A New Method of Debate

The last few days, I find myself increasingly doing this kinda weird thing:

I’ll read someone’s post, completely disagree with it, write out a whole post explaining exactly why, and then before pressing send I’ll think about the potential consequence of my post - which will almost inevitably be a completely misunderstanding of everything I said, as happens pretty nearly 100% of the time…and then I just x out the tab and abandon everything I wrote.

I actually really enjoy doing this. It’s just as fulfilling as engaging in an actual argument without the frustration of being misunderstood. I’m having my cake and eating it too. It actually gives me closure on the argument as well, because I feel like I got the last word even though I didn’t say anything, haha. It’s like a secret victory.

Anybody else do this? Anybody have any clue why it’s so fulfilling?

Haha… Oewkadokey…

Nope. You are the only one. Tells you something doesn’t it. :mrgreen:

Think of how the forum would be if everyone did that (far too many do already actually). But you are right in that very few reveal when they understand, but rather very often reveal when they misunderstand and thus disagree.

Note that your first incentive was from DISagreement. Ever consider how important it is to state when you AGREE and why?

Yes.

Sometimes I’ll rework my position like 5 different times, rewriting my argument and structuring my post in just the right way so that the person or people for whom it’s intended will have less of a chance to misread or misinterpret. So that I can head off the annoying counter-positions to a position I never held in the first place. It certainly feels like debating myself, and I fancy I’m a pretty good opponent. A lot of times the post never gets sent.

I don’t think I have learned to appreciate the self-censoring habit. Because it means that I end up keeping it all in my head, and it doesn’t feel like a victory if I am the only witness. It seems to me that the best victory in debate is to prove your argument irrefutable. Irrefutability has to be tested against other people who are as or more intelligent than you are who can lend different perspectives of the strength of your argument. The only real issues are communication, finding a worthy opponent, and pride.

I have the answer. From the beggining society has embedded into you that there is a right and a wrong to everything. (inevitable really to every society) The right way to speak, talk, walk, breathe, even think. Everytime you are right you have been rewarded and everytime you are wrong you have been punished.

If people lose an argument they are wrong and by default they are not right. There is a subconscious association that in turn makes them feel bad, angry with themselfs. Losing arguments then is not at all good. From and I can say that everytime their arguements are attacked people feel bad and so they do not like it. There is also a social aspect since people realize that their posts are not only read by them but by everyone else and so losing will also make them look bad,(for those that regard this as important, most people due to conditioning), and so there is a considerable amount of fear as well. The combination of fear of the punishment and desire to be right is what makes people feel that way an gives the response (reply in this case.)

In your case, someone says something you regard as stupid (wrong), attacking your belief by default he is wrong and thus should be punished, must likely the response will be accompanied with a phrase attacking his persona, (mocking him). This is the desire to punish, anger, and stems from conditioning. However, you realize through your experience that responding will only bring retaliation, it could also change depending on the person. (responding to j.ss will bring a far stronger response than contradicting turtle, for example.) As such you fear the feeling of being contradicted, as their is an emotional attachment to your truth, and realize that you would have to follow up your arguement with yet another response.

You have found a way of displaying your anger without ever having a retaliation. A win, win situatiion. If you do not correct it,(assuming that you think it is bad.) In the long run it will become the norm until then you completely stop responding. You will become more of a guest than a poster and you will only seek explanations and stop making contradictions. (Afterall what is the point of being “right” if so many people have so many different and diverging views of what is truth.) It is not like you are going to convince anyone, (there is no reward) so why bother to engage in a senseless never ending struggle.
( You have better things to do. In this case something that is actually rewarding)

I’m the only one, but far too many do it.
Sounds like the beginning of a riddle…or maybe you’re just contradicting yourself.
Or maybe you’re just being facetious, i hope for your sake that’s the case.

Anyway, apparently I’m not the only one…

“A person who argues to win will never lose.”

Such an absolutist statement that is!!!
Are you sure about that?
Just because someone said it, doesn’t make it necessarily true.
I don’t care who said it.
Someone who argues to win, and only win, may lose because that person is too focused JUST on the winning and not the importance of the subjct matter itself.
If the passion is simply for the winning, logic, evidence, etc. may go out the window.
But I may be wrong…just something to think about.

Numerous times have I written out replies and opening posts, of all lengths, only to discard them. It’s self-expression being reward in itself that makes it satisfying, even if you don’t submit what you have to say.

