Message from @Kscope
Discord ID: 478712410945880095
So just to be clear, when you say fake opinion you don't mean strawman of a position, but devils advocate while taking the strongest opinion possible on a the position you're defending
Yes. I'd rather just find someone who actually believes himself.
That is a strong debate training tactic tho @Fitzydog that is debate training and devils advocate. In most topics the oponents opinions are known. So having someone use those talking points while disecting your own is highly useful.
But its usually a tactic for a professional debate tbh
@Goblin_Slayer_Floki Yes, I know. I consider that shit to be like mental masturbation.
"How can I better trick my opponent with debate tactics"
Given that my primary reasoning for engaging in a debate is to have the most correct opinion possible, playing devils advocate helps strengthen my knowledge of the opposing sides view while also possibly introducing me to more arguments in favor/against my original stance
Its been used by debators, lawyers, ect for a long time. Cant be to bad a tactic.
Also I dont know what you mean by mental masturbation, can you define it and why you think its bad?
No its more the devils advocate can question statements in ways your oponents would. As to allow you to see blind spots in your debate
> playing devils advocate helps strengthen my knowledge of the opposing sides
Not as well as the real thing, because YOU don't have all the knowledge of the opposing side. *The opposing side does.*
mental masturbation is being a faggot in the view of others
@Fitzydog again, thats not neccessarily true
Do you need me to give you an example in which this is not neccessarily true?
It's the difference between sparring, and an actual fight.
I didnt mean all knowledge. But basic talking points, and rebuttle questioning based off your own talking points.
So I am personally a moral-realist, my knowledge on moral-realism is extremely limited because I havent taken a course in philosophy on moral-realism. If someone who were a PHD student in philosophy were an anti-moral-realist, he would be able to make the point of moral-realism better than I would even though he doesnt truely believe it
So you are saying sparring isnt helpful to a boxer mma?
Sparring shows openings in your styles
is that relevant to my argument at all?
@Goblin_Slayer_Floki Sure, but the fight metaphor stops there, because MY goal, is just to be strongest with raw physical strength.
If you're winning 'debates' with word games, you're doing it wrong.
Other guy
Either you are right, or you are wrong. If you lose a debate, you are wrong.
Black and white fallacy
k
If it's a grey-area, "no one's right or wrong" topic, then it's not worth debating in the first place
I never said that
Its possible for valid arguments to be on both sides, the point is determining which arguments are and arent valid
Make more valid arguments then. idc
Wait so do you concede your original point?
idk? If you make better arguments via debating people holding a contradicting opinion in some weird, recreational manner, then go do that.
are you saying I'm holding a contradicting opinion, or that you are
Neither of us are. I'm saying that holding a contradicting view for the sake of argument, like some kind of boxing trainer holding of pads, is dumb.
Again, like I think I said maybe 4 times, when debating people have different goals as to what they want to achieve
if your goal is to improve your own argument, then playing devils advocate can be helpful towards that goal
I improve my argument by gathering more information.
Theres multiple ways to improve an argument, you know that right?
Someone can have all of the information they need to come to a correct conclusion and still be misguided