To clarify - this video is sarcastic - these techniques are dishonest. LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
@@hypeman958 oh you don't think so? Probably bcz you are also the one who gets insulted a lot. Well, they get insulted bcz they are meant to be, bcz see they are soo foolish, and you too.
The Socratic method is often mis-used toward that end. The pretense "just asking a question" quickly becomes a mask for asking loaded question and making assertions that the questioner then doesn't have to defend or even acknowledge.
This is why I dislike public debates, as they seem to always be doing these kinds of things. It's never about finding some kind of truth, it's to thrash your opponent and fool the audience into "your truth".
@@TWIlktitbliktvim-ty7td because of I'm having a discussion with a friend, there's no audience that we're trying to convince we're right to. A lot of these tactics are meant to steamroll your opponent, and have the audience think you're right, not actually convince the second party of anything. So these tactics are a lot more prevalent when there's an audience to convince. And just, if you're watching a debate, it's a public debate, if it was a private debate, you wouldn't be seeing it. The aforementioned discussion with a friend would be private, but if it was recorded and made public, then it's public.
@@Vinos-yt that doesn't work, because these tactics are quite offensive to the second party. You will not be convincing anyone by asking them pointless questions and not letting them answer, or refusing to listen to their answers. That like saying I'll convince them by plugging my ears and yelling loudly. That's just not how these tactics work, and to say so shows a, frankly staggering lack of understanding of their functionality. See at the end there I used the idea of using larger words to sound smarter and more official, and some people reading may have agreed with me on just that, but all it would've done was make out conversation confrontational, and never would've convinced you. Rather it would make your dog your heels in harder because it's condescending. These strategies are not to convince your opponent, and they never will. They are strictly to make you look like you won to a third party, by shutting down your oppositions ability to make any point that doesn't serve you. If that's how you talk with your friends, then you probably won't have them for long.
It's been a thing for a long time, it's the Strawman Fallacy, present an argument that is superficially similar to your opponents argument and then attack it, right so say "Person 1 asserts proposition X. Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X", this can also be done by quoting someone out of context, granted one can only appeal to it being out of context if the context would have justified it, it can also be done via what he said which is oversimplifying the opponents argument, and then attack it, via "So what you're say is Y, *point against Y*", now granted if you used this on someone and they knew the strawman fallacy then you're done for.
@@Nikolai.A.McGuire Thanks for that explanation. I come up against this in life, and see it in media. The famous one of course that Brit Journalist against J Peterson. It makes my blood boil and glad to hear that it's not always my processing ability at fault.
@@flowerpower8722 Yeah, another way to think of it, is if you're in a sword dual, and you start attacking a strawman instead of your opponent, and then kill the strawman acting as if it was your opponent, something as well is the Motte-And-Baily Fallacy, which can be done via say "You're wrong" this would be the Baily (Weak and fallacious argument), and when you press them on it, they might return to "I don't have a worldview" the Motte (stronger and easier to defend argument), say basically the Baily is a weak/fallacious argument, that whenever attacked, the person retreats to the Motte, it comes from an actual place, the Motte is a well protected castel, while the Baily is where the towns people are, and whenever the towns people/the Baily get attacked they run away into the castle for protection, this is also really common and makes whomever using it look really silly and fallacious.
@@Nikolai.A.McGuire It's a really easy logical fallacy to notice so I don't think using it in any argument is good (unless the audience is full of people with the iq below 100 and has no common sense)
@@golamrasul9887 The best counter to this is to point out they do this because they have no point and are wrong, just don’t want to admit it. Or you can just talk down to them as a child, if they act like one treat them like one
They wouldn't be there if they didn't knew the tricks. This is all pretty standard, but he presented it all in a very entertaining manner. Kudos to him!
@sesaarinen haha, no worries you're good. The joke was that, this youtuber, 'Unsolicited Advice' is very smart about winning debates, hence this comment is saying politicians get all their tricks from this youtuber. Have a good one!
fr. I want a video on how to fight against somebody using these tactics. It pisses me off when people win arguments without any actual evidence and instead just berate you until you succede.
"if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." - quote of the century Edit: 667? Yay, i'm finally famous Also, I rewatch the video, and the accent just makes it sound 10X better
1. Form a strong argument (the hard part). Understand burden of proof. 2. Memorize all fallacies. 3. Point out any fallacies used by opponent. 4. Focus the conversation; don’t let them divert to another topic. Call them out when they’re being disingenuous. Put them on the spot. Follow those steps and your opponent is forced to argue on merit. Sprinkle some charisma and theatrics, and you won’t have any issues. Persuasion Tactics don’t work when someone not only knows them but also has the better argument. It’s why no amount of cheap tricks will get a flat earther to win a debate. 😉
You forget that these people never lose arguments either. They can always just invent a reason for being correct or decide that you're stupid for not understanding their arguments no matter how vague or filled with holes they are.
@@ukkisragee9983 Moving the goalposts, semantic fallacies, ad hoc explanations, vagueness, etc. all fallacies you can easily point to and call out, thus placing these people on the defense.
@@TheRealCaptainGoldWell actually you like zombie apocalypses which means your a geek, which means your argument is invalid… (some internet user probably)
I honestly felt a bit misled by current title. Usually just telling true statements wins anything, you dont really need much else. "The art of dishonesty" feels better.
@@morowenidi4621 If true statements won every argument, the various crises within the U.S would have been delt with, instead of sending money to fight foreign wars....one of which is already lost but no one wants to admit.
"An argument isn't just contradiction." - "Can be" - "An argument is a collection of statements to establish a definite proposition. " - "No it isn't." - "Yes it is! It isn't just contradiction." - "Look, if I'm going to argue with you, I must take up a contrary position." - "But, it isn't just saying, 'No, it isn't'." - "Yes, it is." - "No! It isn't!"
Monty Python, my beloved It seems that arguments are both capable of overwhelming genius And outright comedic idiocy But one thing’s for sure, they forever will remain entertaining
Step 1: exaggerate their point Step 2: make the most sturdy point you can, and then use it as a trojan horse. Step 3: question them in a quick, but patient timing to have them form a response before needing to throw it out, if they do throw out a response, it might be a contradiction. Never forget the contradiction Step 4: highlight only the best parts in your title, and act like you understand the other part of the argument. Do vice versa with their title. Step 5: say something wrong, but basic that forces your opponent to talk very complicated about the counter point, use the complicated counter argument to make it seem like they are digging to the core of the earth for a chance of a counter argument to your “common sense” Step 6. Dont let them finish their thoughts Step 7. Anger your opponent, which makes them look unreasonable Step 8. Look smart to make yourself more believable Step 9. *Misc Step 10. Make your opponent look like *they* only want to win
My brain went straight to: "I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid," (Captain Jack Sparrow).
People need to realise that debates are not about winning, they’re about learning. Edit: People in the replies have made me realise that it actually depends on the situation, and that's true. In court, for example, it is about winning. Thank you for correcting me. :)
What? Can you explain more of this to me? I kinda understand debate is not to win but understand huh. Maybe understand the other person's perspective perhaps? And learn from it?
