How much touche' in our repartee?
 

So a lot of us have been on this board a while. In spite of my awesome intellect and prodigious skill in articulating the gospel conservative truth to you infidels :) ... i've had to cede a few points in some of the hundreds of Tilted Politics posts i've contributed.

Sometimes I see people from all political persuasions gripping and scratching and biting to hold onto their point of view... when either the opposing viewpoint is more logically sound or it's apparent that both can be true simultaneously (by virtue of different starting premises).

So i wanna know... do you cede a point to your online opponent in a debate when you think you've lost? Let's be honest... no one among us is right everytime. I'm sure everyone has been mistaken or trusted a false source or relied on logically unsound arguments.

So what do you do when this happens? it's a secret ballot, let's be honest here!

I tend to do my best to keep an open mind and usually i'll cede my point if the other guy can prove me wrong (and that means prove, not yell/scream at).

And honestly, there isn't much to 'debate' if no one is willing to respect the other's opinion and consider one's own fallible - or else, its just a buncha stubborn people shouting over the internet.

I report you decide!

do i get the prize for most french words in a tilted politics thread title?

I am always, or usually, able to take my lumps.

Good thread, irateplatypus.

Nice title too.

Sacre bleu!
 

Oui, certainement!!

Vous nous étonnez tous, platypus gêné


:)


BTW, yes I do concede points. Ask OpieCunningham, Smooth, Ustwo and even yourself (in the last 10 days alone).

i learn things from the debates in here, actually.
enough so that i still take the time to play here.
which often i should not do....

even if i do not agree with the positions of almost any conservative, i find that working out how they think is interesting.
sometimes.

debating is like any chess game--if i make a mistake and get called on it, i'll find the mistake, think about it, and move on.

if someone brings data to bear on a question that i did not know about, i'll check it out and think on the matter for a while.

conceding defeat is not a problem.
without occaisional defeat, there is no learning.

I try to always admit when I've made a mistake. I'm sure there have been times that I haven't but never purposefully.

The trouble here in politics though is "proving" that someone is wrong. Anything brought to bear is typically run through a process that consists of one or all of the following:

Question the source
Point out spelling or grammar errors
Obfuscate the original discussion
Interject another "key piece of evidence" which typically has nothing to do with the discussion
Insult the person who pointed out your error
Claim "it's just my opinion" then facts don't matter

Oh well, perhaps I'm just in a pessimistic mood.

I am always right and there is no way to argue that ;).

I'm with the Phenomenon.

I agree with onetime2 that it is often difficult to prove/accept that something is wrong when we frequently are dealing with philisophical ideas and opinion. I hope that I do admit my errors, but I am sure I have stood on shaky ground a few times. I have very stong beliefs, but I try not to make discussions too personal. I realize and have said many times that for the most part, we all want the similar end results we just disagee on how to get there.

My personal belief is that forums like "Politics" naturally attract what I call "the angry few"; those people who are angry at life and who manifest their anger in political discussions.

Hence, few things get decided and few minds get changed during the miasma of intellectual and psuedo-intellectual exchanges.

Interesting to be sure. However, in politics there is rarely a "right" or a "wrong". There are simply many different viewpoints on, and versions of, the same subject. While I place a higher value to position "A" over position "B", you may very well place a higher value to position "B" over that of Position "A". Take the legalization of marijuana, for example. I am for it...based upon what I've learned through education, and life experience. (for the record...I neither smoke, nor inhale) You, on the other hand may be against it, based upon your own education and life experience. Someone else may not care one way or the other, because as long as prescription drug costs spiral out of the reach of many of our senior citizens...who gives a rat's ass about marijuana? That makes neither one of us right or wrong. Still...I tend to hold my ground, so long as my position is tenable.

I love life, the hours aren’t bad and the sex has been good. I'm more into politics because I see angry people, who I think are pretty clueless, trying to do things which if they were ever implemented would fuck things up far worse then any problem that currently exists, be it real or imagined. I used to not be very vocal but their seething hate lately I can't ignore. Its sort of like watching a car crash, its horrible but at the same time you can't look away.

I think this is false. Its like saying an opinion can not be right or wrong which is in itself false. If I think the US should have invaded Iraq, and someone else thinks we should have left them alone, we can't both be right. Either I am right, they are right, or we may both be wrong, but we can not both be right.

The problem is we are looking at a moment in time on something that requires a larger view. I can not say for SURE I am right or wrong so that leaves us room to banter.

I dont know where some of you are getting the "angry" thing from. Why must one be angry or hateful if their opinion differs from yours?

Man don't I know it :thumbsup:

I'm so off the deep end it scares me sometimes.

I'm quick to acknowledge when I'm wrong, and the first to declare myself 'owned.' Which has happened a time or two.

Fuck you all :D

-bear

You misunderstand me.

It isn't that opinions differ, it is how they are expressed.

You'll also note that I don't exclude myself, as I am as guilty of this as anyone (and hence my notable absence of late).

The only true way to grow in your understanding of a subject to listen to all sides, pick one, defend it, then reformulate on what the other side has provided. If you loose that flexabilty you are no longer debating, your just arguing.

I'm always willing to change my viewpoints when people can convince me that where I'm standing isn't the best view of the situation.

I'm humble in most things in life... at least i try to be.

I can admit defeat when i feel defeated.

interesting poll results... only one person so far has voted that they would not cede a point they have felt they've lost. hmm...

anyway, i agree with ustwo in that on a given issue there is almost always a "right" opinion and a "wrong" opinion. but, it's important to remember that right and wrong in a political sense often shifts relative to what the desired outcome is. what is called "right" is often used to describe what is most effective. what is most effective changes dynamically when end-goals aren't similar.

I'm certainly not angry at life and I post here a lot lately.

