Being on the losing side in a dispute

Post Reply New Topic

Have you ever been a dispute with someone that aroused the passion of your peers (In real life), and then the person started dishing out the assault one sentence right after another (As if attacking you with a verbal firehose) and not giving you enough time to think and respond, and then other peers in the crowd immaturely said "Right on!" and "Pwned" and all that bull crap, and then you realized your problem wasn't that your position was "wrong", but rather you weren't as quick/articulate as the other person and thus your losing was more due to your verbal abilities than the inherent correctness of your position, and you thought everybody's judgment was based on 'stupid' qualities (Like articulateness / 'quick thinking' and/or loudness and/or lots of talking) and you thought the crowd wasn't worth it anyways, so you automatically considered everyone else stupid and they also thought you were "stupid", but you didn't care because they were stupid and superficial for judging 'correctness' on meaningless irrelevant qualities?

It reminds me of a particular category of debate when your whole objective is to simply "flood the opponent" with objections and appeal to pathos (Feeling / empathy) until the time runs out rather than argue on the basis of logic and reason. I seriously thought how on earth could such a debate style be officially sanctioned? That is STUPID.

When I get into an argument like that, I "lock up" (meltdown I suppose), so instead of trying to respond and going into a rage or crying I just silently and utterly ignore them. If needed I can then go to someone else with authority to sort the issue out.

There is a name I can't remember that directly describes the debate style where you attack the other person instead of actually argue the point. I think there is also one for when you base on argument on that you are a good person (or organised, or smart, or experienced, etc) so your stance is valid, which is of course not a valid argument.

I find this very often in politics. It's all "the dominant side in ussuns" v "themmuns". Difference of opinion is not tolerated. How does one deal with people like that?

It really is all about dominance and power rather than understanding. Trying to debate with these people is dangerous as they seem to want to win at all costs.

I will often go into the other person's concept, unfold it and try to explore it, to see it's basis, assumptions, where it leads. This inquisitive act itself seems to confuse people, as though I ought to be staying on "my side" of the fence and arguing in favor of my own ideas, rather than exploring the merits of everything on the table.

Yeah,, that sort of bullying has been one of my major reasons, not to go to big birthdayparties. - And other "social" occations!
I just feel so insdequite, and isolate myself, if not able to withdraw... I rather protect myself, than face a, almost certain, meltdown!

I really dislike that when it happens.

And for that matter, I have had it happen to me online. I can still compose my replies with logic, but when you are facing multiple people who disagree with your starting premise and seem to have learned how to debate from the 4chan school of social bullying, the outcome is roughly the same. No one bothers to read your replies very closely and cheers on the crude attempts at witty repartee hurled your way.

I'm tempted to post a link to a so-called "philosophy" forum where you can see me, last year, being pulled apart limb from limb, with the moderators of the forum colluding with the bullies. (That's the worst: when those who should represent logic, reason, reality, fairness, justice, sanity, and all that sort of thing, don't.) But I'd better read it all again myself first, and I'm not quite ready for that! (Also I've had much worse happen in Real Life.)

(Edit: I started to read over two of the threads, but it has all by now become so tedious, even for me, that I couldn't be bothered to finish either of them! I remember the gist of what happened, and it was bitter, but it would be hard work for anyone else to extract the gist from all that verbiage. It wouldn't be as entertaining or instructive as I imagined.)

Yeah, that stinks. Pointless to try to use logic in that moment.

That said, people have pointed out that I've thrown out too many logical arguments, too fast for them to answer. I don't consider my bullying by intellect superior to bullying by social pressure.

Yes, that happens to me. I think the important question is, "Does this argument matter?" If it doesn't, or if the other person will never listen to you no matter how well you articulate your ideas, then it makes more sense to drop it.

It's not about having the better argument, it's about "winning." And what leads to "winning" is not necessarily logic, facts, or otherwise having the better argument.

My interpretation of that phenomenon is that it's a short-circuit that evolved because winning arguments affects social status/social power. And whenever those are involved, things becomes 'dirty.' My guess is that the ability to sway the opinions of others is (evolutionarily) more important that being correct/logical/factual.