patrick.net

Patrick says

I learned this four-point method for argument somewhere, but always seem to fail to follow it:

1. State opponent's position so that he agrees with it 100%. This is to prevent either side from attacking a strawman and then declaring victory. Do not continue until opponent completely agrees with your summary of his position.

2. State points of agreement, especially anything learned from opponent.

3. Give own position.

4. Make it clear your own position is not a personal attack, but only an attack on the position clearly stated in 1.

One could still loose friends after following this plan. Humans are emotional

gabbar says

Patrick says

I learned this four-point method for argument somewhere, but always seem to fail to follow it:

1. State opponent's position so that he agrees with it 100%. This is to prevent either side from attacking a strawman and then declaring victory. Do not continue until opponent completely agrees with your summary of his position.

2. State points of agreement, especially anything learned from opponent.

3. Give own position.

4. Make it clear your own position is not a personal attack, but only an attack on the position clearly stated in 1.

One could still loose friends after following this plan. Humans are emotional

I like it - it's an excellent screening mechanism for friends. I've had knock-down drag out arguments with some friends, and they are still my friends today. I said "something" to other friends, and they are probably (I don't know, they don't reach out to me anymore) no longer friends.

Friends who value other friends will engage and challenge, so this is a useful method.

Right, the key is to keep it about the point and not about the person.

None of this will work if arguing with a female.
But it's probably fun to try anyway.

I'm in SoCal and many of my friends, neighbors and in-laws are Liberal, so I have some experience.

When debating with a new Liberal, I start off with:

"Can we at least first agree that we want mainly the same things like world peace, good economy, safe streets, clean environment, affordable healthcare..... We just believe in different paths on how to get there."

If they can't even accept that basic premise and go off on how evil they think Conservatives are, I know to move on and not waste my time.

The sad and frustrating thing is that most of my Democrat voting friends/family agree with me on over 75% of the issues, they are just hung up on the culture stuff believing all the media caricatures of Conservatives and absolutely despise Trump with every fiber of their being.

All liberals are essentially full of shit and believe you should be taxed to right society's "wrongs."

They don't believe in laws, personal property (e.g. your money) nor anything in the Constitution.

They generally have a mental problem, an addiction problem, a sexual identity problem, a problem with successful males, etc. etc.

There's no point in arguing with one although it might pass the time if you're bored.

I know deep down they resent me but fuck em.

That's way too much work and not at all satisfying. You should start all discussions with "Jane, you ignorant slut...." and it should go down hill from there.

clambo says

I know deep down they resent me but fuck em.

You're right.

Leftist politics is just resentment coming out in other ways.

Ceffer says

Jane, you ignorant slut...

The most brilliant rebuttal of all time.

It's a good way to prevent Motte and Bailey tactics, too.

The Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy is a rhetorical trick where someone argues a point, but when challenged, they retreat to a more defensible position and claim that's what they were arguing for all along. Here's an example:

Person A: "We should completely defund the police force. Policing is inherently oppressive and should be abolished."

Person B: "But without police, there would be chaos and crime would skyrocket."

Person A: "You're misunderstanding me. I'm just suggesting we need to rethink the way we approach law enforcement, maybe reallocate some funds to social programs."

My wife turns everything into an argument, no matter the technique ;)

"You felt an earthquake and didn't tell me about it?!"

clambo says

None of this will work if arguing with a female.
But it's probably fun to try anyway.

Exactly, it’s all about the feelz when hormones run the brain.

clambo says

All liberals are essentially full of shit and believe their feelings are more important than your feelings and your property and your rights.

Fixed it for you.

socal2 says

they are just hung up on the culture stuff believing all the media caricatures of Conservatives and absolutely despise Trump with every fiber of their being.

Which is hilarious! As if Trump is, was or ever will be a conservative!!!

PeopleUnited says

As if Trump is, was or ever will be a conservative!!!

Socially, no. Fiscally. yes. Close borders, no new wars, bring manufacturing back to the US, no vaxx mandates (but did goof on the vaxx itself).

clambo says

None of this will work if arguing with a female.
But it's probably fun to try anyway.

In my professional life I work mostly with men. I have known well only a few women in my personal life -- they seem to have neither the proclivity nor the ability to think logically.

I would be curious to know from those of you who have had more experience than I: do women in professional settings (lawyer, judge, doctor, engineer, manager, etc) display the same capacity for logic that one would expect from men? (I know that men don't necessary think or act logically either.)

PeopleUnited says

clambo says

None of this will work if arguing with a female.
But it's probably fun to try anyway.

Exactly, it’s all about the feelz when hormones run the brain.

Fixed it for you.

Proven with Counseling: Men, even if skeptical, try the "Conflict Resolution Techniques" when the argument gets heated. Women say "Paaah! Muh Feelings Emote Emote Emote!!!" even if they were enthusiastic with the counselor.

That's why Marriage Counselors put 100% on the man and cross the fingers.

ad says

Tenpoundbass says

I didn't agree that there has been 100 billion dollars worth of munitions consumed

I think it is how they account for the replacement value in dollars of the military equipment and munitions transfer to Ukraine

The replacement value in dollars then goes to buying new replacements from Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, etc.

.

The whole number is not even $100B, but only $43B. Out of that only about 2/3 is military assistance provided in form of equipment and munitions priced at replacement value, i.e. when an old Humvee you can buy at a surplus auction for $3K is sent out itʼs accounted for at a $300K replacement value of a new Oshkosh armored vehicle. So yeah, nobody spent $100B worth of ammunition, but nobody except TPB made this argument in the first place. And most of it will be spent here, creating US jobs and renewing US military equipment.

yawaraf says

do women in professional settings (lawyer, judge, doctor, engineer, manager, etc) display the same capacity for logic that one would expect from men?

I think women programmers are capable of using logic as well as men, but they simply do not enjoy it as much. This is why there are far fewer women programmers.

Reminder:



I'm saying this holds true on average, but is not an absolute categorization.

It's usually not a good tactic to begin a discussion with the words, 'the thing I hate most about you ...'

Also, I never enter into an argument with anyone that a) breathes exclusively through their mouth and b) insists upon calling me dude. But that's just me.