General

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

John James — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:50:51 GMT

Maybe...but for one thing these are two guys who essentially dedicate their lives to this...meaning they're fine to stand there for almost an hour and just go round and round. They probably could or should have gone to a stage somewhere and gotten a moderator (although, I tend to agree with hashem that this is much more interesting. and entertaining.)

Again, it may be a fun idea, but I don't see how this could be applied to regular people, let alone in an everyday real-world setting.

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

jdkdsgn — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:33:20 GMT

I agree it is inconvenient, and there are probably a whole slew of issues with this scheme, but what kind of reward is there in the type of debate from the OP? I believe that a third party would help to increase the amount of impact a discussion has, especially relative to the thunderfoot video.

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

John James — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:23:59 GMT

jdkdsgn:
Rather, we should ask one of our friends, or a stranger who is acquainted with the idea, to moderate a discussion so that whoever is listening may efficiently digest the points discussed.

That sounds all good and well (actually, to be frank, it doesn't really...I see something like that leading to all sorts of problems), but even still, supposing that would work out as harmoniously as you seem to think it would, I don't see any practical way that could implemented in the real world. Every time you're having a conversation and the subject ventures into a specified realm, you're going to go "wait wait! I gotta go get Peter!"?

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

jdkdsgn — Fri, 13 Apr 2012 16:12:28 GMT

I believe that an anarcho-capitalist attitude should be utilized wrt this issue: make use of an arbiter for the discussion! This is the only way that we can avoid the clashing of ideas in cacophony. Rather, we should ask one of our friends, or a stranger who is acquainted with the idea, to moderate a discussion so that whoever is listening may efficiently digest the points discussed. If it is a discussion in which one person wishes to convert the other, there is no discussion, and each person's worldviews just simply clang together, as we saw in the OP.

Anyway, I believe that a debate along the lines of the John Lennox versus Richard Dawkins is more akin to a civilized discussion. Lennox even goes on to say that if we are to be intellectually honest, we must not consider the use of force in the planting of ideas. In short, he supports individualism. If you are interested in more of the discussion, check out: http://fixed-point.org/index.php/video/35-full-length/164-the-dawkins-lennox-debate

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

vive la insurrection — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 16:56:33 GMT

1) Sorry my fault on this. Clarification:I was responding to this quote:

"I'm better than other people because they waste their time in frivolous debates that don't interest me.

Which is not the message I was trying to convey. The "I'm better" part is implied by you - it was never stated directly by myself. The closest thing I could think of tocome away with any implication of that sentiment would be my use of the phrase regarding another person as "yuppie college kid".

If that is case, it may very well be possible to call what followed the line a kind of satire on the actions of the video - as I was referring to the way these people were acting and setting themselves up for failure in "debating and convincing" but perhaps success in "chest thumping and acting like a peacock" - as evident by calling his opponent an "idiot" , having a conter, and splicing videos to make fun of his position in the middle of the conversation on the video - after the fact of debate.

As for the rest of the quote I was refrencing (frivolos debates don't interest me):

By me responding to your post, it is self evident that I was interested in some aspect to what was going on. The whole post is showing how I placed my concern in the context of your OP - which left much room to work in, and was asking for reactions, opinions, and impressions.

so to spell it out:

Being that the subject in the video is a tertiary topic to Mises.org - I really thought you were aiming at a look at practice, methodology, and things of that nature. I was looking at this as a case study for the practical application for a productive way to either

a) discuss ideas to a third party (the crowd watching the video)

b) promote, convince, debat ideas to the physical person one is dealing with (i.e. not the computer crowd, but the guy he had the mic and camera in front of).

I find these type of interactions common, and overall not good for anyone interested in the issues involved (or at least to any 3rd party listener) - and to me the problem is people take these things far more seriously than they ought. It is as if people want a "quick fix" on any form of intellectualism, probably to confirm their own "conformation bias". It is that sentiment and experience I was trying to appeal to in people. If you don't have that sentiment, experience, or impression - I suppose there is no need to engage in this conversation, as no argument has been made (as none was asked for in the OP)- merely an appeal to ones practice in life.

Debate/ argumentation/ rhetoric is something of a trade, it isn't "random discussion" or a hammering out of ideas (both have their uses) - and one has to know how to use it, when to use it, and how to listen to it, or it does no good. If something is trying to pass itself off as a "debate" in a casual setting or via guerilla tactics I have no problem telling people they are wasting their time, which will hopefully lead people to the questions "what am I doing, why am I doing it, and how am I doing it?"

