@Unreal Cereal Yes he is, and how dare you criticize him! UA-cam's format allows for exactly this and it's great. Even if it means people talk to me about things I've long moved on from and may have even changed my points.
No, You're wrong and here's why: "You're wrong, but I'm not going to provide any evidence, cite any sources, or even explain what I'm criticizing, or why." hehe Does that work ??
Some other tools for successful argument resolution: 1) Frame the conversation as a dialogue with the goal of reaching a consensus. Viewing each other as a fellow traveler rather than competitors helps. 2) Agree to keep it clean. If your conversational partner knows that you will not use degrading speech, they will be more likely to refrain from insults also. 3) Make it clear that while you may disagree with a position, you respect your partner's right to have a differing opinion. 4) Admit it and compliment commenters when they have a good point, even if it conflicts with your position. 5) Finally, use questions as a means to allow the other person to expose fallacies in their own argument. Getting your conversational partner to identify the weak points in their own point of view is far more effective than anything you could say. But what do I know? This could all be wrong, I'm just your average internet denizen.
Keidan Representing a group of people is exactly why you become overtly bias in the first place. Never represent a group of people. You always ONLY represent your own point of view even if you know a whole group that seems to share similar ideas. Otherwise you run the risk of tribalisinh and effigy bashing.
Socratic wisdom is often about reaching a consensus. It's one of the main reasons why Socrates is one of my favorite thinkers; the guy basically said 'I don't know.' every waking day.
Biggest problem with internet arguing is having no f**king clue who (or what?) is on the other side! Gender, race, age, experience, education level, etc. are all unknown so people just assume and keep arguing. 95% of internet arguments would be non-starters in real life.
Sometimes it can be beneficial, sometimes not. A black woman on twitter discussed how she convinced more racists to not be racist by changing her icon into the most hipstery white guy she could find.
There's more to it than that. Online, you can see only the words. You can't hear the tone (and often you fill in your own tone based on the person's word choice) and you can't see the visual cues you'd get from a face to face conversation. This makes it far easier for innocent statements to trigger someone because they come across as harsh or sarcastic, when that wasn't even the intent. Additionally, the pseudo-anonymity of the internet both has a de-humanizing effect and gives people the impression that they can be jerks without suffering any real life consequences. I believe that a good number of internet arguments are started by or fueled by people who just enjoy starting a flame war and watching the show.
I love it when my views are challenged or changed, so long as the person opposing me has solid evidence and presents it in a respectful manner. Even if my opinion doesn't change by the end of the encounter, I take it as a beneficial exchange if I come out of it with more insight into the countering view. For example, I was one of those buttheads growing up that said people with eating disorders should 'just eat a sandwich' or people with depression should 'just get over it'. One day, a friend of me calmly asked me why I thought that, listened as I explained my reasoning, and then provided examples and studies showing me what was really going on in people with mental health disorders. It not only expanded my worldview, it brought a huge respect and interest in psychology and neuroscience. I might be the odd duck here, but I am more inclined to change my view if the act of learning is involved with it. I love to learn, so when information is given to me and a means of fact checking it exists, I will be swayed in many cases. The key, however, is that my friend did not come at me with hostility or even loudly. She asked for my reasons, waited patiently for me to finish my case, and then calmly offered a different possibility she could extrapolate from. It made listening to her view so much easier, and is the basis for how I handle confrontations like these myself now.
Glad you could expand your understanding of the world. I was the same when I was younger, thinking depressed people were "so emo" but learned the hard way how wrong I was when I myself started suffering from depression. 😅 my attitude did a 180 and hit me in my face.
It makes me hurt a little bit inside when open-minded comments like this don't get as much attention. I suppose it really is the most controversial comments that get the most likes just because many people love to argue despite claiming not to.
Remix The Idiot I'm afraid I have to disagree. It's not hypocritical to make claims about being open-minded when one has opened one's mind to acknowledge the other sides on an issue and try to understand them. The OP has given anecdotal evidence on some personal experiences. She doesn't need to provide every single instance in a comment on UA-cam to "prove" she's as objective as she claims to be.
Rubia Ryu The person in question does not need evidence that she can be open-minded and is willing to admit he or she is wrong, I was simply stating in my comment that people are not always willing to change an opinion and such. Also people tend to unknowingly lie to themselves in my experience, a person can easily overestimate or underestimate something if they don't know too much, i'm on mobile right now so I can't link but watch asap science's video on how to change someone's opinion, well actually don't or maybe do idk... But people who claim they are open minded... Defenitely aren't. At least in my experience. Simply entering a debate to prove someone wrong is enough to prove that. You wanna argue with them because you think you are right, though it also really isn't that healthy if you don't enter in a debate and just agree with everything.
I usually argue for the sake of others rather than the person I'm arguing with. I can't change their mind but if someone is reading the exchange they might. It actually has worked before.
We used to teach critical thinking and logic when I was at school. Also grammar, 2 things the younger generation seem oblivious to. We also never said 'Low key' unnecessarily and absolutely never said 'finna'.
@@NaihanchinKempo I checked out the link and low and behold there was a comment: "So in other words you do not "know"that the earth is a globe you are reduced to saying because this or that happens it must be a globe. That is not evidence enough. Why is there still no solid evidence? If I tell you that a square is a square I can demonstrate that it is a square, I don't have to indulge in rubbish about shadows on the wall when a light passes behind it and all that tosh do I? Your title sums it up, why are proving the earth is not flat instead of showing us that it is indeed a globe?" I mean come on! They are arguing about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. How do you convince such a person?
I think that maybe the emphasis on "winning" an internet argument is an unhelpful and unproductive approach to it. I've found that debate, both online and off, go better and leave me in a better place mentally when I'm not actively trying to change the person's mind - I'm either engaging in a conversation about the topic, or I'm speaking for the sake of the audience to either not normalize something or to provoke their own thoughts.
True, but if it’s pure degeneracy and idiocy, I’m 100% going to try and change their mind cause I don’t need thousands of little Timmys thinking that’s the norm or that airlines want you to die cause of some 19 year old girl on tiktok
As someone who frequently engages in comment section debates (civil ones mostly), I'm very very interested in what this brought to light. I try to always keep an open mind about the other person's opinions and why they might be correct as oppose to mine.
It's a different take to the one I always favored. That people just want to be right, their ability to reason will therefore always work its happy way around to making them right. The human ego is designed in such a way as to attempt to assert social dominance. Which is why we get people with high charisma who, basically, blurt out their answer first and only think it through after. In order for them to maintain dominance, they have to have a high level of reasoning so that they can convince others that their insane initial statement is somehow right despite being made as quickly as possible with zero thought put into it. It's good advice to just walk away from any discussion that exceeds 4 exchanges with zero progress though. I've been working on doing exactly that for a year now. Ultimately, for whatever reason, the other person will always feel they are right due to a combination of psychological phenomenon that is all directing their thoughts towards being correct.
In my experience people are led more by there feelings than any of us are willing to admit. Still, if you have more civil disagreements online than uncivil disagreements then you are probably part of the solution.
Same. I find my mind closing if the person appears to be using emotion instead of reason thought... which is probably not a bad thing, considering facts don't care about how you feel about them.
