Start speaking a new language in 3 weeks with Babbel 🎉. Take this quiz for up to 60% off your subscription ➡. Here: bit.ly/unsolicitedadviceaug LINKS AND CORRECTIONS Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7
One of the reasons why dialogue seems to be collapsing in modern society is because we absolutely refuse to make our points without degrading and mocking the opposition.
Probably the most profound observation I've seen in a while. I think this is the result of readily available and robust echochambers: whatever foolish position one may hold, there is always an ample supply of fools who will vehemently validate said position, granting one the unshakeable backbone one needs to arrogantly mock those who would even dare question them.
@@jabloko992 well and good until you're faced with a proud "kill Hamas', 'women are too emotional to think' and openly pro eugenics type that look you in the eye and say you should be killed sterilized or sequestered then say _you're_ the bigot for calling them one. Absolutely moronic "if you smelt it first you dealt it" type logic right there.
Said like a true cynic. Absolutely astounding level of ignorance and imagination projected onto the reality of the social ecosystem that the more righteous of us choose to uphold.
It's sad, but that seems to make up just about all of the RU-vid comment section debates I've ever entered. I'm not sure if i can count more than five times I've actually convinced anyone of anything on here. Of course, I've rarely gotten in a debate where I've learned much either, so maybe I'm the invincible idiot lol. Or maybe I'm just the invincible smarty pants.... How can i know lol?
"How to win any argument" Step one Talk to person Step two Realize that said person doesn't want to have a discussion but wants to have an argument Step three Get up and take a hike because frankly speaking there's no winning an argument and the only winning move is not to play.
Unless it's the kind of person in your life who is a joy to argue with. That is a type-thing I suppose. I for one enjoy arguments I have with certain people in my life, however those arguments are consentual and built on the trust that hurt feelings are more important than arguing your point. Maybe you would call them debates? I wouldn't necessarily. Anyway, my only point is that argueing can be fun if you are the type to enjoy it and if you do it with the right person.
Those lost in the dark will never find their way without someone else lighting their path. It's easy to give up on people who start from a position of arrogance, but not every one is unreachable and not every one is just arguing to display superiority rather than to achieve truth. Plus, how do you know that you are not the arrogant one dismissing their arguments as insincere just because they argue in a particular way?
Not all arguments are bad. This is how you win against anyone who doesn't care for real discussion. If you need to argue something and it's framed in terms of winning and losing that's probably not a good sign. But I needed to hear this tbh.
00:02 Debate can be constructive or deceitful. 02:18 Rhetoric is a valuable skill despite its association with underhanded debate tactics. 06:14 Aristotle emphasizes the importance of having a defensible position in rhetoric. 08:10 Deductive vs Inductive Reasoning 11:57 Debating with epistemic humility and understanding emotional components for persuasive arguments. 14:00 Emotions like anger and fear can be manipulated for persuasive purposes 17:47 Use empathy and emotional intelligence in debates 19:31 Understand your audience's beliefs and biases for effective debate strategies. 22:52 Use poetic language and vivid metaphors to enhance argument presentation 24:33 Consider scope for effective arguments
HE is very attractive but finding a mate on the same intellectual level must be difficult when so many people consider Taylor Swift to be their primary philosopher.
@@willchristie2650 That’s what I was thinking. People Ike this are virtually doomed with mate selection. If they are male it’s difficult but they’ll date down, and if they are female (very rare) she pretty much can say goodbye to any chance of finding her right match.
@@willchristie2650 In general you may be right, but I'd imagine he has a lot of friends with similar intellectual capabilities. You wouldn't look for a butterfly on the moon, just like how you wouldn't look for a genius in a RU-vid comment section. You'd look for a partner in your inner circle of philosophers and in environments of high education if that's your goal
the thing i hate about rhetoric is that the politicians (american) that i see using it are so bad at it that it is clearly disingenuous. idk if it is the same way in other western countries but that is definitely the way it is in america.
