's no need to simply eject from the argument entirely.

Soliloquy_Rhap posted...

But what about someone who just makes up lies and when that lie is exposed just makes new lies? At some point you have to bring up them being a habitual liar and thus that makes them non-credible.

If someone is lying then the appropriate response is to call for substantiation. When they fail to provide it the lie is dismissed. There isn't really a need to keep a tally, the one lie doesn't become any more false just because there were 10 lies beforehand.

Diceheist posted...

One could debunk the Newsmax articles by finding contradictory reports from media outlets rated more credibly by neutral arbiters. There's no need to simply eject from the argument entirely.

If someone is lying then the appropriate response is to call for substantiation. When they fail to provide it the lie is dismissed. There isn't really a need to keep a tally, the one lie doesn't become any more false just because there were 10 lies beforehand.

This disregards the precedence of reputation. A person telling 11 lies in a row can be reliably dismissed.

Diceheist posted...

If someone is lying then the appropriate response is to call for substantiation. When they fail to provide it the lie is dismissed. There isn't really a need to keep a tally, the one lie doesn't become any more false just because there were 10 lies beforehand.

It means their credibility is shot and that it's a waste of time to keep humoring and platforming them. Even the actual courts have things like perjury and contempt of court to remove and punish people who have been found to be dishonest and disruptive.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Depends on the platform of the debate.

Outside of an academic settings the "winner" of a debate is just whoever most people in the audience agree with. Because that's all a debate really is, selling your ideals to an audience.

There isn't really many clear signs you won. A lot of hope tho

Soliloquy_Rhap posted...

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.

I think this makes a bit more sense, if you need to pick something.

Hard disagree. Someone can both be wrong and also be a piece of shit. Same with someone being wrong but being a good person. Or being right and being a dick about it.

Ad hominem is weak for debate purposes but it has little to do with actual debating positions.

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.

Falla ious arguments of course don't make one wrong.

Merely unjustified.

A logical argument is about guaranteeing you get from point A to conclusion B 100% of the time.

Depends on what we consider "winning". Is it the person with the best argument from a logical standpoint, or the person who convinces more people?

If it's the latter, people often "win" arguments by insulting the other person.

You're missing something.

Half the time I'm insulting someone it's because the topic isn't up for debate and I'm not especially interested in humoring bigotry.

Trans rights aren't a thought exercise, they're human rights.