Something I know I have to watch out for is placing a far higher scrutiny on evidence I disagree with than evidence that supports my beliefs. Give me evidence for something I already believe and my default response is "Yeah, that's not surprising" Give me evidence for something I disagree with and my initial reaction is "Where was the study conducted? Has it been reproduced? Were there conflicts of interest? What did the study actually test, don't tell me what the scientists said in the abstract, what was the actual raw data and are then any alternative explanations that also fall within the data.?" I try, honestly often don't, but try to apply that same scrutiny to evidence I agree with
Solution: Be rational & don't be afraid to admit when you're wrong. I live my life trying to know as many correct things, and as few false things as possible.
Remember the episode Coda where Janeway was being tricked by an alien entity to believe she was a ghost? The entity created a entire scenario she was witnessing, taken directly from her own mind. In this she imagined her funeral in which everyone fawned over her and treated her like she was the second coming. I remind you - in her own mind. She's the one with the ego complex.
Randall Blyler Sisko was trying to garner goodwill with the Bajorans. It doesn't help that the Opaka chose him to help the Bajorans recover the Tears of the Prophets(Orbs) from the Cardassians, or that the tenth Orb's appearance is so closely tied to Sisko's presence. Becoming known as the Prophets' Emissary to Bajor isn't Sisko's fault.
For a long time, Sisko had no interest at all in being the Emissary. It took a long, long time and several interactions with the Prophets before he would even accept the role. At that point, he probably should have stepped down as Commander of the station, but it was a bit too late and too deep in the Dominion War for him to leave.
If your opponent get angry on you and start talking nonsense. I see this as an ultimate victory. Just say " you lost the argument on first place when you get angry"
pride is definitely the biggest problem. I had someone arguing with me about emus when I myself raise emus. Apparently googles images were stronger evidence than someone that actually is physically touching one at that very moment.
Becouse it leaves a bad memory of being humilated haha. I did it once and apologized but wilk never again. I will bring down the other person with me so i can have a happy day
I've always found it helpful to respect the other person's viewpoint and then state your own with some facts on how you reached it. It doesn't always change their mind but it does help stop arguments. Keeping emotions out of it also helps. The other person can't hurt your pride if you don't let your pride get involved.
It might not be possible to win an online argument, but its possible to be amused by an online argument. The trick is knowing how to do that without becoming a troll.
People rarely change their minds because so much of what's being said on the internet rarely has anything to do with reality/fact. I had someone try to tell me that hair was "alive" recently, because clearly they couldn't be fucked to do any actual research before they spoke. Thinking you're right is not a measure of accuracy unless or until it correlates with actual proof.
@Hex Isme Technically your hair is alive, but also not. The hair found closest to and inside the follicle is alive, but the shaft (the visible hair you see when you look in the mirror) is just keratin cells that are made of dead skin cells. So you can say your hair is half-alive.
But what if arguing on the Internet is a weird kind of sport to you? Where the outcome of the argument is not important, but the entertainment that is gained from the actual argument is?
This isn't really a complete question. Because your scenario could be one of many. Possible scenarios: 1. If you argue just because you enjoy arguing, and therefore will continue arguing as long as you enjoy it, that's unreasonable. You should only make points you feel are valid, and concede to the other side when you understand you were wrong. 2. If you argue because you like getting in depth into topics, that is more okay. You still have to try to reach an actual conclusion, and not just try to win, or not lose. So, don't prolong an argument/discussion because you find it fun - make sure you make it apparent that you're not just trying to fight, but you're trying to cooperate, and get somewhere.
@@nickm.5931 I actually would love to argue (debate) with others if they do it with etiquette and actually provide solid proofs. Those kinds of people are actually kind of helpful sometimes, both of us might exchange some beneficial information with each other. I tend to ignore people who are being a moron and use a lot of fallacies.
@@nickm.5931 An example of the type of persons that I don't want to argue with is: So, I was in a chess lesson video, there's this one guy who commented about how he has learned a lot from the video. Then, entered the villain, being a moron and comments out of nowhere saying that the OP is "liking his own comment". A person confronted him and the guy just continues to be a moron and acted like he was being smart. The thread goes on for about a year, and I confronted him. He kept on using ad-hominem arguments and tells me that he is a "critical thinker".
Are you referring to trolling (find a topic people feel strongly about, then post comments you know will set them off so you can sit back and enjoy the show)?
but what if the argument is over something about me that i cannot change? like when people insult me because of my sexual orientation. i cannot change that, but i also cannot change their opinion. and walking away is often not possible. How should anyone deal in a situation like that?
ask them if they're christian, if yes, tell them that harassment and bullying is a sin. god also says to love thy neighbor right? so they would be going against god's word. (not sure what section/page its from in the bible though--) also hello my fellow lgbtq+ person :D
I've recently come to a middle ground with someone on 9GAG, arguing whether makeup is the root of all evil or an unavoidable necessity (I was advocating the latter, obviously). I broke the pattern by mentally pulling back and asking the guy 'just out of interest, where are you from that you see so many people with heavy makeup? I live in London and mostly see minimal natural makeup'. He replied with a much softer and apologetic message, which felt like a handshake over the Internet. We both exchanged appreciation of the other's point of view, finding a sliver of common ground there, and I felt compelled to comment on the enjoyment of the occasional verbal sparring online. I'm quite proud of that outcome!
ive had something similar but i was on the other end, i realized i was wrong and being an idiot so i apologized lmao good to know theres some other people out there who actually have sense to know when theyre wrong and wont just keep going with pointless paragraphs
the biggest problem is not inherent to the internet, but much more common there: you make 10 points/arguments in the discussion and then NONE of them get addressed... so infuriating, thats not even how it works!
Honestly the reason why people on the internet argue has nothing to do with the argument itself, it's about the people in the argument trying to prove they're "right."
Kiwi In Space That's not the case with me. When I see outrageous or hateful comments, I challenge them in clean language. Nothing to do with a need to win.
I wonder if anyone has be able to do a study on how effective two people public arguements are at changing a third parties mind. Wonder if it would be more effective since that person, while holding the same views , isn't being directly "attacked"
All the captains were great because of their respective times and circumstances. Kirk would have been miserable on DS9 and Picard would have gotten Voyager destroyed in a month because Data wasn't there to save him.
Honestly, the most sensible way to argue a contentious subject with a stranger on the internet is to treat the discussion as a public debate, for the benefit of undecided people in the audience. Don't try to change your opponent's mind, try to present your point convincingly (and maybe make them look foolish) to convince readers who are on the fence. UA-cam arguments just aren't the format for generating new insights, for others or for yourself. If you want to find out if you're actually right, read and ask questions, don't argue.
One thing I want to point out is that if someone replies to your comment saying something ridiculous and doesn't make sense, usually it's just bait to try and get you to reply to them. Ignore those people. They're kind of immature. Some people also just don't listen to you no matter what you say. They don't take what you say into consideration and will sometimes just skip entire paragraphs of text. I've had something like that happen before, where the person just disregarded everything I said and kept doing so. When I asked them why and confronted them, they said something along the lines of: "Too much text, not gonna read it." (Also, if you do that PLEASE stop and actually read it. Reading doesn't take as long as you think it does. It's also super annoying.) Oh, and one thing, it's okay to be wrong. Sure being incorrect or "losing" an argument on the internet might seem embarrassing at first, but it usually means you learn from your mistakes. I find a LOT of people just keep arguing and arguing on and on because they're "losing," when in reality it probably won't get them anywhere and probably also make them upset or contradict their initial intent.
