Argument Burnout...

[Autolite]

This may seem to be an odd post on a forum that encourages 'lively discussion' but I would like to ask if there are any more of you that feel 'burned out' with respect to debates?

I consider myself to be a 'burned out Atheist' because I have long ago lost any desire for serious discussion reference Atheism vs theism. The futility of it all just became overwhelming.

I am now starting to get that same sense of futility with regard to most other topics of discussion as well. I've recently had a few arguments with a close friend of mine about matters of common interest. In fairness, my friend had a few drinks and wasn't exactly clear headed, but even when sober he tends to spew nonsense from time to time.

The point is that even when I can show evidence to substantiate my argument, I am either shouted down or the evidence is ignored. Often it is countered with that old straw man "well you can't believe everything you hear (see, read)" etc.

I am now beginning to get the impression that, with human nature being what it seems to be, all argument is pretty much pointless (unless perhaps for self entertainment).

Why do we continue to argue when it becomes abundantly evident that your opponent is impervious to logical, rational evidence? I no longer feel compelled to explain the obvious to the oblivious.

Have any of you ever felt this way???

[Ashles]

Nah.

And sometimes people do take on the arguments, or lurkers might.

[I Ratant]

Considering the world at large has no interest in what we do here, and we can't influence anything with what we post, participating in the forums has to be both a personal "problem", and also it can be an enlightening event, with the many viewpoints expressed both succinctly and murkily, it is a learning experience.
Sometimes it's self-abuse, but generally it does broaden the amount of weaponry to be employed when arguing in the real world. :)

[Fnord]

As a "Burned-Again Christian," I can identify with your plight. Even when I leave the religious fol-dee-rol at church and try to point out that "Nebulae form from the interaction of dust and gas with gravity, electric charges, magnetic fields, and stellar winds" and not some divine artist on a canvas of cold vacuum, I am shouted down by those who say "Science doesn't know everything" and "No one can can actually know anything; they can only believe they know something."

Lately I've resorted to one variation or another of "Hmm..." or "Interesting..." rather than try to educate people in even the simplest aspects of science and rational thinking. Better yet, if can I pick up a remote and tune in to a PBS station while the person is still trying to explain his or her latest conspiracy theory, I'll do it, and the hell with their feelings.

[Autolite]

Sometimes it's self-abuse, but generally it does broaden the amount of weaponry to be employed when arguing in the real world. :)

Perhaps, yet even 'real world' situations it can often be futile also.

It brings to mind an incident I had at work with a supervisor one time. The 'discussion' involved the best way to carry out a particular job. I proposed a relatively quick and efficient approach while the supervisor insisted on an unnecessarily labor intensive approach.

I countered that, if permitted, I could easily demonstrate that my idea was far more practical and simply requested his permission to do so.

Permission was denied.

During the discussion it became almost immediately apparent that boss lacked a most basic understanding of a simple principle related to the job. Realizing this, I did some fast back-peddling and agreed to carry out the job as he had specified.

It seemed pointless, and perhaps detrimental, to carry the discussion any further. The consequences of proving the boss wrong seemed far worse than not getting the job done properly and in a timely matter.

It boils down to the fact that I was trying to argue with a superior who obviously didn't understand his own job and had what seemed to be a horrific fear of being proven wrong (and by a subordinate no less).

I get the impression that this fear of being proven wrong is so powerful that most people will ignore reality just to save face. It sort of puts a damper on the whole point of argument. Well, it does for me anyway...

[Autolite]

Better yet, if can I pick up a remote and tune in to a PBS station while the person is still trying to explain his or her latest conspiracy theory, I'll do it, and the hell with their feelings.

I suppose I could interpret this as saying that it could just boil down to what's most important to the individual them self. Maintaining friends or being right... :D

[shadron]

Generally I find myself to easily tire of debate. I usually make a comment when I feel one is due and then watch the debate for a while and see where it goes. In the rare case that something I say is argued with (not because it may or may not be wrong, but usually because what I say is readily ignored) then I may jump in with more argument. I find that usually doesn't last very long, as I detest simply repeating myself. Some posters here have a gift for being able to say the same thing over and over and over, and they will generally win by default when I stop responding.

I've also noted that occasionally it helps to take a week or two off and let the mind clear up. That usually involves being so busy as not to be even able to read, let alone respond, so when I come back, it all seems fresh.

[I Ratant]

There's a bit of sadism involved also, when baiting the benighted types like yrreg, jimmo, Greatest I Am.
But that grows wearisome, the targets are too easy.

[Psi Baba]

I no longer feel compelled to explain the obvious to the oblivious.
That should be printed on T-shirts. And yes, I sometimes feel the same way.

[dahduh]

Why do we continue to argue when it becomes abundantly evident that your opponent is impervious to logical, rational evidence? I no longer feel compelled to explain the obvious to the oblivious.

