User Tag List

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Emotional debates...

  1. #11


    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    Arguing for the sake of arguing is one of the best ways to make people hate you. Not that this is always a bad thing, but it is something that goes relatively unknown while we relish in our smugness and participate in rationalist circlejerks.
    That am the truth!

  2. #12
    Alchemist of life Array Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    5w6 sp/sx


    Quote Originally Posted by allegorystory View Post
    So you do it more to be helpful to the other person, rather than for antagonistic purposes? Or is it more in order to uphold the sanctity of objective fact?

    I'd like to say that I always play devil's advocate for the other person/for objective fact (because I genuinely think it's important for people to make sure their "convictions" don't get between them and reality, even if their convictions are based in reality), but sometimes I simply like to be antagonistic for the sheer glee I derive from it (which doesn't come from demeaning the other person, but from the excitement of a new perspective).
    I do it first and foremost to help me understand their argument better. I find it hard to follow an incoherent, poorly supported train of thought. Helping the other person understand their argument themselves is a second purpose. If I am playing devil's advocate rather than arguing for a position I actually accept, I am not so much trying to persuade the other person to agree as to uncover whatever fallacies exist in his/her reasoning. I often do this through the use of questions rather than statements, which also makes it easier to see if my own reasoning is faulty.

  3. #13
    A window to the soul


    Quote Originally Posted by allegorystory View Post
    So last night I was with my dad and we got into a debate about the nature of religion, it's importance in human history, it's impact on our society today, etc.

    Ok, so it would have simply been a discussion in which we both agreed on more or less the same things, except for the fact that early on my dad exhibited WAY too much attachment to his point of view and I simply couldn't let bygones be bygones.

    And it was like I couldn't control the devil's advocate poking her little horns out and ruining his tirade. He'd say all these things that weren't logical or pertinent at all to my counterattacks and the more I came back with a well-constructed argument, the more stuck to his original claims he became (like just repeating them over and over again made them more validated).

    Anyway, eventually when I felt like I'd "won" I told him that, actually, I believed that what he was saying in the first place was quite true and that I was just being a stinker. He just laughed and that was that.

    But it got me thinking about how I almost always have this desire to play devil's advocate if I see that the other person is using emotion and irrationality to defend their arguments. I don't always engage in this (I guess Fe kicks in and I bite my tongue), but the urge is always there.

    I want to know if other ENTPs (or NTs) have the same urges? Do you usually act on them or do you keep it to yourself unless you feel like the other person will be a good sport?
    I don't relate to that. I'm cool and open to the facts.

  4. #14
    No Array Thalassa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    6w7 sx
    SEE Fi


    Believe it or not I think it's tertiary Fe that prompts you to bait people, not just what stops you sometimes to be polite. It's the nasty side of Fe that is frequently exhibited in young (often male) ENTPs. Especially since you fundamentally agreed with your dad - who I think probably is an Fi type from what you've said here - but you kept arguing with him just to be a troll.
    "Sentiment without action is the ruin of the soul." - Edward Abbey

    SEE-Fi /Gamma

  5. #15


    Is it just me, or is this thread title an oxymoron?

  6. #16
    Senior Member Array Beargryllz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010


    A debate has a loser, one that failed to use logic to win, hence the corruption of emotion, the seething anger, the frantic fallback points, the pleas of aid to other individuals.

    No, it isn't an oxymoron at all. A true master of debate will have mastered emotions.

  7. #17


    I usually play devil's advocate in order to see how much one knows/cares about the topic of discussion. It seems to be the quickest way to find and form boundaries.

  8. #18


    Quote Originally Posted by Beargryllz View Post
    A debate has a loser, one that failed to use logic to win, hence the corruption of emotion, the seething anger, the frantic fallback points, the pleas of aid to other individuals.

    No, it isn't an oxymoron at all. A true master of debate will have mastered emotions.
    Right. When you wield the stick of emotion in a debate, you can easily get thrashed down by the claymore of logic. But the thing about that stick is, even when you are given the opportunity to use a bigger weapon (ie. fact, logic, reasoning), many people would rather hold on to their stick and lose with it by their side.

    My personal values and feelings about things have little to do with what is truth. Sure, I may form them around what appears to be true in a given observation, but I certainly can't look to them and say "I feel it is true, it must be true."

    I'm not saying personal values are BAD, but they can seriously cloud your judgment of objective fact if you let them.

  9. #19
    Mr. Blue Array entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    3w2 so


    I never play devil's advocate on concious purpose. For example in that other thread where they all collectively blamed a man for his age being to old to probably drive a car (which he has proven): I nevertheless thought well he's old but that doesnt mean he shouldnt be treated with respect. On the contrary people in the thread treat him kinda disrespectful cause they refering to his inability to drive. I nevertheless found their behaviours not really good.

    That's how it goes all day for me, I usually have something to criticize or to speak about. I called this a sense of justice when I was young, nowadays I understand it as a sense to see the big picture and not to forget about other facts when one fact is kinda strong at any given moment.

    Still sometimes in discussions when I have no idea what I could criticize, I make something up just to provoke an arguement. I have gotten better at recognizing this within me with age and my personal need that everyone needs to know what I think about a thing has grown less intense.

    But yeah with some people discussing can be ultimatively boring. I miss the old philosophy discussions I had with my intp friend back then when we were 16. Substitute philosophy with starwars and you know what I mean
    Johari / Nohari

    "How dreadful!" cried Lord Henry. "I can stand brute force, but brute reason is quite unbearable. There is something unfair about its use. It is hitting below the intellect."
    ~ Oscar Wilde - The picture of Dorian Gray

  10. #20
    half mystic, half skeksis Array jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009


    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Sounds like an ENTP thing to me... I see it all the time.

    INTP does the devil's advocate thing too, but I think we do it less capriciously and more because we really are interested in the argument.

    Put another way, ENTP prioritizes the exploration of possibilities (so devil's advocate can just be something to try, to see what happens, and max variety); INTP prioritizes the construction of an actual rational model, so even when we play devil's advocate, it's usually to weed out bad ideas and reveal to everyone which ideas are worth keeping. Both NTP types can take a varied approach on the matter... from choosing to be very hard-line in the challenge to being more coy and exploratory; it's based on contextual needs and the person being challenged.
    I semi-agree - I also like to construct and weed out. But I would say that the main reason why INTPs don't get into those types of debates is because they tend to trip over their own tongue. But in print I've seen more INTP trolls than any other type - simply because they have time to form their arguments.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] Emotional Challenges
    By proteanmix in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 01-07-2016, 04:21 PM
  2. Debating styles
    By labyrinthine in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: 08-11-2007, 08:10 PM
  3. Envy: one of the darkest emotions?
    By Maverick in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-24-2007, 02:49 PM
  4. Ron Paul Wins Another Presidential Debate
    By FranG in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 05-18-2007, 12:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts