Games

[Weliddryn]

A disagreement between two individuals sparks a debate. The debate degenerates into an argument where the two individuals resort to name calling or to subtly insulting the person whom they are arguing against.
This is because they feel threatened by the person with whom they are arguing, they have run out of counter arguments and, so, they latch onto anything they possibly can that will deter the other person or persons around them, from realizing that they have run out of things to argue. They have been defeated, for the time being.
If the person is successful in manipulating their adversary into the degradation of an immature argument, they have, in a sense, won, in that they did not loose the debate which they were formerly participating in.
So, tell me your thoughts on this. How can one prevent oneself from getting into this situation? Why does this happen? Anything you can think of, please share.

 

[Auburn]

Very well said, btw. I agree.

I usually always stop before this happens. In fact, I even stop if I sense it coming. I can be going on about something, and be completely correct about it too, but if I sense the other person is becoming offended, irritated, losing interest or becoming impatient, I just retreat. I might even give up my point of view at that moment, and it could seem like I've actually lost. But I'm ok with this because it is not necessary for me to prove it to such people for me to know that it's true.

The above is how I handle situations with the average person. However, with a fellow intellectual, it is totally different! The arguments of average people seldom hold enough merit for me to accept them above my own. This is not to say that I'm arrogant, or that I'm close-minded, it's just that I know I can't really battle it out to the end with them, so I kinda have to just call it quits and stick to my views.

However, with a fellow intellectual, I enjoy sustaining my pov strongly and am usually itching for them to counter it and enlighten me. It's a fun game to play with two people who are always willing to give up when they know their view has been proven less logical than the other. But it's not a fun game, and one that I avoid playing, with those who possess not this ability.

 

[Ermine]

When I'm arguing/debating, I'm very careful to stay impersonal. Like Auburn said, in the case of an intellectual debate, I want them to contradict me. In that situation, it's a mental game of tennis, not a battle.

 

[cheese]

^Yes, exactly.

This as well:
However, with a fellow intelectual, I enjoy sustaining my pov strongly and am usually itching for them to counter it and enlighten me. It's a fun game to play with two people who are always willing to give up when they know their view has been proven less logical than the other. But it's not a fun game, and one that I avoid playing, with those who possess not this ability. - Auburn

Weli, I think you laid the situation out quite well.
The reason people do this is because they are too personally invested in their ideas. Being proven wrong is therefore injurious to their sense of self. This is quite typical F behaviour - injecting themselves into every equation/situation. Also, they associate accuracy with intelligence and hence superiority. Therefore when their ideas are challenged and weakened they feel both personally offended and fear of exposing inferiority. It is unsurprising that when pushed into a corner they resort to name-calling in order to appear to win the argument, as you said, and attempt to re-establish balance or superiority.

Subconsciously they also think they are attacking one of the most important premises of their opponent's argument - their competence. If a personal attack is successful it "proves" the opposing argument's weakness, given its provenance.

I used to be very surprised when I attempted to engage in debate with others. Almost all saw it as personally insulting when I challenged their ideas. Adding to the problem is the prevailing intellectual spirit of our time - adherence to relativism/subjectivism, which leads to erroneous assumptions of automatic validity of all opinions and a strong opposition to facts, even a denial of their existence. This destroys the purpose and possibility of objective argument, and naturally leads to offence when attempted, since it is now a 'given' that nobody is wrong. (This 'given' isn't even applied in all areas of these people's lives anyway, including in itself; it's silly.)

Now I'm more aware of potential problems in debate. To avoid them I
a) ensure beforehand my partners are not militant relativists,
b) provide many disclaimers before and during argument that I am not attacking them, and am simply interested in the idea
c) respond to any personal attacks with humour, if at all
d) acknowledge every point of theirs I agree with.

The last is quite useful. It actively shows the other person your lack of hostility and willingness to truly consider what they think. With this it becomes clearer that your purpose is intellectual stimulation and collaborative establishment of truth, rather than personal glory at the expense of others.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

I smile patiently and watch their cogs tick.
When they go red, they're ripe for the picking.

Of course when talking with mature people this doesn’t happen.
Hence I have great difficulty getting along with people my own age.

 

[Mars]

it is tempting to do that, unfortunately I end up falling to that device too often for my liking.

however, a fellow debater who fails to admit defeat and turns to their shield of the combatant is in my books free range for dissection. one of their pet peeves is repeating statements/arguments that they had made previously in the interaction presented logically in opposition to their new stance. rattles their cage thoroughly, often earns me unsavoury titles though.

it's a fault on my part. Because I believe as the saying goes, you only get smarter by playing a smarter opponent. Now my internal debate is still raging whether that refers to the other party being the smarter player or trying to be the smarter opponent myself, probably both really. Since I do consider a debate a failure when it digresses to an argument or does not disperse with a convivial atmosphere. But they are oh so fun sometimes, especially when with a fellow wielder of wit then the debate turns into a very entertaining endeavour in exchanging insults.

 

[Weliddryn]

Perhaps it is more to do with the way that one expresses their views. When a person becomes emotional in their arguments it can easily put others on edge- it is a good tactic to use (using emotion as a means of intimidation) for many people, because it adds an intensity to the debate that did not exist before. It can be used as a shock tactic. Of course, to get emotional in the first place, shows, perhaps, some insecurity.
When a person begins to resort to name calling and personally attacking their fellow debator it is because they fear this person. They perceive the person as a threat. They are concerned for their ego, their ego is developed, perhaps, through insecurity. A truly secure person would not care for the personal attacks to themselves, their ego is secure, they do not depend on another person to stay secure.
So, insecurity leads to a fragile ego that is defended fiercely. People pick out those who may present largest threat to themselves, to their ego, and become hostile and defensive towards them. This can be determined through a debate, where a person's intelligence is "put to the test" and their ego is, perhaps challenged. They try to visualize themselves to be very competent in what they do, and when that is challenged, they get defensive.
And, "The greatest defense is a good offense."

 

[cheese]

^Yes, the ego. Insecure people are overly dependent on external validation. When weakness in any area is exposed they defend their ego with offensive tactics.

 

[Mel]

This reminds me of an argument I had with someone. It was about something silly, but I can't remember what exactly. The person refused to counter with proper statements, instead calling me stupid, and therefore wrong. I got angry, so I smiled at him and said loudly "You're right. I'm wrong because I'm stupid. Congratulations. You win. Hope you're happy"


Apparently, for some people being right doesn't mean being factually correct.