Sometimes it's about learning how utterly dumb the other person really is. (On a more serious note, for a debate actually be about learning it should require both parties have at least similar knowledge over the issue and at that point it's mostly about the perspective)
The introduction about sarcasm completely slipped my mind, so at first I _genuinely_ thought you were serious and I was absolutely baffled with what you were saying until I paused and read your comment😂thank God
Confidence stills plays a huge role in debate, being able to stand in front and say all the bullshit with a straight face makes for a more compelling argument
The funny thing is, I’ve used one simple Japanese Philosophy Trick to win just about every argument I’ve ever had, which makes most of this advice redundant. “The best weapon you have is your enemies/(opponents).” For example, if someone insults you, riff off of their insult, rephrase it a bit differently, and throw it back at them. That is because psychologically they are insulting you the way they think will hurt you, but indirectly revealing what types of insults hurt them. Thus why you should never be the first to throw insults. In debate, you have their presented ideas, and you can either counter what they are saying, you already have their stance, just counter it with either historical facts, or present a time they contradicted themselves. Or ask questions about what they said. Remember, if you can answer their questions, but they can’t answer yours in return, you’re actually the one winning.
@@Froge4291 " You're a fatherless bozo " " Do you always tend to call people fatherless just so you could feel like you can relate to 'this someone' in the most delusional way possible " idk i'm not good at English so I didn't understand 50% of the video
So what your saying is, you deliberately and viciously argued against young children and pridefully boasted about this attack to a public as if to say "everyone listen i have finnaly beaten children in an argument as a master chess player checkmates a goldfish!"
2:20 this is actually a good one, but you do need to prepare yourself to defend against statements of this nature, as it is very common for you to lose an arguement because of it.
A great reminder is that, just because your opponent is very confident that they’re right and haven’t admitted to being wrong, doesn’t mean you’re wrong. People are close minded in arguments and debates, what matters more is you know for a fact you destroyed that person in front of everyone and the audience will let you know that.
How to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic by Madsen Pirie is a great quick read that outlines the different types of fallacies used in debate. Just being able to recognize a fallacy when it’s being used helps tremendously.
@@ExistingSmiles Or to use the fallacies as a leverage to assert their lack of knowledge to the "audience", debate isn't only about winning a point it's also convincing third parties about your point
Never do this kind of things in debate. But still watch to aware of these things to know what your opponent exactly doing so you have a idea to correct him/her.
This is just what humans do, next time you argue with someone, watch what they say, and what you say. I can almost guarantee you are manipulating each other in some way. Also, if someone is using these, which they most likely are, you stand no chance unless you do the same.
"You're essentially forcing their minds to continuously jump from issue to issue, never letting them rest long enough to form a coherent thought." As someone that has adhd, all i can say that i have been traininv myself for this exact thing.
Very interesting. I personally experianced this during arguements, and sometimes used it a bit without knowing. Best method is, throw them off with unexpected arguements. During debates, I usually pick the middle ground in most and pretend Im in the opposite side as much as on my own side. This prevents opponents framing us too. Yes. One methods can help prevent the other. Interuptions with questions? Frame them as ignorant and myself as a teacher. For example, during debates in a university, there was a topic on freedom and enhanced screening on airports for terror, even though it may violate privacy. I thought both had reasons, but chose the seemingly evil side; securety. I knew what the otherside would bring out. Freedom and human rights, obiviously. I used their own arguements against them. 'Then how can you be free from terror of attacks? Its our right to go free without fear. We should rather be discussing how we can make that happen and minimize violating human rights' and then came up with an idea of a system that could keep individual privacy while maintaining securety (similar to, how coke factory could produce coke without workers knowing its recipe) Professor was kinda impressed by this I guess because he called me out after the debate to have a few words. (but still got B+ as I got terrible grades on the exam😂) Lets say topic on communism and caplitalism. Those on Cap. would appeal to horrors Soviets and communist party did. This I know. What would I do? I would critisize Soviets and so-called communitists even more then them. This will throw out any arguement the opponent have as it is the least expected. Then I would first ask others what communism is. Then explain how their claims of being communists are false, and the opponent is ignorant. That they dont even know what theyre actually fighting. I would then explain how what they think communism is actually totalitarian socialism and simplify that with a race as an example. Socialism is a race where everyone gets a medal, Capitalism is one where the owner choose who gets a medel Communuism is one where as everyone owns the race, everyone gets a fair chance and the 1st getting the medel. And ask them what race theyre gonna run in.
I don't think I'll be able to use these tactics, but I love the vocab enrichment I'm getting from this video. Perfect for my preparation for my upcoming English exam 🤓
You have no idea how much I love your videos, I’m a university student and every single day I watch your videos, my classmates find it hard to understand what you’re saying because first of all English isn’t our first language, second u mostly talk about Dostoevsky & they don’t know him , so I have to translate what you’re saying and give em information about Dostoevsky etc but they really enjoy watching your videos. Me and some girls in my class sit together and play your videos in morning and during lunch break . I want to be just like you sir , I want to gain more and more knowledge about philosophy and other things , even though im a zoology major student but I have really great interest in literature and philosophy. And one more thing you truely deserve millions of subscribers . Much love, pls keep posting more and more videos , you’re an inspiration ❤
As a teenager who loves to debate and search for knowledge this video was full of it one of languages I know is English and your videos taught me new words so useful tips and so many other things Thanks for your great video
Good to see the comments are aware that argument and discussion should strive for learning and not “winning”, everyone should be aware of these tactics though to avoid doing them. Or being frustrated when encountered with someone disingenuous.
Arguments aren’t for learning, they are for teaching. Nobody goes into an argument expecting to immediately collapse and listen to the other person, they go in expecting to get the other person to change their opinion. Every human will use some form of this in an argument, and unless you use it too, you’re screwed.
@@AjokeiguessThat’s what makes life so disappointing. Why cant 2 people present their point, decide which point is correct and MOVE ON. If you’re wrong, accept you’re wrong. I genuinely don’t understand what’s so hard about that.
@@SirPlusOfCamelotThat’s just your ego talking. You aren’t being made a “fool” for being proven wrong. Your ego simply can’t accept the fact that someone corrected you.
I’m not a English native speaker and i love your mastery of the language. Thanks to it i learn every day new words (not the usual ones that you hear in shorts or more generally in garbage content) and expression that help me develop a whole new approach to the language.
@@imbio6930if you are about go to to jail, it’s about winning. If you are arguing about whether something should be legal, that may change the lives of others in good or bad ways, it’s about being right, and winning.
So what you're saying is that we should all have the money to subscribe to your patreon in order to see more videos like this? That's not the point of UA-cam.
Im not sure if it applies to others but if you're planning to use this in a debating competition, i highly suggest not to since the judges will immediately call you out at best and worst case scenario is that youll be asked to leave 😭 Its a fun watch since it reminded me of some of my opponents back then and it does grind your emotions a bit especially when they challenge the less heavy parts of your arguments to paint themselves as winners while their side is so haphazardly constructed that its pitiful. Gladly, most of the times the adjudicators (if theyre actually good god i hate inexperienced adjudicators so much) sees right through it and call them out once the adjudication begins
I've used these methods in real life, and now I have a closely dedicated group of people who want to keep me happy all the time. How nice of them! 11/10 would recommend again!