I discard what I write for a different reason, however my major concern is also communicability - I find the writing process to resemble a long, ardous translation. Not only do I barely think in words, often having to stop and try to remember the word I need, but thought occurs so much faster than words can be strung together in order to make the thoughts communicable. Neither the fastest words nor the fastest typer can keep up with the speed of thought, and to attempt to slow one’s thoughts to a suitable level feels like creative suicide. There is also the further burden of moderating the words and sentence structure, the feel and the focus of every single thing I say - at every turn - so that I might be better understood by my readers.

Whilst we both have issues with being understood, I cannot bring myself to write everything out only in accordance to how I wish to say it. I must tailor every word I say to what I think as well as to who I imagine my audience to be, or I do not feel like I have expressed exactly that which I wanted to express. If I feel I am failing to do this, I often just abandon what I was attempting to communicate.

Being misunderstood is a significant barrier to the feeling of optimal expression - a feeling that I value greatly, as I am sure you do too. But this is the exact reason I put so much effort into being understood (despite still sometimes finding I am misunderstood to a degree). This would appear to be the distinction between why we each abandon posts before sending them. I recommend investing a large amount of thought about how to get through to other people - what you describe sounds like a kind of revenge against your inability to be understood, a temporary fix to unfinished business.

I could never feel closure before seeing an argument through to the emergence of a valid reason for either agreeing or disagreeing. I find I almost always succeed in this. I cannot feel closure if I stop this short by denying others a fully considered reply. The posts I abandon indefinitely are never replies to an unfinished debate.

Silhouette, you’re a person after my own heart. Writing is a process, to me, during which my thoughts evolve. Since it’s meant to be communication without the nuances of vocal tone, body language or facial expression, finding the words that come closest to what it is I want to say can often be most difficult. I’ll deliberately not send a post because of that. (Of, course, that doesn’t happen too often, since I write so beautifully the very first time around–I’ve outlined all of my thoughts in my mind, chosen all the correct words before I even start to write, and have covered every possible way my writing will be accepted by every one of my readers–I don’t often need to re-write, But that’s moi. :-" rotfl)

If nothing else, the writing process has helped me solidify my thoughts (and sometimes, change them.) In doing so, I’m forced to answer my own ‘whys’–this is why writing is often self-satisfying, to me.

Humpty, I wish more people would think before they opened their mouths and hit ‘submit.’

I usually write everything as it flows out naturally. I hit submit as soon as I’m done. By the time the page loads I’ll proofread key areas that I begin questioning until the next page loads, if something needs a revision I’ll do it immediately. I type about 70 wpm. I read very fast as well. This works for me, it’s not 100% but I don’t lose much quality as opposed to gaining more time ;D

Yes, I’ve done this. If I’m going to write out a reply and then x out, it’s usually because I feel it’s just not worth it. It gives me no sense of fulfillment.

:smiley: :laughing: This is one of my quotes not anyone elses. It is simply saying that if a person argues to win the person from his perspective will not lose. To say he lost would be done by a person watching the debate. From his point of view he will not lose, and even if he did, since he is arguing to win he will not show that to the other.

Perhaps;
“One who never gives in, will never see his defeat.”

Haha…and James S. Saint said that I was illogical…being that I was a she.

I rest my case, your Honor.

It is certainly a good quote, wrote it yourself? Also where does the phrase, “Statistics are for the blind” come from, did it come from yourself as well? I intend to use them so I would like a reference.

This is basically my point, when i cite the quote, " He who argues to win will never lose."

i still believe it is a good quote it does not necessarily speaks to EVERY case but it is still good to summarize what it is trying to say.

Oh, I never said that being illogical was unique to being a she. I capped the “S”… “she is certainly a She”.

{{One can’t stay in love if she doesn’t pay attention}}
…and it seems that I have lost my “Mr Saint” status… :crying-yellow: owell… easy come… :frowning:

Yeah… Igotta millionovem. :wink:

You mean in [size=150]LOVE? [/size]
The effort of attention is a requirement for Love to grow and to be nurtured. It’s like a plant in that way.

I returned it to you as i forgave your indescretion.

Exactly and a critical part of the “How”

  1. Watch the loved one to be constantly aware of their true situation (Don’t Presume)

{{now let’s see, was She for or against Forgiveness? :-k }}

But the loved one must also have trust and lower his/her boundaries to share the true situation. It might not always been seen or felt.

ALSO AS TO THE HOW…

  1. By intimate sharing of one’s deeper thoughts and feelings…

  2. By confrontation if necessary, though gentle and humble. Unconditional love does not mean unconditional acceptance. When we love, we must at times confront.

Always for…although knowing full well that it is still a process, like love…and takes time and great energy at least for some who are not Saints, like myself.