I think often in actual debate people are too emotionally invested in their position to be able to concede - your story about the supervisor is an example. There's no point in pushing it because that just ramps up the temperature. The best thing then is to simply end the debate, change the subject, and end on a humorous note, paving the way to broach the subject again the next day or the next week or whenever appropriate.

The fact is that even the most 'impervious' people do change their views, it just takes them time, like years. Just keep dribbling those little drips of doubt and it will have an effect eventually. And maybe the reason they eventually come round is not because of your cogent reasoning, but because you're calm and patient and always ready to listen. Brute rationality is probably the least effective weapon when it comes to unstitching unreason.

[Spektator]

It isn't debate per se that tires me, but the Sisyphean task of exchanging posts with posters who demand evidence, get it, deny it, and post the same nonsense again; or with those who make a foolish argument on no discernible evidence, are called on it, and who, instead of supplying anything supportive or worthwhile, merely repeat their assertions, as if Carroll's Bellman* were correct about what it takes to prove an assertion.

Realizing those folks are not here for informed debate but merely to parade their ignorance proudly makes the whole exercise seem futile. Still, I suppose there is some value, if only personal, in arguing for rationality over sheer lunacy.


----
*"What I tell you three times is true."

[lionking]

I know how you feel, but as Ashles said:

And sometimes people do take on the arguments, or lurkers might.

[Autolite]

Generally I find myself to easily tire of debate.

Yes, that's how I seem to feel quite often. I find that I'll recant and 'throw' the argument because it's just too frustrating to continue. Sometimes it's better to admit that you're 'wrong' (when you 'know' you're right) just to get the matter settled.

Especially when arguing with friends, superiors, or significant others, is it not sometimes better to back down and let them be 'right' even if they're not? Haven't many of you done this so as not to aggravate the situation further?

Also, how do you reply to the accusation that "you always thinks you're right"? What do you say then???

[dahduh]

It isn't debate per se that tires me, but the Sisyphean task of exchanging posts with posters who demand evidence, get it, deny it, and post the same nonsense again...

That's a good point: some kinds of debate demand a lot of effort. But as Mark Crislip of Quackcast is wont to quote: "Ridicule is the only weapon that can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." (Thomas Jefferson, apparently). Followed shortly by: "Ridicule, bewailing, and scorn are my favorite techniques." In cases in which the sticking point is arrogance and an inflated sense of self-importance, I think such techniques to be eminently reasonable. Is it the best strategy? I don't know, but it sure feels good.

[dahduh]

"you always thinks you're right"? What do you say then???

"Oh no, I'm the easiest person in the world to convince: just show me evidence."

[jakesteele]

This may seem to be an odd post on a forum that encourages 'lively discussion' but I would like to ask if there are any more of you that feel 'burned out' with respect to debates?

I consider myself to be a 'burned out Atheist' because I have long ago lost any desire for serious discussion reference Atheism vs theism. The futility of it all just became overwhelming.

I am now starting to get that same sense of futility with regard to most other topics of discussion as well. I've recently had a few arguments with a close friend of mine about matters of common interest. In fairness, my friend had a few drinks and wasn't exactly clear headed, but even when sober he tends to spew nonsense from time to time.

The point is that even when I can show evidence to substantiate my argument, I am either shouted down or the evidence is ignored. Often it is countered with that old straw man "well you can't believe everything you hear (see, read)" etc.

I am now beginning to get the impression that, with human nature being what it seems to be, all argument is pretty much pointless (unless perhaps for self entertainment).

Why do we continue to argue when it becomes abundantly evident that your opponent is impervious to logical, rational evidence? I no longer feel compelled to explain the obvious to the oblivious.

Have any of you ever felt this way???



There's an old saying by Mark Twain, or someone like that, that said, "An arguement is a mutual display of ignorance."

[Uncayimmy]

The phrase pick your battles comes to mind.

[Paul2]

I have been looking for a theist to help me outline their arguments for theism/God and mine against so that we can keep track of the logic, which is such a problem with blog arguments. Something similar happens at HonestArgument, but I could do a bang-up job at GoogleDocuments if only a theist would bite. This would allow for researching points, editing arguments, and keeping track of the back and forth.

If anyone knows of a theist willing to take the challenge, let me know.

[Fnord]

... It boils down to the fact that I was trying to argue with a superior who obviously didn't understand his own job and had what seemed to be a horrific fear of being proven wrong...

From the "There are Two Types of People..." file:

There are two types of people:

1. Those who manage what they do not understand.
2. Those who understand what they're not allowed to manage.

You have my sympathies.

[Autolite]

The phrase pick your battles comes to mind.