Here's your bait come and chase me. Just kiding but for real people take thows fights way to hard maby we sood just make it that there is no comments and get it over with.😮
How to win any argument with less than 2 words: -Step 1: When you feel like you are done, prepare to drop the nuke -Step 2: Drop the nuke that consistst with a single "no." -Step 2.1: If its out of context its gonna be even more deadly, the enemy will not understand and persue with constant attacks -Step 3: Just dont reply, dont look at the enemy replies, just continue living your life -Step 3.1: If you cant resist to give a nice mad reply, just remember, there are bigger fish in the world outside of the internet Conclusion: You dont actually win, but consider a win because you drop a bomb in enemy territory when you get killed,
Star Trek 1 showed us how Kirk was promoted to Rear Admiral sometime after TOS. But that was such an awful movie, most people forget that part. And since Janeway came back and changed history in the last episode, [spoiler alert!] who knows what happened? (Yep.... when it comes to arguing Star Trek, I have learned nothing. Sorry SciShow. #SorryNotSorry
Hmm, pretty sure Kirk ended up as an Admiral in the movies, only to be demoted back to Captatin at the end of the fourth one. Though, Janeway did seem to actually keep the rank, so I guess she does have that going for her.
I like talking/debating taboo or controversial topics. I realize that I'm unlikely to change the person I'm talking to's mind, but I like being challenged on my beliefs, and arguing (in an honest manner) forces you to actually use your brain, and be self reflective, etc... And I think it's great.
Same. Even if a girl screams at me in class and somebody yells out... "Hush Mode!" I still say nothing. A female is someone you definitely should never argue with. Why you think when you argue more with your mom the more energy she get lol.
I myownself am testing a new technique on internet arguments: Let the other side have the last word and walk on. So far my blood pressure and my anxiety levels have both declined, as has my time on Trumpbook. I mean Facebook.
mudgetheexpendable Yes yes I know. It only gets me angry if it is a very rude point of view they have. Like yesterday, this person was posting comments about how ginger haired people are devil worshippers and children of Lucifer all over the comment section. I wouldn't want to let them feel they are right about some disgusting thing like that.
I don’t think people should argue online period. Like, you’re literally arguing with a person/people who you’ve NEVER met before in your life. It’s honestly just so stupid and pointless. You have better things to do than sitting on your PC for 3 hours and try to “win” an argument with a stranger.
_CreeperDust_ I remember one flat earther who's argument was that NASA was unwilling to do research on the shape of the planet. I guess they are too busy trying to find out if water is wet.
Drew L If you're talking about the episode "Death Wish" That Q wanted to die for a long time and Janeway was against it. She convinced him to live a full life as a human and then that Q got poison from another Q and used it to die. Janeway basically did nothing.
Trying to win an argument online is pointless. Especially when you don’t know the person, their background, their beliefs.sometimes you trow words into a big sea of worlds kinda like sand in the wind! Nothin sticks! Interned can be useful if used right, but also can be a waste of your time if used too much!
Couldnt the platform itself also influence? Online, you don't have to face your oppositor, there's no pressure to come up with arguments on the spot and there is consequence for being wrong. I could post the most moronic things ever and believe its true no matter how many people prove me wrong because there's no physical social interaction, no one knows who i am.
There's also no vocal tone, so it can be much harder to interpret how someone intends their words to sound. If it contradicts their own views, it'll likely come across to the reader as argumentative, nagging or something similar, just due to their own expectations on agreement and disagreement.
There's also no vocal tone, so it can be much harder to interpret how someone intends their words to sound. If it contradicts their own views, it'll likely come across to the reader as argumentative, nagging or something similar, just due to their own expectations on agreement and disagreement.
Everybody thinks they're right, but I take it as a sign of intelligence when somebody is ALSO afraid that they might be wrong. Without that fear, they aren't worth talking to. People who believe they're right will present partial-facts, purposefully or accidentally manipulated to support their cause, never realizing that the one they learned it from probably didn't give the whole story to them either.
Great! All about learning, more than just a process, & thinking, more than just point of view. 👍🏻👍🏻 Now, Janeway of course, followed by Sisko and Picard. 😂
More like why you can't win an argument with someone who's not intellectually honest. As a proper skeptic I will go out of my way to tell people when they've changed my mind. Repeating things or not makes no difference you just need to have the evidence to back up what you're saying from as unbiased a source as possible.
Something that's useful to see if you're really applying your skepticism is to regularly ask yourself what you've changed your mind about recently. If you can't think of anything you might not be doing as well as you think.
1. Don't argue on the Internet in the first place This site is filled with 12-year-olds and your argument doesn't matter to them and the spectators They'll only throw insults and "🤓" you And the likes will go to them Im here in the internet it doesn't matter how good of a point yoy give, it matters how good of an insult you give
In the digital age, online arguments often evoke a strong sense of frustration and futility. Many have observed that these debates frequently devolve into arenas where intellectual rigor takes a backseat to quick-witted jabs and ego boosts. This trend stems from the "troll" mentality-where the aim is not to engage in meaningful discourse but to outshine the opponent with minimal effort. Such a mindset has led to the weaponization of tactics like the nerd emoji, the dismissive "I ain't reading allat," and a general anti-intellectual stance pervasive across online platforms. However, the potential for online arguments to be valuable remains intact if participants eschew intellectual laziness and commit to genuine, thoughtful engagement. Modern online discourse is often characterized by a pervasive intellectual laziness. This is partly a consequence of the trolling culture, which prioritizes winning arguments by minimizing effort rather than by substantiating claims. The essence of trolling is to elicit reactions rather than to contribute to constructive dialogue. This has been exacerbated by the proliferation of tactics that undermine serious discussion, such as using emojis or flippant dismissals to signal disengagement or superiority. The weaponization of the nerd emoji, for instance, is a prime example of this phenomenon. Originally intended to denote something overly technical or pedantic, it has morphed into a dismissive symbol used to deride or belittle serious arguments. Similarly, phrases like "I ain't reading allat" represent a refusal to engage with complex ideas, favoring instead a shallow approach that reinforces one's own beliefs while denigrating those of others. This approach not only stifles meaningful discourse but also fosters an environment where intellectual engagement is undervalued. The tendency towards intellectual laziness in online arguments significantly impacts the quality of discourse. Instead of fostering a space for the exchange of ideas and insights, many online platforms have become battlegrounds for ego-driven contests. Participants often aim to score points rather than to explore and understand diverse perspectives. This results in a superficial exchange of opinions, where the depth and nuance of arguments are frequently sacrificed for the sake of brevity and impact. Such dynamics are detrimental not only to individual understanding but also to collective knowledge. When arguments are reduced to quick comebacks and superficial dismissals, the opportunity for learning and growth is lost. This shift undermines the potential for online platforms to serve as spaces for substantive debate and intellectual development.
I've gotten really good at it lately. Instead of correcting them, I act confused but SUPER polite, because I genuinely make myself believe that there's a decent chance that I'm mistaken about ANYTHING.
eh not true, I argued whit this stupid person for hours about emus not having breeds and she simply did not understand the difference between species and breeds and nothing I said mattered. Apparently leopards and black leopards are different breeds because they are different colors and dogs are a different breed from wolves.
That is simply not true. One can argue fact, and one can argue "anecdotal truth". Often, the anecdotal truth is very wrong. Neil Tyson is simply an accessible pseudo-intellectual; He offers nothing to the world except a general dip into science with no worthy insights.