I recently reintroduced the principle of Newtons flaming laser sword into my thought process before entering into discussions. I found that I was spending a lot of time simply trying out articulate what was, in essence, mere speculation to win an argument by submission. This video came at a great time, helping me realise there is more to the idea of debating than simply the two camps of provable facts or pointless rethotoric. I really enjoy your content. I am not in the realm of your intelligence, but I am working to improve on that. Your videos are very informative and well delivered. Thank you!
Hey, Joe! I was wondering if you could recommend me some classic literature/philosophy ? (BTW YOUR UPLOADS ARE REALLY ADDICTIVE, AND I MEAN THAT IN THE NICEST WAY POSSIBLE)
It's interesting the timing of this video, because awhile ago I bought Poetics and Rhetoric by Aristotle, and just finished it today, and this video from you only recently came out. I'm usually pretty good at keeping up to date with your videos, but this one passed me by and only reached me today, and it offered a convenient summary to his work
This is like a checklist you should go through every time you prepare a speech. Amazing video. I know a lot about philosophy, reason and argument but I found a lot of value in this video. Either clarifying ideas I'd already encountered or introducing new ideas and even some ethical confrontations, like whether using rhetoric to reach otherwise unreachable crowds is justified for a moral goal. It feels a bit like the ends justify the means though... So I'll have to think about that some more before I decide what I think about it.
I recently discovered the channel. So,d and subscribed. Not only am I enjoying all these superb syntheses presented with the most endearing aplomb, but I finally found the archetype to point my 16 year daughter to in terms of the kind of boy she’s supposed to date. Now she knows, no more guessing. Lol
Exactly, and the media. Stoking a sense of injustice (usually against immigrants), a sense of fear (usually against immigrants), and encouraging hostility (usually against immigrants), is basically their whole gameplan.
so this is the reason why everyone ignore me - I use arguments but I can't "sell" them... I should have invested more skill points in charisma... sadly I spend all in luck, perception and endurance ;P
I just recently found your channel, so I don't know if you're open to this, but I've always found the argument and philosophy of the character Joel in The Last of Us to be fascinating. Would you consider a dive into analyzing characters in current media?
To be able to establish, with an audience in mind, that we have both our heart and mind in the right place is certainly an admirable endeavor. I wonder what kind of discussion this might become if it engaged with the idea that the occasions with which to establish novel and/or noteworthy arguments as viable for discussion often come, as is the nature of life, at an ever-quickening pace and with increasing magnitude. That is to say: if time tends to become more limited and problems tend to become more dire, at what point is it time to stop worrying about argument preparation, and to start worrying about concretely affecting change in the minds of our peers?
You should do a video on the topic of heaven AKA eternal happiness, or religious salvation. I bet you could lend brilliant insight into the subject, that is very complex and means so much to people (myself included). I desperately want it to be real, but can’t shake the feeling that it’s just not that simple.
It is so fun to use logical fallacies and manipulative persuasion during debates! I know it is macabre but winning a debate takes more than just being knowledgeable…..One must be aware about how to use the knowledge in an effective manner.( Even if it is sort of diabolical) BTW, I love your videos! My favourite part of the video was “Learn about rhetoric “.( I loved the cake example, it made the principles of the concept very clear!)
I wish this would be required for teenagers to understand in order to graduate. Imagine how so many things from online exchanges, to news, to politics, and civil life in general would differ if this was in the core curriculum or, moreover, seen as the powerful and sexy way that it is to approach life's big questions and events.
I’d like to hear you deconstruct Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance in light of this video. A lot was lost with the demonization of sophistry.
1:32 you are soo good! But a tip, don't do this Francaaaaaaaaaaiis thing, french is rlly fast forward like "Francais" no -aaaais in the end. Not being rude or anything (and I'm writing this on pc so it doesn't hace the special letter "c" in "francais". Good luck with learning french! (Edit: not only for the word "francais" but with other words you have used in this video, but I will say there are some words that are like that, but not a lot)
I recommend being an asshole when arguing with someone. While you probably won’t successfully persuade that person to change their mind, you can make an example of them, and persuade the bystanders or observers change their minds. Far more efficient than changing one mind at a time, even at the cost of fueling the target’s cognitive dissonance.
