Ever Won an Argument at DU?

[Robb]

Poll question: Ever Won an Argument at DU?

I'm going to say "won" here has to mean you either convinced the other person that your original position was the one they should adopt, OR (to appease the Peace and Conflict Studies majors out there) that you both modified your positions to find common ground and a new consensus.

Ever won? :evilgrin:

[VermontDem2004]

1. Never

I am a horrible debator.

[Guaranteed]

2. Don't think I've ever really won...

But I've never lost! :)

[R Hickey]

3. Although, I am a brilliant writer...

...if I get into an argument, I tend to end up getting flamed, and become more psychologically tramatized than if I'd won a hundred verbal duels, so I mostly only add my two bits worth, and try to illuminate, rather than debate.

[Brucey]

4. I've never seen a thread in which a DUer changed

his/her mind. They're a stubborn bunch who believe they are right about everything. Besides, I don't get the sense that people join threads in order to learn something or change their views. These forums seem to me to be places to state your view, not change it.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. I didn't think that was the point.

I was always told that the point of a philosophical debate isn't to win. The point is to learn, and to see new views on the subject. Winning comes from actually succeeding in that.

If your sole purpose is to get your side to "win" then you lose everytime. You get so focused on not losing, in making sure your view is the one on top, that you fail to see when the other side has a valid point, and then you fail to incorporate it into your philosophy. Yours is the weaker for it.

This is, of course, assuming that you are willing to admit that you have some more to learn in this life, and that you aren't perfect.

The flip side would be that if you are so focused on "winning" you tend to force your opponent into the saem mentality and they are much less likely to learn anything from you. Once again...you lose.

Just my opinion of course. I could be wrong.

[emad]

6. It depends what kind of 'challenge' someone levels at you.....

People get worked up when their idiosyncratic sense of humour is misinterpreted/taken personally

Some religious diehards are thick skinned tossers

Some astrology enthusiasts couldn't recognise an innoxious dig if it poked them in the eye

[supernova]

8. I agree

the point of a philosophical debate isn't to win. The point is to learn, and to see new views on the subject. Winning comes from actually succeeding in that.

For classical debate this is true, and it works if all participants take that noble goal to heart. Unfortunately, that's not what happens here at DU a good deal of the time.

[arwalden]

7. How Can You "Argue" With Hit-And-Run Adversaries? You Know The Ones...

... they are always there with a quick BODY SLAM accusing you of being intolerant (and it's usually an unjust accusation for an imagined insult).

Yet... somehow... whenever you defend yourself or ask the accuser to clarify what they mean, they've disappeared. They refuse to answer your questions or even acknowledge that you responded to their accusations.

They are like "flies"... never lighting and sticking with a thread for very long. Perhaps one or two messages--usually curt and angry--but never any meaningful exchanges.

[rasputin1952]

11. Good point...

It is difficult to maintain a sense of balance when sniped at.

In defense of the 'hit-and-run tactics' though, since this is not like "normal" conversation, it is occasionaaly difficult to keep track of threads and posts. Even bookmarking has its flaws. Let's not forget the possibility of having to leave the board as well. (I was going to leave out freepers and obnoxious snipers, but they need to be included as well).

I have noticed that I will go to answer a post, and 3 or 4 have already chimed in. Thread-jackers don't help either. What might start out as a serious query or statement, often gets turned 90 to 180 degrees by side arguments/viewpoints, that the original no longer has validity to many that join in.

Generally I do better in face to face contact. But there are few in my area that see things the way I do, even in the remotest sense. I am literally surrounded by RWnuts, and while I've had my victories, usually, it comes off a draw.

The object of debate, however, is to learn, not teach; a thin wire to walk indeed, but a necessity if one wishes to grow.

BTW...love you early Streisand. I compare her to a musical instrument, as opposed to a 'singer'.


:kick:

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. I've managed to win the argument

That I'm really in need of a date. A lot of people here weren't sure of the idea at first, but I'm pretty confident I've changed their minds.

:)

[Brucey]

10. When one thinks about the main issues people want to discuss,

such as guns, abortion, war, human rights (such as gay marriage), environmental protection, America-loving and America-hating, patriotism, support the troops, bring them home, the existence of god, what songs we like and don't like, what candidates we like or don't like, etc., I see absolutely no change of mind or view ever. So, if "win" is defined as someone changing their mind or view, I don't think anyone ever wins. I've never seen it, at least. Have you seen someone change their view about gun control because of what was written here? How about the candidates? Kucinich lover changes his/her mind because of what a Dean-lover wrote? I don't see it. I can barely imagine it. Have I changed any minds? (Just kidding; of course I know it won't).

[supernova]

12. Depends on what we come to DU for

Is it to learn something new about a candidate or an issue, or to get validation for what we already know/feel?

I think a lot of it is the validation we get here. If you're busy looking for support for your views, you will find that here with a subset of DUers, if not not all. But that won't leave you much time for being in an exploring state of mind.

There aren't that many threads that begin with "I haven't made up my mind about..."

[emad]

14. Did you mean: "Kucinich's lover changes his/her mind at the

point of a gun?"

In my street, someone changed the grafitto "There's no arguing with the barrel of a gun" to "there's no arguing with a barrel of gin"

[Archae]

13. Never.

I consider Michael Moore to be an a**hole, pandering to his fan club with lies, half truths and innuendos just like Ann Coulter does, and astrology is a ancient belief that falls apart any time it's properly tested for REAL evidence.

But the FTB's in both, attack me, and post discredited crap as factual, just to prop up their "hero" or pet belief.

[SOteric]

15. I have had people on DU concede my point more than once

agree with me quite often and change their viewpoint to the one I espoused once or twice.

What I would include in the category of 'winning,' however, is that I've also walked quietly away from trollbaiting, flame-flinging asswipes (not that there are ever any such people on DU) without feeling compelled to give them the fight they're spoiling for. In my book, that's a win.

[MUAD_DIB]

16. I have given up on trying to win arguments

or pissing people off. Sort of.