That sounds like very good advice. I think that perhaps in the future I will try and limit my arguments to those matters that concern (my) life and death only.

Anything else just seems to be a battle of egos... :D

[Autolite]

From the "There are Two Types of People..." file:

There are two types of people:

1. Those who manage what they do not understand.
2. Those who understand what they're not allowed to manage.

You have my sympathies.

Actually, I did encounter one particular situation where I had been ordered to finish a job that I knew was doomed to failure. The boss had insisted that I was wrong and that he was right with respect on how to carry out the work.

It was very discouraging for me to carry on with a job knowing that the results were going to be disastrous.

In the end, I had to redo the whole thing when the results showed that the boss was wrong and that I did in fact have the correct initial strategy.

The boss, realizing his error, apologized. Somehow, the apology made having to do the same job all over again worth it... :D

[Kevin_Lowe]

I tend to argue points that I'm reasonably sure about, but not 100% sure I have nailed down.

That way if there's a real weakness in my view someone's likely to point it out, and if not I still get a taste of the most usual counter-arguments so I can figure out responses to them.

Once I'm 100% sure of a position and have all the wrinkles ironed out I tend to stop bothering to respond in depth because it gets a bit boring for me.

That said, I also try to keep myself getting too involved in arguments with people I find genuinely morally revolting. Trying to talk to one of them can spoil my whole day, and they aren't going to change their minds, so there's not much point. They just go on ignore.

[fuelair]

This may seem to be an odd post on a forum that encourages 'lively discussion' but I would like to ask if there are any more of you that feel 'burned out' with respect to debates?

I consider myself to be a 'burned out Atheist' because I have long ago lost any desire for serious discussion reference Atheism vs theism. The futility of it all just became overwhelming.

I am now starting to get that same sense of futility with regard to most other topics of discussion as well. I've recently had a few arguments with a close friend of mine about matters of common interest. In fairness, my friend had a few drinks and wasn't exactly clear headed, but even when sober he tends to spew nonsense from time to time.

The point is that even when I can show evidence to substantiate my argument, I am either shouted down or the evidence is ignored. Often it is countered with that old straw man "well you can't believe everything you hear (see, read)" etc.

I am now beginning to get the impression that, with human nature being what it seems to be, all argument is pretty much pointless (unless perhaps for self entertainment).

Why do we continue to argue when it becomes abundantly evident that your opponent is impervious to logical, rational evidence? I no longer feel compelled to explain the obvious to the oblivious.

Have any of you ever felt this way???
Mostly it is quite correct. Occasionally someone will learn from data - mostly they don't.

[Stellafane]

Hmm, interesting question. Back in the day I used to occasionally write stuff in this forum that one ot two people might actually read. But lately, I really haven't seen any discussion that I felt I had anything of substance to add. So I've sort of devolved into the skeptic equivalent of that kid who used to lurk around the periphery of the popular group in high school and exclaim "yeah, you said it Biff!" every once in a while in a pathetic attempt to try to feel included.

Maybe I'll eventually spot a thread that resurrects the feeling (or delusion, take your pick) that I actually have something of use to add. Or maybe I'm permanently burned out. Either way, I'll still be here to lurk if nothing else. Still, it would be nice to think that after taking so much from this forum, I still might have a little bit to contribute now and then.

[Uncayimmy]

That sounds like very good advice. I think that perhaps in the future I will try and limit my arguments to those matters that concern (my) life and death only.

Anything else just seems to be a battle of egos... :D

You say that like it's a bad thing!

I'll engage people if I think there's a reasonable chance of them budging. If not, I usually won't bother unless I have a full bladder and need a pissing match for relief. You'll probably never see me engage a Truther. I might goof around with Bigfoot believers 'cause they're not so deadly serious. I tend to avoid debates that can never be evidence based such as religion, though I do like to point out apparent contradictions.

It can be very unfulfilling at times.

[Uncayimmy]

Hmm, interesting question. Back in the day I used to occasionally write stuff in this forum that one ot two people might actually read. But lately, I really haven't seen any discussion that I felt I had anything of substance to add. So I've sort of devolved into the skeptic equivalent of that kid who used to lurk around the periphery of the popular group in high school and exclaim "yeah, you said it Biff!" every once in a while in a pathetic attempt to try to feel included.

Maybe I'll eventually spot a thread that resurrects the feeling (or delusion, take your pick) that I actually have something of use to add. Or maybe I'm permanently burned out. Either way, I'll still be here to lurk if nothing else. Still, it would be nice to think that after taking so much from this forum, I still might have a little bit to contribute now and then.

Yeah! You said it, Stella!

[JoeTheJuggler]

The phrase pick your battles comes to mind.

Yup. For the most part, I actually enjoy the debates I get involved in. Even if I don't end up changing my position, I usually learn more and clarify or refine my position.

