In light of different "discussions" on a couple of forums i'm on, I think its time I asked people something. Is arguing your opinion to someone with a contrary view effectively beating your head into the wall? The reason I say this is because when you think about it. People don't really enter an argument with an open mind, they have already made their mind up on the subject and are more or less trying to get the other person or side to realise their point of view, which could be seen as pointless because the opposition has the exact same idea. Is arguing a point, pointless? What say you guys? Oh, by the way, i'm aware of the irony of asking a question that can be argued easily, so don't bother mentioning it. P.S. I gave a 3rd poll option for people who can't give a one sided answer (it happens, lol).
Nearly my entire worldview was flipped upside down within the past couple years, thanks largely (almost entirely) to intelligent debates. I was not the one bringing intelligence to the debate, in fact I was the one getting my logical **** whooped by more intelligent and rational people to me. I was open-minded enough to change every view I had that wouldn't hold up in a rational debate. I could hardly call those debates that shaped my life in the utmost and changed forever the way I look at and think about nearly everything, pointless. Some people are too close-minded for even the most rational arguments to penetrate. But most are affected on some deep (often VERY deep) level, and every debate they enter, and lose (whether they admit it or not) increases the chance that they may reconsider their views and adopt more rational ones. That's hardly pointless.
It totaly depends on the subject, person you talking to, way of debating/discussing, whether both sides are truly interested. The more keen one is to learn new things, the better a discussion will flow. Because the learner always stays open, does not mean that he/she just accepts whatever, but does keep possibilities in mind. Those who already have their opinions formed, and seek no more stuff to learn, they often do not take other possibilities in account. Or people are to afraid to discuss certain objects because the truth that comes out is acknowledged without them wanting to acknowledge it. Sometimes people want to stay lazy/safe. And philosophy is very much about entering there where it is not safe (So to speak). I am not saying this in relation to some people on this forum, i´m more saying this in relation with discussions i encountered with friends. My world has not changed _that much_ thanks to discussions, it was always something that just popped up by itself because i wanted to figure it out. Reading many books, experimenting with certain possibilities. There are many ways to evolve your own view on life, discussions is one of them.
Thats my point. And while I have had some construcive debates, more or less discussions. Unfortunately, nearly all the ones i've seen (everywhere, not just on here) might start out intelligent, but not long after, two people come to loggerheads and then tit for tat debate starts where they just sling mud at the other persons views, rather than constructively debate the issue/subject. That was all I mean. Yes, I agree with you guys. There are some constructive debates, that manage to stay constructive, and I agree that it will depend on the subject. But its just that most (if not, nearly all) debates and discussion I see just seem to quickly deteriorate.
A lot of the time it is pointless, because the other person isn't even really listening to what you are saying. They just pick out snippets and quote you out of context to try to 'win' the argument. But not always. Sometimes people's opinions are changed by a discussion. I know mine have been changed to some degree by certain arguments I have had on MAP.
like BT used to say ' it's good to talk' perhaps even better to talk to friends. interestingly the word philos in the modern Greek spoken language translates reliably to friend. philosophy; a reliable friend. Now, doesn't that have a nice ring to it. BT would be proud (British Telecom, for our Transatlantic friends). Thay make it all possible, after all. Hoorah! 3 rings for BT; the philosophers friend.
Great. Now i'm not sure if I was fed a quiet moment of reflection or an ad for British Telecom appealing to the philosophy niche.
Most of the time yes, but like Choices said: "It totaly depends on the subject, person you talking to, way of debating/discussing, whether both sides are truly interested. The more keen one is to learn new things, the better a discussion will flow." I've had some great discussions with Johnno about gun control. We both made the effort to understand each other's point of view, and we both came away better for it. I've had some great discussions with Strafio about discrete theological issues, for the same reason: we made the effort to understand each other's point of view. Same thing with CKava recently, on the definition of "evangelical." Sadly, this is true most of the time.
That's one of the ones I was referring to. I may not have come away from it 'converted', but I no longer saw the argument as being as cut and tried as I had before. It made it easier for me to see that what applies in the UK wouldn't necessarily work everywhere, and that there are many factors to take into account. The fact that we could debate the subject passionately and forcefully for ages without any loss of civility or respect, even though we ultimately 'agreed to disagree', is something I found very positive, and now I'm always hopeful that I will get involved in plenty more debates of that nature.
It's pointless if you're not prepared to be open minded enough to allow the others in the discussion to change your mind.
Very true. Also, if you harbour any desire whatsoever to change someone else mind then the thing NOT to do is to attack them in any way. Try and at least find some common ground. Of course sometimes its fun just to unload the contents of your flamethrower!
Why should I bother to reply to this? You've probably made up your mind by now anyway, so I probably can't change it by arguing with you... :bang:
No, it's far from pointless. If you're ever in a bad mood, I recommend you start an argument with somebody else who is in a bad mood. You'll both feel better for it.
Cool. You guys are starting to change my mind on the subject, cos I wanted to hear/read other peoples opinions... Except yours Nomadwanders, lol.
If the people are openminded it can be most productive. Simple problems are often solved this way. Dude A argues how he wants things to be done, pros cons etc. Dude B has a different plan. New ideas and compromises come out and everybody wins. Here on a forum, arguments are usually over big stuff, faith and all that. When you challenge the core of someones outlook on life, unless they're really open, will never change based on reading something from a forum. Intelligent design, God all that stuff, never going to change. You have to really think and in the end they will probably think they changed themselves. So I voted other and now it's all tied.
IMHO arguing is not pointless as long as one can back up his point of view with solid arguments and facts. At least for me it's a fun attraction. That being said, I think we might as well close this discussion
well i have a slightly differnt kind of view then most people who have already answered. short answer No arguing is not pointless. Ok, if you know how to argue then arguing is a very rewarding thing as other people have said. It opens peoples minds and exposes them to new ideas and experiences. however a poorly formed argument is pointless because it proves nothign. Im very into logic so this is where i get most of my ideas about arguing from. an argument is a set of premises followed by a conclusion (hopefully logically valid otherwise whats the point). if someone does this and presents it to you then it can be very rewarding and if you have the ability to do this back to prove your point then its even more fun because you have two logically valid arguments which oppose each other. then you have to present an argument attempting to prove that youre premises are correct or their premises are incorrect. however if at any time your argument is not logically valid then yoru argument automatically fails and its pointless trying to argue for it (same goes if their argument is logically invalid just point that out and youve already won. you have a valid argument and they do not). anyway using logically valid arguments to prove or disprove an idea is great fun and extreemly rewarding. not at all pointless. it becomes pointless when both peoples arguments are invalid then its banging your head against a wall. because youre both stupid.