The problem with debate as a political tool of anyone who is attempting to hold actual beliefs, is that it is easier to win a debate than it is to convince people of the truth. If someone's primary goal is to "win" and therefore Promote their wider ideology, their position can change fluidly to whatever is advantageous. The truth has to follow certain unchangable facts, whilst lies can be altered as much as you want so long as they support your ideological stance and make your argument more compelling. This is one of the main reasons it is a bad idea to debate fascists. They will lie and they will lie better than you can tell the truth, no matter how good you are at it.
I think debates are a nice way to weigh in the merit and demerits of a topic but most people are just not willing to change thier mind about thier beliefs and get defensive and even if you prove them wrong they became resentful. So i geniunly believe it's not possible to truly win a debate if the intention is to change the other persons mind
@@calexj903 I'll be honest I am unaware of many of the words you used as English isn't my first language but as far as my personal experience go i have seen many discussions in a dinner table turn into heated debates where both the parties are trying to make sure that the other person understands that they are right and i have never seen anyone actually winning so it was just this personal experience that led me to the statement and this statement is without any philosophical ground, just personal experience but maybe if I explore into it i may find something different. And in most non academic situations people don't often discuss the goal or objective of a conversation before taking
@@adhyan3947 I didn't intend to sound critical or anything. You are right, we don't let on what our purpose is prior to interacting in most cases. And the fact that a discussion has so many nouns to describe it (and the list above is not exhaustive), tells you how insidious we can be. Ironically, debate is not about changing the mind of the person you're debating as I understand it; it's solely about winning. 😀
@@calexj903 I also agree with you that at least for me debate isn't about changing about other persons mind and more about just getting to see different point of view but in general life people and me too tend to get defensive, I have a big bollax theory for this. Though don't mind them I have a belief that all human behaviour is due to survival and humans get defensive about their opinion as we as humans used to live in groups and survival was entirely dependent on living in a group and being forced out of a tribe meant death so social acceptance for us as humans Is very important even though now we really don't need to live in groups it has just became a subconscious function
The thing is, nobody is debating to listen but to protect what they have already attached their soul's value to. Talking from my observation, if one tries to be a listener instead of a debater in an argument, it debacle shoots. The result will be the listener deemed as a person of a weaker argument and the opponents getting the leisure of advancing as per their hearts desire. That is why a certain level of intimidation and aggression is much needed to keep the other person in check and not overpower. you.
its taken me sSOO long to figure out the reasons why hostility in debate can be proof of a weaker argument, especially because the podcast i work for promotes that - hiding the persuasiveness behind adhoms
While i understand the sentiment, i do think it's a good thing that we aren't creatures of "pure logic." I think there is a lot to be said for emotional intelligence and the role of intuition. Don't get me wrong, there's definitely times when rationality should be the dominating factor, but there's also times where compassion is needed as well. Some of the best things in life, like hearing a truly great piece of music or witnessing the most beautiful sunset, are purely valuable because of how they make us feel, and not because of some logical purpose they can serve. While i value rationality highly, I don't know at all if I'd want to live a life that was completely robotic and devoid of actually feeling the experience I have (maybe it is anyway, according to Robert Sapolsky). Of course, this also comes with the pain and suffering and the existential dread that deep thinkers often have to contend with.. .... Side note, are you familiar with the Blindsight sci-fi novels? They are written by former biologist Peter Watts and have some really interesting takes on consciousness... I won't spoil them, but for anyone who likes thinking about the nature of consciousness and how that mixes with AI and what we might think of alien intelligence, this might be the best book ever written on the topic. And the sequel is great too!