Indeed, I love life, but simply enjoy a good debate.

As they say in Ireland, there's two things you should never talk about in a pub and that's religion and politics. The only problem is that's all Irish people talk about in anycase!


Mr Mephisto

Only <i>one</i> vote for arguing until blue in the face?

This <i>is</i> the politics forum, right? :crazy:

There is no right and wrong opinion. That's why they're called opinions and not facts.

There are stronger opinions and there are weaker opinions - directly related to the facts which are present for either side of the discussion. But there is no "correct" or "incorrect" opinion.

I honestly don't believe that 11 of us are "willing to take our lumps". And I can only imagine who selected the "I'm trying to save people" option. What do you think, Ustwo?

"No, I argue till I'm blue-in-the-face in order to save some." is meant to read that you'll argue in order to save some face. not sure if that was clear or not.

also, we spend a lot of tedious time debating things other than opinions. it's not as if we're basing our opinions on a common set of data and working from there... oftentimes we'll disagree with what is actually true which furthur separates our opinions based on our sphere of what we believe to be true.

but, when comparing apples to apples (which rarely happens), there are certainly correct and incorrect opinions.

Right and wrong is often in the eye of the beholder which is why it makes it all the harder to actually decide what is the correct way and the wrong way or which side is correct or wrong...

It is a fact that there are no correct or incorrect opinions.

That's why I'm right and you are wrong in this discussion.

;)

I could hold the opinion that Saddam Hussein should be President of the U.S. because he has a history of peace and non-aggression. Such an opinion would be very weak - because he does not have a history of peace and non-aggression. But the opinion that Saddam should be President is not incorrect, wrong or false. It is an opinion - much like my favorite color is blue is an opinion.

And in a response that should make the Mad Hatter happy, it is our opinions which dictate what we believe to be true, thus solidifying our opinions even further.

To summarize: opinions dictate that which we accept to be true, which dictates what opinions we will hold on a given subject. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Sorry I never have agreed with that tenant of thought. Its an excuse for people unwilling to make a decision in today’s world of fuzzy values. Its the sort of thing that lets everyone feel good about themselves no matter how stupid they are. Some opinions are just flat out wrong, someone can have them, but that does not make them any more correct.

By your very response your are conceding the fact that opinions are not either correct or incorrect.

How can something be "more correct" if there is correct and there is incorrect? There is no mostly correct and somewhat incorrect just as there is no mostly fact and somewhat non-fact. If something is not completely a fact, it is a non-fact. Which is exactly why there are no correct or incorrect opinions - regardless of whether you believe it is factual to state that it is a means of letting everyone "feel good".

If you want to eliminate the binary nature of correct and incorrect and claim there is a middle ground - then your statement would be accurate. But in doing so, I would be able to "prove" that the color blue is the most correct color for everyone and anyone who disagreed would be mostly wrong. I would also be able to prove that I don't exist or the sun is taking a shower in my bathroom.

The problem with political debate in general is that people believe that many of their opinions are undeniable. Ustwo, you are the preeminent practitioner of that mode of thought around here. The only things which are facts are things that have already occured - nothing in the future is a fact, it is a degree of probability. It is highly probable that the sun will shine tomorrow. It is not a fact. It is to some degree probable that Iraq will fall into a civil war. There is another degree of probability that Iraq will become a shining beacon of democracy. It is patently false to claim either scenario is a fact or a "correct" opinion.

1 + 1 = 2. This is a fact. It is not an opinion. If you disagree that 1 + 1 = 2, you are not expressing an opinion, you are contradicting a fact. There is no more correct or somewhat incorrect aspect to 1 + 1 = 2.

Dogs are nice. This is an opinion. It is not a fact. If you disagree that dogs are nice you are expressing an opinion, not stating a fact. There is no more correct or somewhat incorrect aspect to Dogs are nice.

^^
*claps*
thanks for that, opie. You nailed it.

insightful.

it seems that ustwo meant "more correct" as in: it wouldn't take on more validity if someone were to hold those opinions. pretty sure he wasn't implying there was a sliding scale for factual truth. perhaps it was poor wording by ustwo. oh well.

it is obviously possible to have more than one position in a conversation/debate that is formally true/correct:

if a given position selects from within the pool of premises that are understood as legitimate (that is, legitimate within the general frame of reference) and does not violate rules for combination/derivation particular to a given debate, the argument can be true and/or correct.

and because there are multiple political positions, there are multiple possible arguments that can be formally true/correct.

once you reach the point of impasse, or talking by each other, the discussion can be shifted to the level of contesting premises--if more conservatives were able to do that, debate might be a hell of alot more interesting.

since claims to absolute truth seem the exclusive purview of the right these days--as a function of the pseudo-ground that circulates within their political world--you know, there is a god, god is a republican blah blah blah, they apparently not only feel that they do not need to defend their positions in terms other than their own (a way of concelaing the fact that they cannot do it, that more often than not when you get to this level, their positions vanish like steam, not even smoke...) but that somehow they are entitled to indulge sub-p.j. o rourke style sarcasm to replace the need to actual argument---the manly man way to not defend what is in most case the indefensible.

but i look at the notion that the representatives above of this position cannot even get straight the basic notions of validity in an argument is a pretty good index of why potentially interesting discussion often grinds to a halt.


btw i dont think that politics here is the purview of the angry. people get heated when they talk about this kind of question--maybe because they think it important to them, important enough to engage--so why be either surprised or annoyed by it? why even comment on it?
the only problem is that there seems to be distinct limits to how far you can go here in engaging across positions on a fundamental level--the fake distinction betwen politics and philosophy gets in the way--and that is probably why there is such cynicism about the debate changing anyone's mind. it is a self-fulfilling cycle.