When do you "win" an argument? What do you expect to get out of an argument?

[johnnyyukon]

Internet Arguments (surprisingly long gif, for a gif, watch from beginning)

 

[Pinker85]

I like winning arguments, I think I do, anyway ... But it is as someone said "bittersweet" because I feel more lonely in a lot of ways when I win an argument. I think sometimes I'm engaged in a binary sorta win and lose argument a lot of the time in my head with my reactions to the world. Is this person sane? Is this person profound? Asking myself these kinds of questions. Because to think these thoughts is to believe oneself is right ... What I think must be the pinnacle of rightness and wrongness to make that judgement. But to think like this is distancing.

 

[Firebird 8118]

The only time I call it a "win" is when the argument is sorted out fairly (that is, without any bias on either side) and all parties involved make up afterward.

 

[Coriolis]

How would you define winning an argument, or do you even define it at all? Do you expect to win an argument? Do you hope, or seek to? When you decide to engage in an argument, what motivates you to do so, and what makes you decide to end one? What do you expect to have gained when it's over?

I think less in terms of winning an argument than in succeeding with it. Success means really getting to the bottom of the issue being discussed, to the point where it is clear which point of view is the correct one, or more correct; or perhaps even how both are flawed. This is often done by pushing against the other person's case while building up my own to the point that, through our combined efforts, one or both "break".

Few people are willing or able to see an argument through with me in this manner. One who did was a former colleague. We used to argue like this over how to conduct experiments. He was very meticulous and "by the book", while I could see how to simplify things and cut to the chase, without losing accuracy or information. Often his approach would "break" first, but even when both sides survived intact, we ended up with as complete an understanding of the pros and cons of each approach as we were likely to get, and could proceed along either path knowing what to expect and what to look out for.

 

[chubber]

I think less in terms of winning an argument than in succeeding with it. Success means really getting to the bottom of the issue being discussed, to the point where it is clear which point of view is the correct one, or more correct; or perhaps even how both are flawed. This is often done by pushing against the other person's case while building up my own to the point that, through our combined efforts, one or both "break".

Few people are willing or able to see an argument through with me in this manner. One who did was a former colleague. We used to argue like this over how to conduct experiments. He was very meticulous and "by the book", while I could see how to simplify things and cut to the chase, without losing accuracy or information. Often his approach would "break" first, but even when both sides survived intact, we ended up with as complete an understanding of the pros and cons of each approach as we were likely to get, and could proceed along either path knowing what to expect and what to look out for.

I've been told that I break the other person and then I win, however it feels bittersweet instead of both learning from it. I want to get to the bottom of the issue, delving deeper which requires revealing more facts. These facts are then seen by a F type as a negative and they remember the negativity only. Making it so hard to get anywhere.

 

[Coriolis]

I've been told that I break the other person and then I win, however it feels bittersweet instead of both learning from it. I want to get to the bottom of the issue, delving deeper which requires revealing more facts. These facts are then seen by a F type as a negative and they remember the negativity only. Making it so hard to get anywhere.

I find it very frustrating when someone concedes defeat or just plain quits when much of the discussion remains unresolved. I will sometimes even point out that they haven't "lost" the argument yet, because we still have too many unaddressed statements.

 

[Chthonic]

Meh. I can't be bothered arguing. To argue is to realise that the other person does not share my point of view and no amount of posturing on either side will change that. When you argue with someone you just entrench them deeper into their position by forcing them to defend it. Entrenchment isn't conducive to changing someone's mind. And then there is the whole question of why you would even care what another thinks or want to change their mind about something. That in itself assumes I would give a fuck, which I usually don't.


I've come to realise there is no magical wonder in learning what another thinks, unless I am wanting to learn from them, in which case I would hardly be arguing, I would instead be listening.

 

[Mole]

Meh. I can't be bothered arguing. To argue is to realise that the other person does not share my point of view and no amount of posturing on either side will change that. When you argue with someone you just entrench them deeper into their position by forcing them to defend it. Entrenchment isn't conducive to changing someone's mind. And then there is the whole question of why you would even care what another thinks or want to change their mind about something. That in itself assumes I would give a fuck, which I usually don't.


I've come to realise there is no magical wonder in learning what another thinks, unless I am wanting to learn from them, in which case I would hardly be arguing, I would instead be listening.

Yes, to argue or to listen - listening is the greater.

 

[Bush]

As much as I love to debate JUST for the sake and fun of debating, I've found that FEW people can actually do it while remaining calm, logical and respectful.

Pity

Yeah, this. Why is it so hard to talk about ideas rather than the people involved?

Every debate involving entrenched positions inevitably leads to bullshit name-calling and generalizations. Hardly anything is learned, and the perception that the other person is an idiot baby gets drilled into each other's skulls. This, of course, happens despite self-typing as T- or F-ego.