If you have a short attention span like most of us, here’s the basics: Step 1: “so what your saying is…(insert outlandish/exaggerated version of opponents argument)” Step two: make a sensible argument when they aren’t looking and once they do say “get a load of this guy, he wasn’t paying attention” or “get a load of this guy, he doesn’t think (insert sensible comment here)” Step three: flood them with questions so they get mentally drained Step four: say the downsides to make them look evil Step five: say something that isn’t true but also say it’s “common sense” Step six: interrupt the person to make them look foolish later Step seven: make the opponent angry so they look foolish Step eight: say sentences that are too fancy or complicated like “why shall I debate with this foolish looking person?” Step 9: basically a bit more logical normal fighting Step 10: the lessons of deceit Step 9 and 10 are convoluted (and have the actual numeral symbols) because you’ll have to watch those yourself. It’s good for him and your attention span. Anyways bye bye!
He is right on the money. I used to train ppl both in collegiate debating and real life debating. Schopenhauers tricks work in both settings, even if the collegiate debating world tries to count only logic and sound reasoning. A debate is the proces of impressing your 'rightness' unto the audience, not to defeat your opponents logic. Ware those who forget this
I cried while watching this. I absolutely noticed how every tactics introduced in this video was used by my mother. DON'T USE THIS if you care about someone. it will make that person go crazy. even to the point of depression. LOL. highly manipulative and ruins the relationship. my family members believe in my mother almost always, which actually made me think I was the wrong one until others from outside of my family member pointed out how I was in the right place.. she was just good in argument. "Interrupting" absolutely kills my brain and I don't really talk to any of my family members now.
Any advice for beginners in MUN?☺️ I'm thinking of joining an MUN at the end of the year but I'm not sure what resources I can pull from and how to draft my words.
I love how, contrarily to other youtubers, you’ve got a positive way to convey ur message You’re dynamic, not negative or too serious or pessimistic and while what you say is interesting and you keep the main informations without giving too much examples, we appreciate listening to you and your attitude makes it even funnier. Keep it up!
You've taught me things about myself and politics that I have been wondering about but thought I was going crazy the further down the habit holes I went, thank you for this video
my training arc for this thanksgiving is going to pay off for sure (i literally avoid every argument because my family are all naturals at these "techniques')
Omg, i was litterrally searching right now for a video on f...king hellish people that interrupts endlessly and malignantly any exchange of ideas in a debate and you just happened to publish your video so i'd like to thank you so much for this smart move of yours ! I've read this book of Shopenhauer and i was wandering if he talked about this problem precisely you did a great job synthesizing his book
Yea thers someone in my uni like that. I'm great at logical good faith or at the very least educated deabting, was in the debate team for my school for a long while. But dude literally does every single thing listed in this video. I felt like I was just being crazy or something but Holly shit I'm starting to think I might not be
this is AMAZING advice. but I had to learn it the hard way yesterday. So, I will use the tactics you've given and hope for the best i grill their brain:]
I've got to admit, as much as it pains me to admit, I've been guilty of falling into this habit. From my recollection it seems to be mostly around topics I have a personal/vested interest in, usually surrounding human rights, so I can see how I could fall into this habit. Thank you for raising this in a way that allows for a detached, objective analysis, without assigning blame or guilt. Assuming the persona of "debate bro" really helped to convey your points clearly, and illustrate how, where and why they can go wrong. The various iterations of the "puppy dilemma" was a fantastic comparison to highlight how absurd yet also on the face of it logical-seeming these arguments can be. This is one of my favourite of your vids so far! I just hope you don't burn yourself out with all the content you're creating lately!
But there is no way to say where the "truth" is especially around such topics as human rights. The more personal/emotional interest in any topic, the more the "truth" is just rationalization of your (mostly subconsciouss) emotional preference. And one's smart brain is always able to find "logical" arguments, which persuade the one foremost. And it is also very human to use "unlogical"/emotional arguments in such a debate. After all, we are no AI (yet). Moreover, what's good about "winning" an argument by fair and logical means, when the real reality does not function like this by no means?
@@alena-qu9vj I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. There are SOME truths to the universe, and when we discuss human rights, we are talking within a framework of humanity which limits the scope, again allowing much more ability to define the parameters. Human rights are a function of a human society, they are rights that come about as part of existing within a society. Existing within a society inherently will be different to not existing within a society, and as such any distinction would always be man-made (whether conscious or unconscious), by virtue of the society needing to be manmade. I think you're misconstruing 'truth' with 'morality' which ironically, is essentially in my opinion, the issue with people who use these types of 'debate' and where the illogical premises tend to begin. Truth exists outside of morality.
@@kezia8027 Sorry, but I think it is you who misconstruct truth with morality. While I agree that there is a universal „truth“ out there in the realm of ideas, for us material people living in a relative dualistic world, this ideal truth is only accessible via our subjective indivdual perception, which differs in every individual according to their character and experience. There is no universaly approved consensus on which this universal „truth“ may be - thats why all those passionate debates. I hope you do not believe or even preach that it is YOU who knows the truth. Any „charter“ of human rights is just a virtual construct having no justification in the real life, where it is always the powerfull ones who force their rules on the weak. There is a general sense of morality - specific to different societies and times, and laws which are here for imposing this morality on society - also conforming to respective societies. Sorry, „human rights“ today are often just a pretext for the powerfull to force their rules on people or countries, while pursuing their own very selfish goals.
@@alena-qu9vj No worries, I can see you have a very high opinion of yourself, and an inability to communicate your thoughts concisely which often seems to coincide with an egoistic confidence in the self and the very points you fail to adequately explain or justify.
I think many who get into philosophical discussions, me included, forget what is actually practical and useful to the world. What's a construct, ultimate truth, morality, etc. can be debated all day long. People have dedicated their lives to it. And like the OP said, human suffering can really fuel those debates. And that's understandable. Humans naturally prefer not to suffer... But, what is useful to a human? The physical power that "allows" you to disregard the growing consequences of suffering? The social power to convince people what is "necessary" suffering? Without getting into specifics, certain powers that are showing a deep lack of regard for human suffering have now (if you go outside to see) lost nearly all their social power globally. This is leading to a decline in their physical power. That's measurable. And it has been measured and observed with previous societies as well. So again, what's a useful discussion then? The relationships between forms of power, human suffering, etc.? Or what are constructs, truths, morality, etc.? To me, at least, one is more measurable than the next. This is why when people ask me what I consider the most useful sub-field of philosophy, I tell them analytical philosophy. It's at least measurable and usable. Otherwise, we end up debating in the clouds with our eyes closed, at least that's been my experience through the decades.
How i make this sensible to myself, is that Debates are Drama Theatre Acts. Being a believable and conviceable actor. Its unfortunate that debates have turned to this fashion, but its a solid strategy to gain favor.