So I may or may not be better than whomever you wish to draw a comparison to, that is your affair to decide. As for the fundamental approach to dealing with people and issues in the context of "convincing or debating" with what I saw in the video; of course I think my opinion on method and approach is better (or at the very least worth considering), otherwise I would not have stated it.

2) Again, I honestly can't tell if this is just really good satire or if you're actually one of those people.,

While I do hate cracked.com - this particular line was satire. I wouldn't call it "really good" though, as it probably closer to parody.

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

John James — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:35:13 GMT

hashem:
the show they put on was gripping and exciting, the display of respectable intellectual rigor (truth or falsity of the ideas notwithstanding) was potent and dramatic and blah blah blah. Way the hell better than anything you'd see on TV or in a theater, IMHO.

hehe. Glad you enjoyed it. You might keep an eye on the new debate video thread.

They seemed to support him. I didn't know they were at an event "Reason Rally".

Yeah that's what I mean. They were more than likely all atheists...if not actual Thunderf00t "fans". The whole event was "celebrating irreligion, nontheism, and secularity". The Christian was there as part of a small faction of people who showed up to oppose them. So it's possible there may have been a few Christians there rooting Eric on, but I'm sure the vast majority of the audience was on Thunderf00t's side even if they never said anything and someone just said "who do you like better? This atheist or this Christian?"

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

hashem — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:06:20 GMT

Clayton:
Rallying crowds is not rhetoric, that's showmanship.

What? Who said it was? A red herring, and a dishonest display since rhetoric may be used to rally crowds, regardless of whether rallying crowds—or rhetorical discourse for that matter—is showmanship.

John James:
I think this is part of what Clayton was getting at. Notice how it was Eric who utilized the tactic of making announcements to the crowd and trying to sway them by interacting with them and making a display. While this is of course an admittedly dishonest and a bit unscrupulous tactic, it can be effective and shows an understanding on the part of the offender as to how human beings operate and are appealed to.

Ya, no, I understand that. I wouldn't underestimate youtubers' capacity for the drive and comprehension of social manipulation, though. From a somewhat virgin perspective—not really knowing much about the youtube scene or either of them as public speakers in general—they both had strong personalities and character and were able to maintain a train of thought. As an uninformed spectator, the show they put on was gripping and exciting, the display of respectable intellectual rigor (truth or falsity of the ideas notwithstanding) was potent and dramatic and blah blah blah. Way the hell better than anything you'd see on TV or in a theater, IMHO.

hashem:
When the girls in a crowd are cheering, you pretty much have the crowd on your side.

Again, I think they were already on his side before either one of them started talking.

They seemed to support him. I didn't know they were at an event "Reason Rally".

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

John James — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 09:05:08 GMT

hashem:
Everyone seemed to realize pretty much right away that Eric was dishonest and wrong

You do have to keep in mind this conversation was taking place at Reason Rally, so this crowd was almost certainly already biased, and not a good representation of a general audience. (Which is why Eric said "I'll let you get back to your fans"...because of course people like Thunderf00t are "gods" to the atheists who can't make reasoned arguments on their own (and instead just rally behind assholes like Thunderf00t and TheAmazingAtheist and hang on every word they say like drones)...which is something you can see if you go through the Youtube history of those channels and the online back-and-forths they've had between various other prominant youtubers. For some entertaining ones, see here.)

he was much more interested in letting Eric make himself look like an idiot, to let Eric hang himself with his own rope

Here I'm not so sure. That was part of my point. I'm not even sure Thunderf00t was that aware, and has the conversational skill to do something like that. It seemed to me it was all he could do to try to stay on topic and not get trapped in a corner by the Socratic Method of typical Christian argumentation.

I don't think Thunderf00t possesses the social skill and understanding to be able to manipulate a crowd like that. He's far too scientific. I think this is part of what Clayton was getting at. Notice how it was Eric who utilized the tactic of making announcements to the crowd and trying to sway them by interacting with them and making a display. While this is of course an admittedly dishonest and a bit unscrupulous tactic, it can be effective and shows an understanding on the part of the offender as to how human beings operate and are appealed to.

When the girls in a crowd are cheering, you pretty much have the crowd on your side.

Again, I think they were already on his side before either one of them started talking.

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

Clayton — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:45:57 GMT

Rallying crowds is not rhetoric, that's showmanship.

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

hashem — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:35:49 GMT

Rhetoric is a neglected art. Thunderf00t was clearly rhetorically inferior, here.///In the first segment I felt it was a great example of part of the reason why atheists don't do well in debates like this.