This video made me more entrenched in my *strong* belief that I *CAN* change people's minds using internet forums and comments! *SO* wrong SciShow! .......just kidding, great video, thank you! ;)
My favorite Star Fleet captain is Spock. I loved his cold, logical analysis of all the predicaments he found himself in. He was promoted to captain in "The Wrath of Khan". He may have been half human but culturally he was pure Vulcan.
You also have to consider that people who refuse to change their mind, even when given facts as to why they're wrong, are subconsciously scared of what it means if you're right. I just wrote an essay on why people refuse to listen to vegans: it's because they're *scared* of vegans being right, even if it's subconsciously. If vegans are right, it would mean that they would have to make a big lifestyle change or live with the idea that they're a bad person... And it's a lot easier to just insist that it's not true. This idea can be applied to most political arguments.
no I refuse to believe vegans are right because nature says otherwise and their are mounds of evidence saying humans are not vegans. Vegans being right would go against all the evidence of nature.
There is no right or wrong about veganism. It's all self-fulfilling ideas and thoughts. If you believe that eating animals is bad, then being vegan will make you happy. If you don't believe eating animals is bad, then being vegan wont help at all (unless you're doing it for other reasons like to lose weight or something.) It's like saying that a certain type of music is "correct" and the others are wrong.
JK Feather Ranch You're totally right: humans evolved to eat meat! There's no doubt that humans are omnivorous. However, the argument that humans should eat meat simply because we can is stubborn and irresponsible. We also evolved to be able to punch each other, but we don't, because it's morally wrong. Eating meat causes huge environmental damage and is horrifically cruel to animals, making it the morally wrong thing to do in today's society, when we can sustain ourselves on a very healthy diet of plant-based foods.
abdulaziz rushdi I respect where you're coming from, but I strongly believe that veganism is the morally right thing to do, not only for the sake of animals, but also for the environment. 30% of the United States' carbon footprint comes from the farming of livestock, and the industry that farms meat is incomprehensibly cruel to the animals in their custody. In today's world, it is far more ethically responsible to eat a plant-based diet.
The vegan argument isn't and never was "humans are naturally herbivores." We're well aware that humans are omnivores (heck, we're glad about that, that's what allows for a wide variety of dietary options in the first place.) Probably helps to understand what the opposing argument actually is instead of using a straw man fallacy.
"Oh gee, let's just throw our hands up and never try to convince anyone of the truth because there's a lot of dummies out there with terrible memories."
I've won internet arguments. My opponents just refused to see it that way.
zymethpwn the fact you used the word opponents shows that you lost every single one💀
@zymethpwn Me to
@Unreal Cereal Yes he is, and how dare you criticize him! UA-cam's format allows for exactly this and it's great. Even if it means people talk to me about things I've long moved on from and may have even changed my points.
Unreal Cereal nice way to play stupid. He just told you why people reply to old comments. He’s not being dramatic or serious about it.
@Unreal Cereal 2 idiot's going at it
You're wrong, but I'm not going to provide any evidence, cite any sources, or even explain what I'm criticizing, or why.
WRONG I HATE YOU
lol just from a debate lolololololololololololololololololololololololol. Seriosuly, you like shower with facts, definitions, everything...
No, You're wrong and here's why: "You're wrong, but I'm not going to provide any evidence, cite any sources, or even explain what I'm criticizing, or why."
hehe Does that work ??
"I just think it's funny. What you said, that is. No I won't correct you, I will comment back and continue to laugh though."
Basically how idiots try to argue
A physicist once told me, "I'm not arguing, I'm just explaining why I'm right."
Thank you for helping me
@@livingindividual9654 no problem
Some other tools for successful argument resolution:
1) Frame the conversation as a dialogue with the goal of reaching a consensus. Viewing each other as a fellow traveler rather than competitors helps.
2) Agree to keep it clean. If your conversational partner knows that you will not use degrading speech, they will be more likely to refrain from insults also.
3) Make it clear that while you may disagree with a position, you respect your partner's right to have a differing opinion.
4) Admit it and compliment commenters when they have a good point, even if it conflicts with your position.
5) Finally, use questions as a means to allow the other person to expose fallacies in their own argument. Getting your conversational partner to identify the weak points in their own point of view is far more effective than anything you could say.
But what do I know? This could all be wrong, I'm just your average internet denizen.
Tannis Bhee That sounds very good to me.
Average internet denizen or not, I 100% agree with this.
One of my pet peeves is when people say that things are tools if they aren't. Tools are things like hammers and drills.
Tried steps 1 and 2 a few times. Ended up with a barrage of hate. :/
@@crystalix777 yup
1.) Have a big vocabulary
2.) Don't use "we" but instead use "I"
3.) Listen and be understanding
4. If an argument goes for too long, it's futile to go on longer.
No don't use we, did you even watch the video? Unless you represent a group of people you should use I.
Keidan
Good catch
Keidan Representing a group of people is exactly why you become overtly bias in the first place.
Never represent a group of people. You always ONLY represent your own point of view even if you know a whole group that seems to share similar ideas. Otherwise you run the risk of tribalisinh and effigy bashing.
I think we its appropriate if the group you represent all share the same point of view in the topic you are debating.
Maybe trying to "win" an Argument like it's a fight with a victor and a loser isn't the best starting point.
*loser
up you go, my friend. We're all on the same team: the team searching for truth
Socratic wisdom is often about reaching a consensus. It's one of the main reasons why Socrates is one of my favorite thinkers; the guy basically said 'I don't know.' every waking day.
@@seancarroll9849 That guy is woke
Biggest problem with internet arguing is having no f**king clue who (or what?) is on the other side! Gender, race, age, experience, education level, etc. are all unknown so people just assume and keep arguing. 95% of internet arguments would be non-starters in real life.
Sometimes it can be beneficial, sometimes not. A black woman on twitter discussed how she convinced more racists to not be racist by changing her icon into the most hipstery white guy she could find.
ikr
There's more to it than that. Online, you can see only the words. You can't hear the tone (and often you fill in your own tone based on the person's word choice) and you can't see the visual cues you'd get from a face to face conversation. This makes it far easier for innocent statements to trigger someone because they come across as harsh or sarcastic, when that wasn't even the intent.
Additionally, the pseudo-anonymity of the internet both has a de-humanizing effect and gives people the impression that they can be jerks without suffering any real life consequences. I believe that a good number of internet arguments are started by or fueled by people who just enjoy starting a flame war and watching the show.
@@randomstuff-qu7sh this kinda sucks if you think about it :/
A whole ass 40 year old arguing with a child in the internet over chip bags
I love it when my views are challenged or changed, so long as the person opposing me has solid evidence and presents it in a respectful manner. Even if my opinion doesn't change by the end of the encounter, I take it as a beneficial exchange if I come out of it with more insight into the countering view.
For example, I was one of those buttheads growing up that said people with eating disorders should 'just eat a sandwich' or people with depression should 'just get over it'. One day, a friend of me calmly asked me why I thought that, listened as I explained my reasoning, and then provided examples and studies showing me what was really going on in people with mental health disorders. It not only expanded my worldview, it brought a huge respect and interest in psychology and neuroscience. I might be the odd duck here, but I am more inclined to change my view if the act of learning is involved with it. I love to learn, so when information is given to me and a means of fact checking it exists, I will be swayed in many cases.
The key, however, is that my friend did not come at me with hostility or even loudly. She asked for my reasons, waited patiently for me to finish my case, and then calmly offered a different possibility she could extrapolate from. It made listening to her view so much easier, and is the basis for how I handle confrontations like these myself now.