I take a "dramaticist" position that debates are contests. Two philosophers, two opponents in court, protagonists and antagonists, all are engaged in a trial or a contest. They are all intrinsically dramatic. The Greek term, hypocrite, was the term used for the first actor on the stage, that is, the "one under judgment."
The sad reality is that communication is only 20% verbal and Logos itself plays an even more irrelevant part. To convince someone you must appeal to his emotions, you cannot escape from that truth.
"What a smart and handsome man, I wish my boyfriend were like him" - I really died of laughter for a few moments! Nice one mate!😂 Edit: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!" - OMG🤣
Thankyou for your videos, they are my favourite videos on youtube. Not only are you clear and concise but you deliver it in a way that it is intriguing and a joy to listen to. So thankyou good sir! We need more creators with your enthusiasm on the subjects they speak of.
personaly I dont have a problem using this tactics when im debating over something that dosent matter but I ALWAYS watch what I am saying when im trying to convince someone of something good, this video is useful if you just want to imoroove your skills and debate for fun, otherwise dont use what he teaches
@@mitjamackenzie1219 Sooo what you're saying is that happiness is the greatest good that will ever happen and just because I don't indulge him in something he could find for himself I am therefore preventing his happiness, and in conclusion am a bad guy? I see what you did there, practicing the techniques already lol
What a nuanced video! I have been following this channel for some time and in almost every video you come at me with many new and intriguing ideas. You've more than earned my subscription ❤
To clarify - this video is sarcastic - these techniques are dishonest.
LINKS AND CORRECTIONS:
If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at josephfolleytutoring@gmail.com. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE.
Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link&
Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
No replied
Like if ur not gay 👇
You should make a video that tells people how to combat logical fallacies like this
Soooo should I send this to my debate team?
What if they're a discord packer
"Let's learn how to destroy people with facts and logic... without using either".
That has to be the ultimate UA-cam video hook of all time.
Frfr if u use logic then your argument = non yapping
What if nobody else understands your logic? Then you still appear as the fool
@@Sov.Beowulfthen you become a trrorist
Yeah this is must be UA-cam how to!
@@mehmetcagrdogan2753 In that case, nobody can keep me from yelling b*mb in a crowd anymore 😈
Those kindergarteners dont stand a chance.
You're evil
@@hakimasfat5068 yeah, in the face, why
@@hakimasfat5068so what you're saying is people that insult a random man for no reason is okay? I don't think so
@@hypeman958 oh you don't think so? Probably bcz you are also the one who gets insulted a lot. Well, they get insulted bcz they are meant to be, bcz see they are soo foolish, and you too.
@@hypeman958 its a joke relax😭 its not that deep
I like how u used the tactics in this video to slowly shift ur momentum from "winning a debate" to "gaslighting and getting away with it"
The Socratic method is often mis-used toward that end. The pretense "just asking a question" quickly becomes a mask for asking loaded question and making assertions that the questioner then doesn't have to defend or even acknowledge.
This is why I dislike public debates, as they seem to always be doing these kinds of things. It's never about finding some kind of truth, it's to thrash your opponent and fool the audience into "your truth".
why is it just about public debates why not debates in general ? why not with words in general ?
@@TWIlktitbliktvim-ty7td because of I'm having a discussion with a friend, there's no audience that we're trying to convince we're right to. A lot of these tactics are meant to steamroll your opponent, and have the audience think you're right, not actually convince the second party of anything. So these tactics are a lot more prevalent when there's an audience to convince.
And just, if you're watching a debate, it's a public debate, if it was a private debate, you wouldn't be seeing it. The aforementioned discussion with a friend would be private, but if it was recorded and made public, then it's public.
@@nunote2362 damn that was a good reply
@@nunote2362 Than you can convince your friend using these tricks and making your friend the "audience"
@@Vinos-yt that doesn't work, because these tactics are quite offensive to the second party. You will not be convincing anyone by asking them pointless questions and not letting them answer, or refusing to listen to their answers.
That like saying I'll convince them by plugging my ears and yelling loudly. That's just not how these tactics work, and to say so shows a, frankly staggering lack of understanding of their functionality.
See at the end there I used the idea of using larger words to sound smarter and more official, and some people reading may have agreed with me on just that, but all it would've done was make out conversation confrontational, and never would've convinced you. Rather it would make your dog your heels in harder because it's condescending.
These strategies are not to convince your opponent, and they never will. They are strictly to make you look like you won to a third party, by shutting down your oppositions ability to make any point that doesn't serve you. If that's how you talk with your friends, then you probably won't have them for long.
Thank you for this. My grandma wont stand a chance
Go get em tiger!
You may win in debate but if there is a winner also there is a person who seeks for rematch(in violence)
Its all fun and games until she pulls out the slipper
U may win against her but the chancla won't stay still
same
So glad you explained the 'So what you're saying is...' attack.
It's been a thing for a long time, it's the Strawman Fallacy, present an argument that is superficially similar to your opponents argument and then attack it, right so say "Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X", this can also be done by quoting someone out of context, granted one can only appeal to it being out of context if the context would have justified it, it can also be done via what he said which is oversimplifying the opponents argument, and then attack it, via "So what you're say is Y, *point against Y*", now granted if you used this on someone and they knew the strawman fallacy then you're done for.
@@Nikolai.A.McGuire Thanks for that explanation. I come up against this in life, and see it in media. The famous one of course that Brit Journalist against J Peterson. It makes my blood boil and glad to hear that it's not always my processing ability at fault.
@@flowerpower8722 Yeah, another way to think of it, is if you're in a sword dual, and you start attacking a strawman instead of your opponent, and then kill the strawman acting as if it was your opponent, something as well is the Motte-And-Baily Fallacy, which can be done via say "You're wrong" this would be the Baily (Weak and fallacious argument), and when you press them on it, they might return to "I don't have a worldview" the Motte (stronger and easier to defend argument), say basically the Baily is a weak/fallacious argument, that whenever attacked, the person retreats to the Motte, it comes from an actual place, the Motte is a well protected castel, while the Baily is where the towns people are, and whenever the towns people/the Baily get attacked they run away into the castle for protection, this is also really common and makes whomever using it look really silly and fallacious.
@@Nikolai.A.McGuire Interesting analogy. thanks😄
@@Nikolai.A.McGuire It's a really easy logical fallacy to notice so I don't think using it in any argument is good (unless the audience is full of people with the iq below 100 and has no common sense)
what if they have a knife
You bring a gun.
@@michaelmcdoesntexist1459what if they have a gun?
@@definitelyhuman4510 Use a grenade
@@definitelyhuman4510 then you bring a second gun a a homie ready to fire it
You tell them to look over THERE
Me: winning an argument against My friend
My friend: **imitates me in a goofy voice**
argueably the worst tactic, ive been thinking abt counter attacking using their own weapons
Most unethical argument tactic
Gives you an advantage but makes you look like a big bag of shit
10 weapons banned: too brutal for war
"Imitates" me (?)
@@golamrasul9887 The best counter to this is to point out they do this because they have no point and are wrong, just don’t want to admit it. Or you can just talk down to them as a child, if they act like one treat them like one
"Make your opponent angry" is the best one
People with anger issue: Ig you already won, here's your reward (gets a Puch through face)
@@Qwertuiop-f8nover a argument? Really??
People who use this win arguments: 🤓
People who use this to recognize disingenuous debating tactics and avoid using them themselves: 🗿
Precisely!!
It’s the opposite
In reality:🪦
So, you're saying that yellow-skinned cancerous people who wear glasses are intellectually dishonest?
Love this
politicians learns from bro 💀
They wouldn't be there if they didn't knew the tricks. This is all pretty standard, but he presented it all in a very entertaining manner. Kudos to him!
@@sesaarinen you missed the joke
@@sesaarinenhe didn't understand the joke😂😂😂
@@Immdumb Apparently yeah 🤣🤣 what was it?
@sesaarinen haha, no worries you're good. The joke was that, this youtuber, 'Unsolicited Advice' is very smart about winning debates, hence this comment is saying politicians get all their tricks from this youtuber.
Have a good one!
Politicians watching this 15 min before a debate
They learn this in middle school
LMAOOOOOOOOO
the video title should be How to gaslight and get away with it
fr. I want a video on how to fight against somebody using these tactics. It pisses me off when people win arguments without any actual evidence and instead just berate you until you succede.
@@evanwillett1635 that's basically how many arguments work buddy just get over it and focus on something else productive
frfr
real
he's already made that video
"if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit." - quote of the century
Edit: 667? Yay, i'm finally famous
Also, I rewatch the video, and the accent just makes it sound 10X better
hell yess!!
B S baffles the best brains. I had a conversation the other day that left me completely confused.
If someone can’t explain what they are talking about in simple, everyday language, they are on BS. True of politics to philosophy to particle physics.
this is my life motto
To successfully bullshit you have to believe your bullshit yourself- SSS class suicidal hunter.
What a brilliant video, my brainrot self is astonished by your words and intellect. You earned my subscription.
1. Form a strong argument (the hard part). Understand burden of proof.
2. Memorize all fallacies.
3. Point out any fallacies used by opponent.
4. Focus the conversation; don’t let them divert to another topic. Call them out when they’re being disingenuous. Put them on the spot.
Follow those steps and your opponent is forced to argue on merit. Sprinkle some charisma and theatrics, and you won’t have any issues. Persuasion Tactics don’t work when someone not only knows them but also has the better argument. It’s why no amount of cheap tricks will get a flat earther to win a debate. 😉
You forget that these people never lose arguments either. They can always just invent a reason for being correct or decide that you're stupid for not understanding their arguments no matter how vague or filled with holes they are.
@@ukkisragee9983
Moving the goalposts, semantic fallacies, ad hoc explanations, vagueness, etc. all fallacies you can easily point to and call out, thus placing these people on the defense.
@@TheRealCaptainGoldWell actually you like zombie apocalypses which means your a geek, which means your argument is invalid… (some internet user probably)
@@kylezdancewicz7346
Oh yeah? Well, prove that you aren’t a geek. 🤓 Until then, you too are a geek and hence your argument is also invalid. 👌🏻😂
@@TheRealCaptainGold Well since your a geek that counter argument is invalid.
Basically, this guy could title the video, "Lying Congressional Style", and be right on the mark.
The backup title for this video was "the art of dishonesty" but I thought it was a bit abstract
I honestly felt a bit misled by current title. Usually just telling true statements wins anything, you dont really need much else. "The art of dishonesty" feels better.
@@morowenidi4621 If true statements won every argument, the various crises within the U.S would have been delt with, instead of sending money to fight foreign wars....one of which is already lost but no one wants to admit.
@@unsolicitedadvice9198A Politicians guide to versions of truth.
@@morowenidi4621 a proverb in my country goes like "a brilliant lie is better than unorganized truth"
bro looks like an antagonist when he asking his question 💀💀
"An argument isn't just contradiction." -
"Can be" -
"An argument is a collection of statements to establish a definite proposition. " -
"No it isn't." -
"Yes it is! It isn't just contradiction." -
"Look, if I'm going to argue with you, I must take up a contrary position." -
"But, it isn't just saying, 'No, it isn't'." -
"Yes, it is." -
"No! It isn't!"
"If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another 5 minutes"
"I don't want to argue about that." @@unsolicitedadvice9198
Monty Python, my beloved
It seems that arguments are both capable of overwhelming genius
And outright comedic idiocy
But one thing’s for sure, they forever will remain entertaining
@@vixendagreece Ni!
@@NotMadeOfManitobaFlour We want.. A shrubbery.
Step 1: exaggerate their point
Step 2: make the most sturdy point you can, and then use it as a trojan horse.
Step 3: question them in a quick, but patient timing to have them form a response before needing to throw it out, if they do throw out a response, it might be a contradiction. Never forget the contradiction
Step 4: highlight only the best parts in your title, and act like you understand the other part of the argument. Do vice versa with their title.
Step 5: say something wrong, but basic that forces your opponent to talk very complicated about the counter point, use the complicated counter argument to make it seem like they are digging to the core of the earth for a chance of a counter argument to your “common sense”
Step 6. Dont let them finish their thoughts
Step 7. Anger your opponent, which makes them look unreasonable
Step 8. Look smart to make yourself more believable
Step 9. *Misc
Step 10. Make your opponent look like *they* only want to win
This guy is so good , he convinced me the puppies were actually a problem
My brain went straight to: "I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid," (Captain Jack Sparrow).
I agree with this quote!!
Ain't that the truth? 😉
yea
People need to realise that debates are not about winning, they’re about learning.
Edit: People in the replies have made me realise that it actually depends on the situation, and that's true. In court, for example, it is about winning. Thank you for correcting me. :)
What? Can you explain more of this to me?
I kinda understand debate is not to win but understand huh. Maybe understand the other person's perspective perhaps? And learn from it?
Nah, that would imply I give a shit for their opinion, which I dont.
i learned that my debate opponent fighter has an AK-47 on his pocket
Sometimes it's about learning how utterly dumb the other person really is. (On a more serious note, for a debate actually be about learning it should require both parties have at least similar knowledge over the issue and at that point it's mostly about the perspective)
true, from experience @@sesaarinen
The introduction about sarcasm completely slipped my mind, so at first I _genuinely_ thought you were serious and I was absolutely baffled with what you were saying until I paused and read your comment😂thank God
Confidence stills plays a huge role in debate, being able to stand in front and say all the bullshit with a straight face makes for a more compelling argument
true
The funny thing is, I’ve used one simple Japanese Philosophy Trick to win just about every argument I’ve ever had, which makes most of this advice redundant.
“The best weapon you have is your enemies/(opponents).”
For example, if someone insults you, riff off of their insult, rephrase it a bit differently, and throw it back at them. That is because psychologically they are insulting you the way they think will hurt you, but indirectly revealing what types of insults hurt them. Thus why you should never be the first to throw insults.