This! While rationality serves an important purpose, emotionality if not more is just as much as needed. IQ is not superior to EQ nor vice versa. These go hand in hand to work collectively for humans.
I only provide metaphorical "Food-For-Thought"...AND...I keep everyone in "Check". Nothing wrong with that...also keep in mind that Innocent People have nothing to fear
I guess i have a hard time perceiving philosophy and rhetoric as independent from each other. What would that even look like? Philosophy is a binary computer code, while rhetoric is fairy tales?
The sooner you learn how to manage yourself in a debate, the less time you will spend thinking about what you wish you had said. Don't ask me how I know 🌚
Since this is your latest post, I am commenting here to ask you a question. Can your methods be used to interpret a state statute? The state of South Carolina has statute 16-3-655 (B)(2) that no one has been able to interpret. AI cannot solve it either.
Excellent. I don't believe one needs a law degree to interpret it, but to present it to the courts for scrutiny is a requirement. Nonetheless, the obvious question is who is this statute supposed to prosecute and who is it supposed to protect? Victims less than 16? Actors less than 18? What if the victim is 15 years 6 months and the actor is 18 years 6 months?
I have to disagree with your premise in the title. In my opinion, the objective of a debate is not to win, but to convince the viewers of the truth of your position. Maybe in bygone times, an opponent who “loses” would recognize they lost, and amend their arguments and positions to be more truthful or persuasive, but that no longer is true - if it ever was, that is. I still debate people, but I no longer focus on my opponent. They are not really who I’m trying to persuade, and people who want to debate do so because they are already convinced of their position, and have little or no intention of re-examining it because you bring new a new perspective or evidence to their attention. Especially in public debates, people will outright refuse to even acknowledge basic facts or premises because they believe anything less than total belief in their position is tantamount to losing. It gets even worse when they believe the mere act of debating is giving an undue platform to your position, which is why “debates” have become little more than hysterical claims and one-sided diatribes. The best use of debates is to transmit information to watchers, especially if you can do so in a manner that “leads the horse to water” and results in the viewer coming to their own conclusions. People don’t like being told what to think and believe, and a position arrived at by their own thought process will be more strongly held than one in which they accept a position simply because they don’t want to join the loser’s side. This is why political debates often see the winner gather support even though they didn’t make any rational, evidenced claims but socially crushed their opponent. People want to be a part of the winning side, but don’t really agree with the winner’s position, and they’ll desert that position if and when the winner next stumbles. Good video, though.
This was a good post. The sad part about this is realizing that good people can never really win. That moment things change all the psychos have always been on your side. And they know better than you.
A remarkable example of sophistry is the life of Christopher Hitchens. A remarkable example of philosophy is the complete works of Christopher Hitchens.
I cannot even focus on the words you're speaking. My brain turns to mush and i go all wonky inside. as a girl (all my life) A medium to deep man's voice turns me to jelly, esp with your perfect uk enunciation. wow Its now dialed up to a 10 plus in my head. sorry. Maybe I can just watch it with sound off and read subtitles/ cc so i can focus on the meanings of your words, because how you say them makes me swoon, i wonder how you would sound singing a ballad or two. I am not fibbing i swear. I cannot even listen to male asmr because when a man is whispering its just too sexual in my primordial brain. Regardless of the words, sorry its weird to even try and explain.
One point Aristotle (and maybe you too) omit mentioning is that not only the emotions of your listeners or opposition are of vital importance but also their intelectual capability. This is kind of a dangerous one because assuming that people are stupid is well... kind of stupid. You never really know the full extent. However if your point has been thought about for years by you, and if the subject is of decent difficulty then people might not even be able to follow your logic, even how impeccible it might be. There's nothing more frustrating than debating with someone who doesn't understand your logic, decent level logic in general or doesn't value it in the first place. This is especially prevalent on the internet where anyone can present themselves however they like. You might just be debating with a 12 year old, or an individual who isn't even ABLE to understand you. Edit: spelling.