Glad you could expand your understanding of the world. I was the same when I was younger, thinking depressed people were "so emo" but learned the hard way how wrong I was when I myself started suffering from depression. 😅 my attitude did a 180 and hit me in my face.
It makes me hurt a little bit inside when open-minded comments like this don't get as much attention. I suppose it really is the most controversial comments that get the most likes just because many people love to argue despite claiming not to.
That's what they all say...
Even me.
Guess what...
You and I...
We're both lying to ourselves and everyone else.
Remix The Idiot I'm afraid I have to disagree. It's not hypocritical to make claims about being open-minded when one has opened one's mind to acknowledge the other sides on an issue and try to understand them. The OP has given anecdotal evidence on some personal experiences. She doesn't need to provide every single instance in a comment on UA-cam to "prove" she's as objective as she claims to be.
Rubia Ryu The person in question does not need evidence that she can be open-minded and is willing to admit he or she is wrong, I was simply stating in my comment that people are not always willing to change an opinion and such. Also people tend to unknowingly lie to themselves in my experience, a person can easily overestimate or underestimate something if they don't know too much, i'm on mobile right now so I can't link but watch asap science's video on how to change someone's opinion, well actually don't or maybe do idk... But people who claim they are open minded... Defenitely aren't.
At least in my experience. Simply entering a debate to prove someone wrong is enough to prove that.
You wanna argue with them because you think you are right, though it also really isn't that healthy if you don't enter in a debate and just agree with everything.
You mean people actually read other people's arguments in the first place? XD
Reeet third party I see
Yeah...me
The sit-back-and-watch type of guy
Lots of people do that, it's entertaining
No
I usually argue for the sake of others rather than the person I'm arguing with. I can't change their mind but if someone is reading the exchange they might. It actually has worked before.
i dont think ive "won" a internet argument but i do end up making them go away and stop bothering me
we need schools to teach how to deal with evidence and arguments
It's called debate class
You would need schools to actually teach something useful to make that a thing.
@@NaihanchinKempo More like the branch of philosophy, Logic.
We used to teach critical thinking and logic when I was at school. Also grammar, 2 things the younger generation seem oblivious to.
We also never said 'Low key' unnecessarily and absolutely never said 'finna'.
@@NaihanchinKempo where can I find one of those?
So about them flat-earthers...
Don't even get me started...
@@NaihanchinKempo I checked out the link and low and behold there was a comment:
"So in other words you do not "know"that the earth is a globe you are reduced to saying because this or that happens it must be a globe. That is not evidence enough. Why is there still no solid evidence? If I tell you that a square is a square I can demonstrate that it is a square, I don't have to indulge in rubbish about shadows on the wall when a light passes behind it and all that tosh do I? Your title sums it up, why are proving the earth is not flat instead of showing us that it is indeed a globe?"
I mean come on! They are arguing about the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. How do you convince such a person?
I think that maybe the emphasis on "winning" an internet argument is an unhelpful and unproductive approach to it. I've found that debate, both online and off, go better and leave me in a better place mentally when I'm not actively trying to change the person's mind - I'm either engaging in a conversation about the topic, or I'm speaking for the sake of the audience to either not normalize something or to provoke their own thoughts.
That's a helpful perspective-shift, thank you, Erin. : )
True, but if it’s pure degeneracy and idiocy, I’m 100% going to try and change their mind cause I don’t need thousands of little Timmys thinking that’s the norm or that airlines want you to die cause of some 19 year old girl on tiktok
There is no winning if we think about it
The latter is my approach. The argument isn't about changing the other person's mind. It's about convincing lurker's who may be on the fence.
As someone who frequently engages in comment section debates (civil ones mostly), I'm very very interested in what this brought to light. I try to always keep an open mind about the other person's opinions and why they might be correct as oppose to mine.
No wonder ANIG pie doesnt want to listen to AMERICANS
It's a different take to the one I always favored. That people just want to be right, their ability to reason will therefore always work its happy way around to making them right. The human ego is designed in such a way as to attempt to assert social dominance. Which is why we get people with high charisma who, basically, blurt out their answer first and only think it through after. In order for them to maintain dominance, they have to have a high level of reasoning so that they can convince others that their insane initial statement is somehow right despite being made as quickly as possible with zero thought put into it.
It's good advice to just walk away from any discussion that exceeds 4 exchanges with zero progress though. I've been working on doing exactly that for a year now. Ultimately, for whatever reason, the other person will always feel they are right due to a combination of psychological phenomenon that is all directing their thoughts towards being correct.
In my experience people are led more by there feelings than any of us are willing to admit.
Still, if you have more civil disagreements online than uncivil disagreements then you are probably part of the solution.
Same. I find my mind closing if the person appears to be using emotion instead of reason thought... which is probably not a bad thing, considering facts don't care about how you feel about them.
Something I know I have to watch out for is placing a far higher scrutiny on evidence I disagree with than evidence that supports my beliefs.
Give me evidence for something I already believe and my default response is "Yeah, that's not surprising"
Give me evidence for something I disagree with and my initial reaction is "Where was the study conducted? Has it been reproduced? Were there conflicts of interest? What did the study actually test, don't tell me what the scientists said in the abstract, what was the actual raw data and are then any alternative explanations that also fall within the data.?"
I try, honestly often don't, but try to apply that same scrutiny to evidence I agree with
This is why I don’t argue with people online. It’s pointless and a waste of time.
The best way to win an argument online at this point is to just mute Block or ignore.
💯
Another thing to remember is a lot of people on the internet are paid trolls. Companies will pay people just to start internet arguments.
Solution: Be rational & don't be afraid to admit when you're wrong. I live my life trying to know as many correct things, and as few false things as possible.
*you're (contraction of "you are," not possessive)
Us redditors never admit when we're wrong...😎😎😎
Janeway. Commander Sisko was too involved in being a holy man for the locals.
You're probably right but my opinion is heavily influenced by enjoying Deep Space Nine more overall than Voyager.
Indeed. Likewise, but I was just looking at Commanders.
Remember the episode Coda where Janeway was being tricked by an alien entity to believe she was a ghost? The entity created a entire scenario she was witnessing, taken directly from her own mind. In this she imagined her funeral in which everyone fawned over her and treated her like she was the second coming. I remind you - in her own mind. She's the one with the ego complex.
Randall Blyler Sisko was trying to garner goodwill with the Bajorans. It doesn't help that the Opaka chose him to help the Bajorans recover the Tears of the Prophets(Orbs) from the Cardassians, or that the tenth Orb's appearance is so closely tied to Sisko's presence. Becoming known as the Prophets' Emissary to Bajor isn't Sisko's fault.
For a long time, Sisko had no interest at all in being the Emissary. It took a long, long time and several interactions with the Prophets before he would even accept the role.
At that point, he probably should have stepped down as Commander of the station, but it was a bit too late and too deep in the Dominion War for him to leave.
If your opponent get angry on you and start talking nonsense. I see this as an ultimate victory.
Just say " you lost the argument on first place when you get angry"
Just don't be so prideful online. I feel no shame in apologizing and accepting new information. Why not?
pride is definitely the biggest problem. I had someone arguing with me about emus when I myself raise emus. Apparently googles images were stronger evidence than someone that actually is physically touching one at that very moment.
Raising emus? What for? They're hardly endangered. Hell, I remember Mum overtaking a couple on the roads of SA while on holiday.
unless it's re-searchable and at least three separate sources that's why
Becouse it leaves a bad memory of being humilated haha.
I did it once and apologized but wilk never again.
I will bring down the other person with me so i can have a happy day
Exactly 💯
I've always found it helpful to respect the other person's viewpoint and then state your own with some facts on how you reached it. It doesn't always change their mind but it does help stop arguments. Keeping emotions out of it also helps. The other person can't hurt your pride if you don't let your pride get involved.
It might not be possible to win an online argument, but its possible to be amused by an online argument. The trick is knowing how to do that without becoming a troll.
The only winning move in an internet argument is not to play.
Finnaly someone who does not want to die on some stupid hill! Please remember that if you cant take a hill, its not worth fighting over
Great video, excellent information and superb delivery.
I'm open to change and you can't tell me otherwise.
“You cant win an internet argument”
Fanchen: am i a joke to you?
How to win any Internet argument:
"You're IP address is..."
I know this comment is over a year old, but...
*Your 🤓
It's better to lose an argument than to win it, because when that happens you get to learn something new.
People rarely change their minds because so much of what's being said on the internet rarely has anything to do with reality/fact. I had someone try to tell me that hair was "alive" recently, because clearly they couldn't be fucked to do any actual research before they spoke. Thinking you're right is not a measure of accuracy unless or until it correlates with actual proof.
Hex Isme I disagree because... Reasons?
@Hex Isme Technically your hair is alive, but also not. The hair found closest to and inside the follicle is alive, but the shaft (the visible hair you see when you look in the mirror) is just keratin cells that are made of dead skin cells. So you can say your hair is half-alive.
Hair is alive, because I feel that my hair is alive, and if you don't agree then that's okay because you feel differently than I do.
Madra lol what
Hex Isme LOL I saw that post
Even if you're not gona change the poster's opinion you still can change the people that are undecided
But what if arguing on the Internet is a weird kind of sport to you? Where the outcome of the argument is not important, but the entertainment that is gained from the actual argument is?
Hell that’s literally me! xD
This isn't really a complete question. Because your scenario could be one of many. Possible scenarios: 1. If you argue just because you enjoy arguing, and therefore will continue arguing as long as you enjoy it, that's unreasonable. You should only make points you feel are valid, and concede to the other side when you understand you were wrong.
2. If you argue because you like getting in depth into topics, that is more okay. You still have to try to reach an actual conclusion, and not just try to win, or not lose. So, don't prolong an argument/discussion because you find it fun - make sure you make it apparent that you're not just trying to fight, but you're trying to cooperate, and get somewhere.
@@nickm.5931 I actually would love to argue (debate) with others if they do it with etiquette and actually provide solid proofs. Those kinds of people are actually kind of helpful sometimes, both of us might exchange some beneficial information with each other. I tend to ignore people who are being a moron and use a lot of fallacies.
@@nickm.5931 An example of the type of persons that I don't want to argue with is:
So, I was in a chess lesson video, there's this one guy who commented about how he has learned a lot from the video. Then, entered the villain, being a moron and comments out of nowhere saying that the OP is "liking his own comment". A person confronted him and the guy just continues to be a moron and acted like he was being smart. The thread goes on for about a year, and I confronted him. He kept on using ad-hominem arguments and tells me that he is a "critical thinker".
Are you referring to trolling (find a topic people feel strongly about, then post comments you know will set them off so you can sit back and enjoy the show)?
you cant win a internet argument because people are dence, self centered, dont want to be wrong and are not mentally flexible to expand their horizons
SAMURIADI agree
But what if you're wrong about people being dense and you're the dense one???
Just doing my part to stir the pot.
Engelbreg Bread You just want to watch the world burn, don't you? XD
@@tenhundredkills no, he's just pointing out that he spelt dense wrong by including it twice in his inquiry
Just like all of us. It's a human flaw, the tendency to be self centered and be afraid of being wrong exists within all of us
Arguing in a comment section is just an irl shouting competition.
Essentially
The lack of a response is the closest I'll get to a Win.
but what if the argument is over something about me that i cannot change?
like when people insult me because of my sexual orientation.
i cannot change that, but i also cannot change their opinion. and walking away is often not possible. How should anyone deal in a situation like that?
ask them if they're christian, if yes, tell them that harassment and bullying is a sin. god also says to love thy neighbor right? so they would be going against god's word. (not sure what section/page its from in the bible though--)
also hello my fellow lgbtq+ person :D
This makes me feel better. Thank you.
I've recently come to a middle ground with someone on 9GAG, arguing whether makeup is the root of all evil or an unavoidable necessity (I was advocating the latter, obviously). I broke the pattern by mentally pulling back and asking the guy 'just out of interest, where are you from that you see so many people with heavy makeup? I live in London and mostly see minimal natural makeup'. He replied with a much softer and apologetic message, which felt like a handshake over the Internet. We both exchanged appreciation of the other's point of view, finding a sliver of common ground there, and I felt compelled to comment on the enjoyment of the occasional verbal sparring online. I'm quite proud of that outcome!
Wow, what a titillating and important philosophical debate you two were having.
ive had something similar but i was on the other end, i realized i was wrong and being an idiot so i apologized lmao
good to know theres some other people out there who actually have sense to know when theyre wrong and wont just keep going with pointless paragraphs
the biggest problem is not inherent to the internet, but much more common there: you make 10 points/arguments in the discussion and then NONE of them get addressed... so infuriating, thats not even how it works!
Because YT is filled with 12 year old Edgelords who just reply with "🤓"
Honestly the reason why people on the internet argue has nothing to do with the argument itself, it's about the people in the argument trying to prove they're "right."
Kiwi In Space *they’re* right.
Thanks.
Kiwi In Space That's not the case with me. When I see outrageous or hateful comments, I challenge them in clean language. Nothing to do with a need to win.
This was a good watch. Useful indeed.
You can’t win since the other side won’t give in.
It's just a bummer when you can't convince someone that being hateful is wrong :(
She knows no-one will choose Archer.
Someone did ^_^
who?
Captain Data diplomatical confrontational dialogue with Worf, while respecting their freindship. Genius
Sometimes when I argue with someone in comments and they just dont write back after some messages I fell like they are acared to respond xD
It just really pings me off when someone makes the same argument over and over, or goes in circles trying to take each statement on it's own
I wonder if anyone has be able to do a study on how effective two people public arguements are at changing a third parties mind. Wonder if it would be more effective since that person, while holding the same views , isn't being directly "attacked"
me and that guy hate each other like worst enemies because we had different opinion on internet... man internet really ruined our society.
All the captains were great because of their respective times and circumstances. Kirk would have been miserable on DS9 and Picard would have gotten Voyager destroyed in a month because Data wasn't there to save him.
Best outro to a Scishow episode!
I never discus things over internet, just waste of time.
Quote from Ben Goldacre, Bad Science, ' You cannot reason people out of positions they didn't reason themselves into.' This is a great book.
Honestly, the most sensible way to argue a contentious subject with a stranger on the internet is to treat the discussion as a public debate, for the benefit of undecided people in the audience.
Don't try to change your opponent's mind, try to present your point convincingly (and maybe make them look foolish) to convince readers who are on the fence. UA-cam arguments just aren't the format for generating new insights, for others or for yourself. If you want to find out if you're actually right, read and ask questions, don't argue.