In debate, you have their presented ideas, and you can either counter what they are saying, you already have their stance, just counter it with either historical facts, or present a time they contradicted themselves. Or ask questions about what they said.
Remember, if you can answer their questions, but they can’t answer yours in return, you’re actually the one winning.
I will steal your tactics 👍
Could you please go into more details, because I can't quite visualise an example
I noticed people do that a long time ago, which is why I started designing my arguments in ways that you can’t do that but I can.
@@Froge4291 " You're a fatherless bozo "
" Do you always tend to call people fatherless just so you could feel like you can relate to 'this someone' in the most delusional way possible " idk i'm not good at English so I didn't understand 50% of the video
@@HiachiMasashige got it, thanks mate.
I adore your choice of words. True wealth of a dictionary in your head there is
I Never Realized Twitter was so Phisolophical 💀
Phisolophical
Phisolophical
(Phisolophical)
Phisolophical
Phisolophical
Thank you for this,those kids in preschool didnt stand a chance
So what your saying is, you deliberately and viciously argued against young children and pridefully boasted about this attack to a public as if to say "everyone listen i have finnaly beaten children in an argument as a master chess player checkmates a goldfish!"
@@Redeemedsinner1122 r/whoosh
@@M3sierr Do you not understand that he is joking?
lol
@@Redeemedsinner1122this guy hates children, can you believe it!!1!1!
2:20 this is actually a good one, but you do need to prepare yourself to defend against statements of this nature, as it is very common for you to lose an arguement because of it.
The grammar, deep voice, and vocabulary makes me attracted to this video like a magnet
A great reminder is that, just because your opponent is very confident that they’re right and haven’t admitted to being wrong, doesn’t mean you’re wrong. People are close minded in arguments and debates, what matters more is you know for a fact you destroyed that person in front of everyone and the audience will let you know that.
I love how he introduces interru- with an interruption and UA-cam chose the next second to interrupt him with an advertisement😂😂😂 15:31
That introduction was genuinely the funniest one minute of my life omg😭😭😭
Haha! Thank you!
How to win every argument: the use and abuse of logic by Madsen Pirie is a great quick read that outlines the different types of fallacies used in debate. Just being able to recognize a fallacy when it’s being used helps tremendously.
Ah I will have to give it a read!
Thx
I learned fallacies in 7th grade as apart of my school, i can confirm learning fallacies is useful for arguing
@@ExistingSmiles Or to use the fallacies as a leverage to assert their lack of knowledge to the "audience", debate isn't only about winning a point it's also convincing third parties about your point
I know a few logical fallacies but I haven't any means of refuting them without seeming incompetent. Do you, perhaps, know any?
Never do this kind of things in debate.
But still watch to aware of these things to know what your opponent exactly doing so you have a idea to correct him/her.
This is just what humans do, next time you argue with someone, watch what they say, and what you say. I can almost guarantee you are manipulating each other in some way. Also, if someone is using these, which they most likely are, you stand no chance unless you do the same.
"You're essentially forcing their minds to continuously jump from issue to issue, never letting them rest long enough to form a coherent thought."
As someone that has adhd, all i can say that i have been traininv myself for this exact thing.
As someone that has autism, all I can say is that I want you as a trainer
Very interesting.
I personally experianced this during arguements, and sometimes used it a bit without knowing.
Best method is, throw them off with unexpected arguements.
During debates, I usually pick the middle ground in most and pretend Im in the opposite side as much as on my own side.
This prevents opponents framing us too. Yes. One methods can help prevent the other.
Interuptions with questions? Frame them as ignorant and myself as a teacher.
For example, during debates in a university, there was a topic on freedom and enhanced screening on airports for terror, even though it may violate privacy.
I thought both had reasons, but chose the seemingly evil side; securety.
I knew what the otherside would bring out. Freedom and human rights, obiviously. I used their own arguements against them.
'Then how can you be free from terror of attacks? Its our right to go free without fear. We should rather be discussing how we can make that happen and minimize violating human rights' and then came up with an idea of a system that could keep individual privacy while maintaining securety
(similar to, how coke factory could produce coke without workers knowing its recipe)
Professor was kinda impressed by this I guess because he called me out after the debate to have a few words. (but still got B+ as I got terrible grades on the exam😂)
Lets say topic on communism and caplitalism.
Those on Cap. would appeal to horrors Soviets and communist party did. This I know.
What would I do? I would critisize Soviets and so-called communitists even more then them. This will throw out any arguement the opponent have as it is the least expected.
Then I would first ask others what communism is.
Then explain how their claims of being communists are false, and the opponent is ignorant. That they dont even know what theyre actually fighting.
I would then explain how what they think communism is actually totalitarian socialism and simplify that with a race as an example.
Socialism is a race where everyone gets a medal,
Capitalism is one where the owner choose who gets a medel
Communuism is one where as everyone owns the race, everyone gets a fair chance and the 1st getting the medel.
And ask them what race theyre gonna run in.
I don't think I'll be able to use these tactics, but I love the vocab enrichment I'm getting from this video. Perfect for my preparation for my upcoming English exam 🤓
You have no idea how much I love your videos, I’m a university student and every single day I watch your videos, my classmates find it hard to understand what you’re saying because first of all English isn’t our first language, second u mostly talk about Dostoevsky & they don’t know him , so I have to translate what you’re saying and give em information about Dostoevsky etc but they really enjoy watching your videos. Me and some girls in my class sit together and play your videos in morning and during lunch break .
I want to be just like you sir , I want to gain more and more knowledge about philosophy and other things , even though im a zoology major student but I have really great interest in literature and philosophy. And one more thing you truely deserve millions of subscribers . Much love, pls keep posting more and more videos , you’re an inspiration ❤
Ah thank you so much! That is very kind!
@@unsolicitedadvice9198 thanks for replying 🤍🤝
See Donna harraway, no need to thank me
@@DJWESG1 I will , for sure 🤍
Great, there will be a zoologist that knows her words and thoughts.
More power to you
As a teenager who loves to debate and search for knowledge this video was full of it one of languages I know is English and your videos taught me new words so useful tips and so many other things
Thanks for your great video
Good to see the comments are aware that argument and discussion should strive for learning and not “winning”, everyone should be aware of these tactics though to avoid doing them. Or being frustrated when encountered with someone disingenuous.
Nah, I'd win
Imagine being so 'humble' that you can stand being made a fool of in front of an audience 'for the sake of learning.'
Arguments aren’t for learning, they are for teaching. Nobody goes into an argument expecting to immediately collapse and listen to the other person, they go in expecting to get the other person to change their opinion. Every human will use some form of this in an argument, and unless you use it too, you’re screwed.
@@AjokeiguessThat’s what makes life so disappointing. Why cant 2 people present their point, decide which point is correct and MOVE ON. If you’re wrong, accept you’re wrong. I genuinely don’t understand what’s so hard about that.
@@SirPlusOfCamelotThat’s just your ego talking. You aren’t being made a “fool” for being proven wrong. Your ego simply can’t accept the fact that someone corrected you.
LOVE your sarcasm, humor, delivery, etc! LOL!
Haha! Thank you!