I don't understand the appeal. Internet adrenaline?

I don't like arguing with people I care about at all. It feels icky being mad at them. Strangers? totally different story.

The opposite's true for me. I feel that I can 'argue' with people I care about because there's a level of trust established that we don't mean anything personal by 'attacking' the ideas. I know less about where a stranger comes from; and so I'm more inclined to be observant if I want to hear out their ideas.

edit: oh, different definitions of 'argue.'

 

[FemMecha]

I think I see arguments as people not understanding each other, so winning an argument has to do with people understanding another perspective besides their own. I don't know that I want to change anyone's mind, but to get a response like, "I see what you are saying," or "it now makes sense why a person would say or do that". The more hostile and judgmental an argument gets, the further away it is from comprehending what the other person is saying. It can also be a matter of finding common ground. Some people in my family hold different political and religious positions from me, but I feel an "argument is won" if I can get us to agree on underlying principles and to understand why each person would see it from their perspective.

In worst case scenarios I feel I've won an argument if the person quits being judgmental of me. If they stop assuming terrible things about me. I've had someone tell me I was "cruel" or "violent", even though that was clearly an exaggeration. I would have felt the argument was won if they had said that those words were not the best choice, but instead they insisted that some obscure part of the definition fit some part of me (that strong internal feeling= violence). Or if a family member is upset about my life and I manage to calm them down, then I have won the argument.

When discussing ideas I can't think in terms of argument because who owns an idea anyway? Some of us are lucky to encounter the right ideas, some of us are lucky to be smart, but ideas are like the ocean. We can all enter it and play, but who owns the water? It gets extremely distracting for me to mix ego competition into ideas because it has nothing to do with validity, learning, understanding, or anything.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The components of dialogue are: thesis + antithesis = synthesis. Arguments are worthwhile (feel like "winning") to me when they successfully yield some synthesis. Or as Jung put it, "The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical substances; if there is any reaction, both are transformed." But where one or both people have some preconceived notion of what ‘synthesis’ the other person should walk away with- where one person expects to 'transform' the other without being affected themselves- that’s not especially satisfying to me (even when I’m the one who falls into the trap of being antidialogical- it invariably feels bad afterwards).

eta: Although really- I guess I don't think both ends need to be 'transformed' for some idea/concept to be a 'winning argument', I just need to feel like some transformation has taken place. Because I can read something I'll consider a 'winning argument'- and it will still be a 'winning argument' to me, even though the writer hasn't been 'transformed' by the fact that I've read it. I guess I need for there to be an authentic transformation of POV (be it mine or someone else's) to take place to consider something a 'winning argument'- coercing someone else to agree or adopt a foreign POV through aggressive tactics is what I'd consider inauthentic transformation, and that's not 'winning' imo.

 

[kyuuei]

The opposite's true for me. I feel that I can 'argue' with people I care about because there's a level of trust established that we don't mean anything personal by 'attacking' the ideas. I know less about where a stranger comes from; and so I'm more inclined to be observant if I want to hear out their ideas.

edit: oh, different definitions of 'argue.'

Yeah, the reality is that most people I DO care about do take that shit really personal and get all uppity and shit crumbles. Not everyone in my life is that way.. there are a handful of people I hang out with that won't take it personal (I mean, we'll argue, and then we're over it after that) but for the most part, yeah, even though I care a lot about my mom to give an example... if I were to argue with her, she'd take it so personal that I might as well have slapped and physically attacked her. That's how emotional she is about it. I have to keep my cool and make sure I talk to her in a cool, positive tone, no matter what I'm feeling and want to say as bluntly as I care.

 

[Tellenbach]

The desire to win an argument is a mortal frailty that I've shed long ago. People argue because they are insecure or they want to show-off.

 

[johnnyyukon]

The desire to win an argument is a mortal frailty that I've shed long ago. People argue because they are insecure or they want to show-off.

While I don't care if I "win" the argument and agree the desire or need to do so is an insecurity, I see it as a sport called "enlightening the ignorant."

 

[Tellenbach]

I see it as a sport called "enlightening the ignorant."

For me, it's more an act of mercy and generosity, a shining of the beacon to lead lost souls out of the forest of ignorance

 

[PocketFullOf]

I don't like to argue I like to discuss.

 

[Coriolis]

While I don't care if I "win" the argument and agree the desire or need to do so is an insecurity, I see it as a sport called "enlightening the ignorant."

Good one! Unfortunately, many of the ignorant resist enlightenment like the plague, which usually takes all the fun out of it.

 

[1487610420]

never.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Good one! Unfortunately, many of the ignorant resist enlightenment like the plague, which usually takes all the fun out of it.

Once resistance starts, that's when the mocking begins

 

[1487610420]

Only foolish people waste time arguing to win.