I didn't watch the video but listened to it, perhaps that played a bigger role in my different view than I had thought... As someone observing the audio, someone who has never heard of thunderfoot or Eric until now, I thought that from the audience's perspective Thunderf00t had a pretty big lead the entire time.

Everyone seemed to realize pretty much right away that Eric was dishonest and wrong, but that he is very clever and legitimately intelligent. Plus Eric also seemed to have a much more polished (read: predetermined, unadaptable) presentation, so I'm sure they sympathized with Thunderf00t's caution—which to be on topic is pretty valuable if we concede the importance of convincing people, since its probably easier for the unconscious to accept the ideas of someone we sympathize with, particularly in favor of his opponent.

In my opinion, Thunderf00t realized what he was confronted with and argued accordingly. He "could have" done this or that, but he argued properly for Thunderf00t, maybe...that's the impression I got. He wasn't trying to take the upper hand and make Eric look like a douchebag, he was much more interested in letting Eric make himself look like an idiot, to let Eric hang himself with his own rope and therefore Thunderf00t seemed to be OK, though somewhat annoyed at times, with Eric constantly putting words in Thunderf00t's mouth. When the girls in a crowd are cheering, you pretty much have the crowd on your side.

So surely rhetoric is important, particularly in manipulating people who aren't versed in the topic anyways. But in a situation like this I think the unspoken words from Thunderf00t played a bigger role than the rhetoric from Eric. But yes, rhetoric is the forgotten art and an indespensable tool of any sort of public figure.

Also, Thunderf00t earned points for saying (I think he said) "for fuck's sake". Obviously that's not a valid argument, but it was appropriate given how many times Thunderf00t had to repeat himself and that pleased the crowd at the right time

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

John James — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 08:29:45 GMT

vive la insurrection:
1) I didn't even say what you quoted

what? It was copied and pasted. Where the hell did you think I got it from?

And I wasn't even picking out a specific line of your passage. I just took the first sentence and used a bracked ellipsis to imply I was responding to your whole post in its entirety, but didn't want to crowd my own post (and therefore the thread) by reproducing the whole thing when someone could easily scroll up and read it from the original.

I'm too good a person to waste my time on reading trash liked cracked.com - so please don't link anymore cracked articles, if I cared about "top 10" lists of things I would watch VH1

Again, I honestly can't tell if this is just really good satire or if you're actually one of those people.

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

Conza88 — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 07:45:59 GMT

Was there any attempt to define "God" and what attributes it possesses? No? LOL... waste of an hour then.

Theological noncognitivism ftw.

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

vive la insurrection — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:39:31 GMT

1) I didn't even say what you quoted

2) I wouldn't even call that my main point which would be summed up in my last sentence of the post in:

If you're trying to point out that being a radom activist going up to random college activists in some demonstration with a camera is usually an intellectually vapid tactic and isn't good for debating or convincing- that is a good point .

Being that you hardly said anything at all in the OP or what to focus on other than "debating and convincing"- All I focused on was thinking about "debating and convincing" in some type of context with the resource provided.

Even if I wanted, I couldn't make an argument due to the very nature of the post; as you asked for an impression / opinion about a random "lay person" internet video on an untraditional Mises.org topic - so I gave a reaction to "debating and convincing" that I thought was applicable to most people's lives.

P.S. I'm too good a person to waste my time on reading trash liked cracked.com - so please don't link anymore cracked articles, if I cared about "top 10" lists of things I would watch VH1

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

Clayton — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 06:02:34 GMT

Rhetoric is a neglected art. Thunderf00t was clearly rhetorically inferior, here.

Part of the problem is that most atheists are positivists and so their metaphysics is just as jumbled as theists'. Blind leading the blind or something like that.

Clayton -

Re: A Lesson in Debate and Convincing People

John James — Sun, 08 Apr 2012 05:56:32 GMT

vive la insurrection:
There's random time wasting debates by random people all over YouTube - what do you expect [...]

And here's a perfect example of a similar archetype. The "I'm better than other people because they waste their time in frivolous debates that don't interest me." It's related to the type described above, except in this case the offender doesn't engage at all, he just belittles the entire proceeding (whereas the "we should all be nicer" type just belittles the way in which the actors are going about it.)

It kind of goes along with a few of the 5 Dismissive Arguments That You Only Use When You're Wrong.

Thanks for providing that example. I can only hope it was intentional satire.