Initially I wasn't going to watch this video.... I however heard how well you speak and got entertained immediately.... Very witty as well 🎉
I’m not a English native speaker and i love your mastery of the language. Thanks to it i learn every day new words (not the usual ones that you hear in shorts or more generally in garbage content) and expression that help me develop a whole new approach to the language.
a person that uses all these techniques isn't someone worth arguing with
It's nice to know where those insta ppl I've been arguing with learned from 😂 Now I can do the same for them (:
At the end of the day, arguing isn't about logic, it's about winning the sayed argument. Even if it's with these outrageous "tips"
isnt argument and debate a different thing?
@@asheaterYou sir, are exactly 💯 the problem with society
@@imbio6930if you are about go to to jail, it’s about winning.
If you are arguing about whether something should be legal, that may change the lives of others in good or bad ways, it’s about being right, and winning.
This video is good to be able to discern when people are using these techniques to gain the upper hand so you can call them out on it.
So what you're saying is that we should all have the money to subscribe to your patreon in order to see more videos like this? That's not the point of UA-cam.
Loolll
Dude mastered it already
On the spot usage😂
I actually kind of agree with this until I realized it was a joke😱
@@WackWacky-vc5ed that how you know the tip works
Im not sure if it applies to others but if you're planning to use this in a debating competition, i highly suggest not to since the judges will immediately call you out at best and worst case scenario is that youll be asked to leave 😭
Its a fun watch since it reminded me of some of my opponents back then and it does grind your emotions a bit especially when they challenge the less heavy parts of your arguments to paint themselves as winners while their side is so haphazardly constructed that its pitiful. Gladly, most of the times the adjudicators (if theyre actually good god i hate inexperienced adjudicators so much) sees right through it and call them out once the adjudication begins
I've used these methods in real life, and now I have a closely dedicated group of people who want to keep me happy all the time. How nice of them! 11/10 would recommend again!
Cult building 101 👍👍
If you have a short attention span like most of us, here’s the basics:
Step 1: “so what your saying is…(insert outlandish/exaggerated version of opponents argument)”
Step two: make a sensible argument when they aren’t looking and once they do say “get a load of this guy, he wasn’t paying attention” or “get a load of this guy, he doesn’t think (insert sensible comment here)”
Step three: flood them with questions so they get mentally drained
Step four: say the downsides to make them look evil
Step five: say something that isn’t true but also say it’s “common sense”
Step six: interrupt the person to make them look foolish later
Step seven: make the opponent angry so they look foolish
Step eight: say sentences that are too fancy or complicated like “why shall I debate with this foolish looking person?”
Step 9: basically a bit more logical normal fighting
Step 10: the lessons of deceit
Step 9 and 10 are convoluted (and have the actual numeral symbols) because you’ll have to watch those yourself. It’s good for him and your attention span. Anyways bye bye!
That reminds me of someone a lot in the US
Too long didnt read
@@kentabladeshort attention span + too lazy to read? How are you so wise in the way of science!!!
The entire video is like a debate of you convincing the viewer that all the techniques are right. (I wont doubt that beacause they are really good)
He is right on the money. I used to train ppl both in collegiate debating and real life debating. Schopenhauers tricks work in both settings, even if the collegiate debating world tries to count only logic and sound reasoning. A debate is the proces of impressing your 'rightness' unto the audience, not to defeat your opponents logic. Ware those who forget this
I cried while watching this. I absolutely noticed how every tactics introduced in this video was used by my mother.
DON'T USE THIS if you care about someone. it will make that person go crazy. even to the point of depression. LOL. highly manipulative and ruins the relationship. my family members believe in my mother almost always, which actually made me think I was the wrong one until others from outside of my family member pointed out how I was in the right place.. she was just good in argument.
"Interrupting" absolutely kills my brain and I don't really talk to any of my family members now.
Saving this to my “stuff that I should study for MUN, but I don’t care enough to do so” list
You are in MUN? good luck, bro. :D
I am in MUN too
Any advice for beginners in MUN?☺️ I'm thinking of joining an MUN at the end of the year but I'm not sure what resources I can pull from and how to draft my words.
me but with a parliamentary debate
@@Anasymposium oh yes...I need some advice on MUN as well
I love how, contrarily to other youtubers, you’ve got a positive way to convey ur message
You’re dynamic, not negative or too serious or pessimistic and while what you say is interesting and you keep the main informations without giving too much examples, we appreciate listening to you and your attitude makes it even funnier.
Keep it up!
You've taught me things about myself and politics that I have been wondering about but thought I was going crazy the further down the habit holes I went, thank you for this video
You should do a video on how to counterattack someone who does these techniques on you. Great video btw!
I need this man vocabulary fr 😭
my training arc for this thanksgiving is going to pay off for sure
(i literally avoid every argument because my family are all naturals at these "techniques')
Omg, i was litterrally searching right now for a video on f...king hellish people that interrupts endlessly and malignantly any exchange of ideas in a debate and you just happened to publish your video so i'd like to thank you so much for this smart move of yours ! I've read this book of Shopenhauer and i was wandering if he talked about this problem precisely you did a great job synthesizing his book
Yea thers someone in my uni like that. I'm great at logical good faith or at the very least educated deabting, was in the debate team for my school for a long while. But dude literally does every single thing listed in this video. I felt like I was just being crazy or something but Holly shit I'm starting to think I might not be
This really shows how a debate is a very unefficient form of communication and should be avoided except for entertainement purposes.
so what you’re
saying is we should never have conversations and express ourselves???
@@doctordoofbrah Well if your conversations skills are as sharp as this comment suggests it might indeed be a good position to consider.
@@doctordoofbrah amazing showcase of the techniques in the video 😂
@@doctordoofbrah Im going to be honest this worked on me really well unironically until I realized you were using techniques from the video.
Someone seriously has to mention and appreciate this guy's level of diction. I had to rewind several times to get him.
Reddit tutorial
Fr
Lmao
General argument tutorial…
@@Dirt975ong dirt you speaking fax
@@Ajokeiguess we got a redditor folks
Arguing with me is pointless. I purposefully chose the wrong side just to piss people off.
Unfathomably based
@@aqeel6842 Based beyond observing
maybe i should just do this instead of wasting my time since people love being so stupid about actual serious things
So what you are saying is that you admit you are in the wrong.
this is AMAZING advice. but I had to learn it the hard way yesterday.
So, I will use the tactics you've given and hope for the best i grill their brain:]
What an amazing video, please do more practical philosophy/rhetorics like this
also love how expressive, humorous and lively you always are!!
Thank you! That is very kind!
Can’t wait to see the video where we’re able to fight these type of arguers that just want to win. Or point it out to them/others
Intensely stimulating and entertaining! Can't tell you how much I appreciate your great work!