One thing I want to point out is that if someone replies to your comment saying something ridiculous and doesn't make sense, usually it's just bait to try and get you to reply to them. Ignore those people. They're kind of immature. Some people also just don't listen to you no matter what you say. They don't take what you say into consideration and will sometimes just skip entire paragraphs of text. I've had something like that happen before, where the person just disregarded everything I said and kept doing so. When I asked them why and confronted them, they said something along the lines of: "Too much text, not gonna read it." (Also, if you do that PLEASE stop and actually read it. Reading doesn't take as long as you think it does. It's also super annoying.)
Oh, and one thing, it's okay to be wrong. Sure being incorrect or "losing" an argument on the internet might seem embarrassing at first, but it usually means you learn from your mistakes. I find a LOT of people just keep arguing and arguing on and on because they're "losing," when in reality it probably won't get them anywhere and probably also make them upset or contradict their initial intent.
Here's your bait come and chase me.
Just kiding but for real people take thows fights way to hard maby we sood just make it that there is no comments and get it over with.😮
Exactly
How to win any argument with less than 2 words:
-Step 1: When you feel like you are done, prepare to drop the nuke
-Step 2: Drop the nuke that consistst with a single "no."
-Step 2.1: If its out of context its gonna be even more deadly, the enemy will not understand and persue with constant attacks
-Step 3: Just dont reply, dont look at the enemy replies, just continue living your life
-Step 3.1: If you cant resist to give a nice mad reply, just remember, there are bigger fish in the world outside of the internet
Conclusion: You dont actually win, but consider a win because you drop a bomb in enemy territory when you get killed,
Janeway was the only one to be promoted to Admiral. She's the best.
Sisko would have been, but he was too busy ascending to godhood.
Star Trek 1 showed us how Kirk was promoted to Rear Admiral sometime after TOS. But that was such an awful movie, most people forget that part. And since Janeway came back and changed history in the last episode, [spoiler alert!] who knows what happened?
(Yep.... when it comes to arguing Star Trek, I have learned nothing. Sorry SciShow. #SorryNotSorry
Hmm, pretty sure Kirk ended up as an Admiral in the movies, only to be demoted back to Captatin at the end of the fourth one.
Though, Janeway did seem to actually keep the rank, so I guess she does have that going for her.
I like talking/debating taboo or controversial topics. I realize that I'm unlikely to change the person I'm talking to's mind, but I like being challenged on my beliefs, and arguing (in an honest manner) forces you to actually use your brain, and be self reflective, etc... And I think it's great.
I entirely disagree with this video. Let me explain why.
Royal Penguins I get the joke
Should've added a fake read more.
:) TELL ME UR OPINION YOU INSOLENT NINCONPOOP >;) 😠😠😠😠😠😉
Fuc k u how dar you hat e this vedio
I wanna know the science of why people think it's ok to turn everything into debates or arguments. It's like door to door salesmen mlm moms all over.
I always got into an argument with someone, now I just ignore their argument and my life had never been happier
Same. Even if a girl screams at me in class and somebody yells out... "Hush Mode!" I still say nothing. A female is someone you definitely should never argue with. Why you think when you argue more with your mom the more energy she get lol.
Same
"it's hard to win an argument against a smart person, but it is impossible to win one against a dumb person"
I myownself am testing a new technique on internet arguments: Let the other side have the last word and walk on. So far my blood pressure and my anxiety levels have both declined, as has my time on Trumpbook. I mean Facebook.
Oh god I hate letting them be the last comment it just makes my blood boil and makes me anxious, especially if they are so into the thought of winning
But why care? Let them win. Doesn't need much to please some people.
mudgetheexpendable Yes yes I know. It only gets me angry if it is a very rude point of view they have. Like yesterday, this person was posting comments about how ginger haired people are devil worshippers and children of Lucifer all over the comment section. I wouldn't want to let them feel they are right about some disgusting thing like that.
But the point of this very video is that they will keep right on believing whatever it is they already believe. Can't un-stupid the stupid ones.
Facebook blocks people for several days or weeks for daring to say something to or about Muslims and you think it's Republican ?
I sometimes argue for both points of view with different accounts.
Another pregerU ad? Alright, I needed to pee, anyways. Enjoy the full feel Crash Course.
There are many advantages to arguing beyond just winning. It can be an exploratory process which yields new tangential ideas.
I don’t think people should argue online period. Like, you’re literally arguing with a person/people who you’ve NEVER met before in your life. It’s honestly just so stupid and pointless. You have better things to do than sitting on your PC for 3 hours and try to “win” an argument with a stranger.
How DARE you suggest i might be wrong sometimes, lady. That wont do. You'll be hearing from my lawyers. See you in the courtroom.
ahaha this reminds me of flat earthers
_CreeperDust_ I remember one flat earther who's argument was that NASA was unwilling to do research on the shape of the planet. I guess they are too busy trying to find out if water is wet.
"We're just wired that way" That's wrong!
Can you please make a video about anxiety/panic attacks and its remedies? 15th petition (:
there's videos/explanations for it everywhere - why ask someone to make a video on it for you instead?
Fantastic video.
Sisko punched Q in the face.
Definitely cemented him as a favorite for me.
Janeway got Q to kill himself.
Drew L If you're talking about the episode "Death Wish" That Q wanted to die for a long time and Janeway was against it. She convinced him to live a full life as a human and then that Q got poison from another Q and used it to die. Janeway basically did nothing.
Randall Stephens Sisko explained the concept of time to a being that had never experienced it, IN THE FIRST EPISODE.
Q wanted to mate with Janeway, a lowly human. But no Picard is the best.
Trying to win an argument online is pointless. Especially when you don’t know the person, their background, their beliefs.sometimes you trow words into a big sea of worlds kinda like sand in the wind! Nothin sticks! Interned can be useful if used right, but also can be a waste of your time if used too much!
Couldnt the platform itself also influence? Online, you don't have to face your oppositor, there's no pressure to come up with arguments on the spot and there is consequence for being wrong.
I could post the most moronic things ever and believe its true no matter how many people prove me wrong because there's no physical social interaction, no one knows who i am.
There's also no vocal tone, so it can be much harder to interpret how someone intends their words to sound. If it contradicts their own views, it'll likely come across to the reader as argumentative, nagging or something similar, just due to their own expectations on agreement and disagreement.
There's also no vocal tone, so it can be much harder to interpret how someone intends their words to sound. If it contradicts their own views, it'll likely come across to the reader as argumentative, nagging or something similar, just due to their own expectations on agreement and disagreement.
I never thought I would have an addiction like arguing on social medial. I have admitted my addiction and now I am trying to abstain from it.
Am I the only one now thinking everything I believe might be wrong?
Cynthia Olyga oh sure you're the only special snowflake who's wrong! I've been wrong countless of times!
Probably.. but if you have facts, don't worry about it.
Cynthia Olga If that should indeed be the case: Congratulations on waking up =)
Everybody thinks they're right, but I take it as a sign of intelligence when somebody is ALSO afraid that they might be wrong. Without that fear, they aren't worth talking to. People who believe they're right will present partial-facts, purposefully or accidentally manipulated to support their cause, never realizing that the one they learned it from probably didn't give the whole story to them either.
We're all ignorant.
Great!
All about learning, more than just a process, & thinking, more than just point of view. 👍🏻👍🏻
Now, Janeway of course, followed by Sisko and Picard. 😂
More like why you can't win an argument with someone who's not intellectually honest.
As a proper skeptic I will go out of my way to tell people when they've changed my mind.
Repeating things or not makes no difference you just need to have the evidence to back up what you're saying from as unbiased a source as possible.
Something that's useful to see if you're really applying your skepticism is to regularly ask yourself what you've changed your mind about recently. If you can't think of anything you might not be doing as well as you think.
I’ve been in enough of them and they’re pretty pointless
1. Don't argue on the Internet in the first place
This site is filled with 12-year-olds and your argument doesn't matter to them and the spectators
They'll only throw insults and "🤓" you
And the likes will go to them
Im here in the internet it doesn't matter how good of a point yoy give, it matters how good of an insult you give
That's true
In the digital age, online arguments often evoke a strong sense of frustration and futility. Many have observed that these debates frequently devolve into arenas where intellectual rigor takes a backseat to quick-witted jabs and ego boosts. This trend stems from the "troll" mentality-where the aim is not to engage in meaningful discourse but to outshine the opponent with minimal effort. Such a mindset has led to the weaponization of tactics like the nerd emoji, the dismissive "I ain't reading allat," and a general anti-intellectual stance pervasive across online platforms. However, the potential for online arguments to be valuable remains intact if participants eschew intellectual laziness and commit to genuine, thoughtful engagement.
Modern online discourse is often characterized by a pervasive intellectual laziness. This is partly a consequence of the trolling culture, which prioritizes winning arguments by minimizing effort rather than by substantiating claims. The essence of trolling is to elicit reactions rather than to contribute to constructive dialogue. This has been exacerbated by the proliferation of tactics that undermine serious discussion, such as using emojis or flippant dismissals to signal disengagement or superiority.
The weaponization of the nerd emoji, for instance, is a prime example of this phenomenon. Originally intended to denote something overly technical or pedantic, it has morphed into a dismissive symbol used to deride or belittle serious arguments. Similarly, phrases like "I ain't reading allat" represent a refusal to engage with complex ideas, favoring instead a shallow approach that reinforces one's own beliefs while denigrating those of others. This approach not only stifles meaningful discourse but also fosters an environment where intellectual engagement is undervalued.
The tendency towards intellectual laziness in online arguments significantly impacts the quality of discourse. Instead of fostering a space for the exchange of ideas and insights, many online platforms have become battlegrounds for ego-driven contests. Participants often aim to score points rather than to explore and understand diverse perspectives. This results in a superficial exchange of opinions, where the depth and nuance of arguments are frequently sacrificed for the sake of brevity and impact.
Such dynamics are detrimental not only to individual understanding but also to collective knowledge. When arguments are reduced to quick comebacks and superficial dismissals, the opportunity for learning and growth is lost. This shift undermines the potential for online platforms to serve as spaces for substantive debate and intellectual development.
That's why the basic rule of advertising is "repeat often."
Osiris Malkovich Winter is coming.
Also one of Joseph Goebell's points about propaganda. If the lie is big enough and repeated often enough, people will start to think it's the truth.
The person reading this is a good person
factually incorrect
I've gotten really good at it lately. Instead of correcting them, I act confused but SUPER polite, because I genuinely make myself believe that there's a decent chance that I'm mistaken about ANYTHING.
Janeway all the way
Was Janeway the emissary of the Prophets? No, I didn't think so. :P
on the internet you have more to think about your answer, so the argument just keeps on going
As Neil DeGrasse Tyson is prone to say, "If a debate lasts more than 5 minutes, both sides are wrong"
PaleGhost69 Either in opinion or in approach.
Not necessarily. They could be arguing for the sake of arguing. ;)
Or they could both have a speech impediment that makes them talk very slowly.
eh not true, I argued whit this stupid person for hours about emus not having breeds and she simply did not understand the difference between species and breeds and nothing I said mattered. Apparently leopards and black leopards are different breeds because they are different colors and dogs are a different breed from wolves.
That is simply not true. One can argue fact, and one can argue "anecdotal truth". Often, the anecdotal truth is very wrong. Neil Tyson is simply an accessible pseudo-intellectual; He offers nothing to the world except a general dip into science with no worthy insights.
Neil degrasse tyson is popsci trash
This video made me more entrenched in my *strong* belief that I *CAN* change people's minds using internet forums and comments! *SO* wrong SciShow! .......just kidding, great video, thank you! ;)
Challenge accepted!
Jonathan Archer is the best Star Trek captain.
Master Therion while Scott Bakula is clearly a god among men, William Riker is the obvious best star trek captain.
I decree that Janeway’s strict yet loving relations with her underlings were quite simply enchanting to the soul, I say!
Master Therion Perhaps, but DS9 was definitely the best series. I did like Enterprise a lot though.
Captain Katherine Janeway is my fav. She's a badass.
*Captain Edward Jellico.* Fight me.
My favorite Star Fleet captain is Spock. I loved his cold, logical analysis of all the predicaments he found himself in. He was promoted to captain in "The Wrath of Khan". He may have been half human but culturally he was pure Vulcan.
You also have to consider that people who refuse to change their mind, even when given facts as to why they're wrong, are subconsciously scared of what it means if you're right. I just wrote an essay on why people refuse to listen to vegans: it's because they're *scared* of vegans being right, even if it's subconsciously. If vegans are right, it would mean that they would have to make a big lifestyle change or live with the idea that they're a bad person... And it's a lot easier to just insist that it's not true. This idea can be applied to most political arguments.
no I refuse to believe vegans are right because nature says otherwise and their are mounds of evidence saying humans are not vegans. Vegans being right would go against all the evidence of nature.
There is no right or wrong about veganism. It's all self-fulfilling ideas and thoughts. If you believe that eating animals is bad, then being vegan will make you happy. If you don't believe eating animals is bad, then being vegan wont help at all (unless you're doing it for other reasons like to lose weight or something.)
It's like saying that a certain type of music is "correct" and the others are wrong.
JK Feather Ranch You're totally right: humans evolved to eat meat! There's no doubt that humans are omnivorous. However, the argument that humans should eat meat simply because we can is stubborn and irresponsible. We also evolved to be able to punch each other, but we don't, because it's morally wrong. Eating meat causes huge environmental damage and is horrifically cruel to animals, making it the morally wrong thing to do in today's society, when we can sustain ourselves on a very healthy diet of plant-based foods.
abdulaziz rushdi I respect where you're coming from, but I strongly believe that veganism is the morally right thing to do, not only for the sake of animals, but also for the environment. 30% of the United States' carbon footprint comes from the farming of livestock, and the industry that farms meat is incomprehensibly cruel to the animals in their custody. In today's world, it is far more ethically responsible to eat a plant-based diet.
The vegan argument isn't and never was "humans are naturally herbivores." We're well aware that humans are omnivores (heck, we're glad about that, that's what allows for a wide variety of dietary options in the first place.)
Probably helps to understand what the opposing argument actually is instead of using a straw man fallacy.
The first sin of debate is to only debate because you want to “win”. Entering an argument with that sort of mentality will result only in frustration.
"Oh gee, let's just throw our hands up and never try to convince anyone of the truth because there's a lot of dummies out there with terrible memories."
this is why I love Quora because people actually are civil and are willing to compromise and accept other views
me who never wins in an internet argument from a person saying "ez"
Arguing on the web is like peeing straight up and not expecting to get wet
Riker for president! He mounts chairs like they're horses, and that's clearly the most important trait for the job.
In a public debate, it is not about changing the opinion of the person taking the opposing side, but rather winning the audience.