@freemo New theory: you don't debate to win, you debate to make people improve their reasoning.
I did notice in the past that you stop replying when my reasoning gets detailed enough to be sound.
Re-engaging means it's not because winning was a priority.
So you just try to train some debating ability into people by tossing something controversial out there and go silent thumbs up if they manage to make some sense.
🇳🇱
@admitsWrongIfProven > New theory: you don't debate to win, you debate to make people improve their reasoning.
Yes that and to consider new facts, both, but neither are to result in winning per say... Winning in a debate is anytime someone adjusts their position in **either** direction
> I did notice in the past that you stop replying when my reasoning gets detailed enough to be sound.
More like once we have exhausted anything new to say. Sometimes you may be saying something i agree with and therefore has little left to say, other times i disagree whole heartily but anything I could say would just be a repeat of points earlier.
> Re-engaging means it's not because winning was a priority.
Yea winning should never be the priority, though when you feel strongly about something it may compel you to think the other person doesnt get your point, and that may look similar.
> So you just try to train some debating ability into people by tossing something controversial out there and go silent thumbs up if they manage to make some sense.
Not exclusively, but yes that a huge element. You will actually often see when I agree with a persons conclusion but disagree with their reasoning to get there I will still point that out. I have very little priority in forcing a conclusion and care more about our ability to think about things honestly and clearly. I dont mind people disagreeing with me as long as they arent doing so due to biases and mental gymnastics but rather solid reasoning that strives to be objectively valid within the persons own mental framework.
@freemo Yeah, a sound reasoning. And one that is notably different from many, so i think it is worth pointing out.
I'd guess my stance would be "Get a point across or learn something new, either is a win.". Pretty similar, but not exactly the same.
@admitsWrongIfProven I find the ideal is where people disagree on their axioms but agree on their logic to go from those axioms to their intended conclusion.
Axioms are always subjective on some level (as it is an observation) but the logical rules one applies to any set of axioms are objective and universal.