Love it man. Keep going, I think you’ve got something good going on here with the channel; you’re good at this. Thanks for the vid
I've got to admit, as much as it pains me to admit, I've been guilty of falling into this habit. From my recollection it seems to be mostly around topics I have a personal/vested interest in, usually surrounding human rights, so I can see how I could fall into this habit. Thank you for raising this in a way that allows for a detached, objective analysis, without assigning blame or guilt. Assuming the persona of "debate bro" really helped to convey your points clearly, and illustrate how, where and why they can go wrong. The various iterations of the "puppy dilemma" was a fantastic comparison to highlight how absurd yet also on the face of it logical-seeming these arguments can be.
This is one of my favourite of your vids so far! I just hope you don't burn yourself out with all the content you're creating lately!
But there is no way to say where the "truth" is especially around such topics as human rights. The more personal/emotional interest in any topic, the more the "truth" is just rationalization of your (mostly subconsciouss) emotional preference. And one's smart brain is always able to find "logical" arguments, which persuade the one foremost.
And it is also very human to use "unlogical"/emotional arguments in such a debate. After all, we are no AI (yet).
Moreover, what's good about "winning" an argument by fair and logical means, when the real reality does not function like this by no means?
@@alena-qu9vj I'm not sure that's an accurate statement. There are SOME truths to the universe, and when we discuss human rights, we are talking within a framework of humanity which limits the scope, again allowing much more ability to define the parameters. Human rights are a function of a human society, they are rights that come about as part of existing within a society.
Existing within a society inherently will be different to not existing within a society, and as such any distinction would always be man-made (whether conscious or unconscious), by virtue of the society needing to be manmade.
I think you're misconstruing 'truth' with 'morality' which ironically, is essentially in my opinion, the issue with people who use these types of 'debate' and where the illogical premises tend to begin. Truth exists outside of morality.
@@kezia8027 Sorry, but I think it is you who misconstruct truth with morality.
While I agree that there is a universal „truth“ out there in the realm of ideas, for us material people living in a relative dualistic world, this ideal truth is only accessible via our subjective indivdual perception, which differs in every individual according to their character and experience. There is no universaly approved consensus on which this universal „truth“ may be - thats why all those passionate debates. I hope you do not believe or even preach that it is YOU who knows the truth.
Any „charter“ of human rights is just a virtual construct having no justification in the real life, where it is always the powerfull ones who force their rules on the weak.
There is a general sense of morality - specific to different societies and times, and laws which are here for imposing this morality on society - also conforming to respective societies.
Sorry, „human rights“ today are often just a pretext for the powerfull to force their rules on people or countries, while pursuing their own very selfish goals.
@@alena-qu9vj No worries, I can see you have a very high opinion of yourself, and an inability to communicate your thoughts concisely which often seems to coincide with an egoistic confidence in the self and the very points you fail to adequately explain or justify.
I think many who get into philosophical discussions, me included, forget what is actually practical and useful to the world.
What's a construct, ultimate truth, morality, etc. can be debated all day long. People have dedicated their lives to it. And like the OP said, human suffering can really fuel those debates. And that's understandable. Humans naturally prefer not to suffer...
But, what is useful to a human? The physical power that "allows" you to disregard the growing consequences of suffering? The social power to convince people what is "necessary" suffering? Without getting into specifics, certain powers that are showing a deep lack of regard for human suffering have now (if you go outside to see) lost nearly all their social power globally. This is leading to a decline in their physical power. That's measurable. And it has been measured and observed with previous societies as well.
So again, what's a useful discussion then? The relationships between forms of power, human suffering, etc.? Or what are constructs, truths, morality, etc.? To me, at least, one is more measurable than the next.
This is why when people ask me what I consider the most useful sub-field of philosophy, I tell them analytical philosophy. It's at least measurable and usable. Otherwise, we end up debating in the clouds with our eyes closed, at least that's been my experience through the decades.
How i make this sensible to myself, is that Debates are Drama Theatre Acts. Being a believable and conviceable actor.
Its unfortunate that debates have turned to this fashion, but its a solid strategy to gain favor.
I take a "dramaticist" position that debates are contests. Two philosophers, two opponents in court, protagonists and antagonists, all are engaged in a trial or a contest. They are all intrinsically dramatic. The Greek term, hypocrite, was the term used for the first actor on the stage, that is, the "one under judgment."
I am so damn glad I found this channel, thank you for consistently making such great videos.
Thank you! That is very kind!
Me watching this a week before the students president speach at my college 💀.
Love the tongue in cheek format of this video.
Another great video. I love logic and philosophy so finding your channel is right up my street!
Thank you!
The sad reality is that communication is only 20% verbal and Logos itself plays an even more irrelevant part. To convince someone you must appeal to his emotions, you cannot escape from that truth.
Seems like you really want to believe that.
@@daanschone1548 That's my life experience. Just look at politics to see what works and what doesn't.
@@golDroger88 you use words as "sad reality" and "cannot escape from the truth", but now you say it is just your personal opinion?
I’ve tried to post links to your videos consistently for this past year… I wish this channel the best!
Thank you for this crash course in the Vaush school of debate!
"What a smart and handsome man, I wish my boyfriend were like him" - I really died of laughter for a few moments! Nice one mate!😂
Edit: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!" - OMG🤣
This is a very well put together video. Amazing job, great set up and the way you wrapped it up was perfect. 👌
I cant wait to see you in a debate and/or forum/round table. Please make that happen.
Thankyou for your videos, they are my favourite videos on youtube. Not only are you clear and concise but you deliver it in a way that it is intriguing and a joy to listen to.
So thankyou good sir! We need more creators with your enthusiasm on the subjects they speak of.
personaly I dont have a problem using this tactics when im debating over something that dosent matter but I ALWAYS watch what I am saying when im trying to convince someone of something good, this video is useful if you just want to imoroove your skills and debate for fun, otherwise dont use what he teaches
I mean...the guy convinced me... with the word salad part 🤣🤣
I will never show this to my brother... He has already subconsciously mastered half of these techniques, no need to add any more fuel to the fire.
So what your saying is you don't care about your brothers feelings and don't want him to be happy?
@@mitjamackenzie1219 Sooo what you're saying is that happiness is the greatest good that will ever happen and just because I don't indulge him in something he could find for himself I am therefore preventing his happiness, and in conclusion am a bad guy?
I see what you did there, practicing the techniques already lol
This video is incredibly valueable and inspiring, i'm glad i came over it!
Problem is when your opponent has seen this video too!!!
😂😂😂
I would pay to watch two people who follow these principles argue
That will be nothing but pure chaos.
Just watch the presidential debate
This is fantastic. I love learning about logical, and rhetorical fallacies
0:41 hust why
Piers Morgan has learnt that book by heart
Exactly
Objective truth will always remain no matter how many twisted interpretations you try to confuse everyone with.
"Imagine that I am giving an in depth presentation of quite a delicate argueme-"
Advert😂
Instructions unclear i won a debate against my teacher now im failing 3 classes.
Sore loser smh
Thanks i got the first position in my debate because of you
one time i convinced my friend that netflix was a social media because it had a like button
It doesn't have a comment section section to exchange words tho?
you bastard 😂
Casual conversation❎
Competitive conversation✅
What a nuanced video! I have been following this channel for some time and in almost every video you come at me with many new and intriguing ideas. You've more than earned my subscription ❤