If it gets to the point of beating my head against a wall, I eventually walk away from that particular discussion.

I do spend too much time at it. Before I became addicted to on-line arguments I was learning to play the banjo.

I haven't touched it in months.

[mazyloron]

This may seem to be an odd post on a forum that encourages 'lively discussion' but I would like to ask if there are any more of you that feel 'burned out' with respect to debates?
...snip...
The point is that even when I can show evidence to substantiate my argument, I am either shouted down or the evidence is ignored. Often it is countered with that old straw man "well you can't believe everything you hear (see, read)" etc.

I am now beginning to get the impression that, with human nature being what it seems to be, all argument is pretty much pointless (unless perhaps for self entertainment).

Why do we continue to argue when it becomes abundantly evident that your opponent is impervious to logical, rational evidence? I no longer feel compelled to explain the obvious to the oblivious.

Have any of you ever felt this way???
That's kind of why I joined the forum. Glad to know it's not gonna help! ;)

Seriously though, I know how you feel. It seems pointless and futile at times. Other times, I start to wonder if I am turning into, or even sounding like, another crazy zealot, told I'm "always so skeptical" (as if that's a bad thing?), and all of that.

I don't know what to tell you, other than maybe a little break from it might help. Or, a change of pace. Maybe hop over to a forum you don't normally visit, and engage people on a new topic. Hard to say what will work for you, everyone's different.

[jasonpatterson]

Part of the problem is that many of the people who we'd argue most loudly with believe that their arguments are sound and are dismayed by the fact that they haven't convinced us... I'm not saying that we should try to find middle ground. As has been said before, if someone says that 2 + 2 = 6, we shouldn't compromise and suggest that 2 + 2 = 5 is a workable solution, for instance, but if you're able to keep this in mind, it makes arguing with these folks much easier. I work with 16-18 year olds and have much experience in this matter.

Those on the sidelines do hear and do learn from what is said and done by those arguing. They not only understand the arguments and judge which is better (especially over time) but they also observe which of the people arguing is more in control and civil and tend to side with that person more often than not (in my experience.) This is one reason why I think someone like Hitchens hurts the atheist position; his rudeness and bluntness instantly turn people against him without hearing what he has to say (most of which I agree with.)

[Autolite]

I tend to avoid debates that can never be evidence based such as religion, though I do like to point out apparent contradictions.

This is one of the things that I've found so disheartening. If it's a 'contradiction' that's 'apparent', what could one possibly hope to achieve by pointing it out?

If someone is incapable of recognizing or acknowledging the obvious, what's the point of continuing the argument?

Like that old saying goes "You can't teach a pig to sing. It's a waste of time and it annoys the pig"...

[Autolite]

I don't know what to tell you, other than maybe a little break from it might help. Or, a change of pace. Maybe hop over to a forum you don't normally visit, and engage people on a new topic. Hard to say what will work for you, everyone's different.

More good advice. I think that I will just try to avoid any sort of confrontational type posts or discussions for a while. Both on-line and in the 'real world', I've found myself blathering on about the same old topics using the same old arguments somehow expecting different responses.

Maybe I could start discussing topics on which I am completely clueless! That seems to have worked out well for some... :D

[mazyloron]

Some posters here have a gift for being able to say the same thing over and over and over, and they will generally win by default when I stop responding.
What a wonderful way of phrasing that!

It isn't debate per se that tires me, but the Sisyphean task of exchanging posts with posters who demand evidence, get it, deny it, and post the same nonsense again; or with those who make a foolish argument on no discernible evidence, are called on it, and who, instead of supplying anything supportive or worthwhile, merely repeat their assertions, as if Carroll's Bellman* were correct about what it takes to prove an assertion.

Realizing those folks are not here for informed debate but merely to parade their ignorance proudly makes the whole exercise seem futile. Still, I suppose there is some value, if only personal, in arguing for rationality over sheer lunacy.


----
*"What I tell you three times is true."
This is what I've encountered elsewhere. I have one friend who's a fairly smart guy, but he has a habit of being contrary just for the sake of being contrary. To the point of actually adopting a belief out of spite, and then constantly attacking his friends that disagree with him. (This would be why he's not a "close friend" but more "guy I know" type of friend.) I enjoy debating him, but he'll drop the subject just as we're getting into it, or claim that something I am asserting as fact is widely disproven and discard it as evidence of my point, without actually providing proof of it being disproved (because it hasn't been). It's beyond frustrating when I know someone doesn't even know what they're talking about, but they still refuse to listen and just keep shouting nonsense until they get their way.

Yes, that's how I seem to feel quite often. I find that I'll recant and 'throw' the argument because it's just too frustrating to continue. Sometimes it's better to admit that you're 'wrong' (when you 'know' you're right) just to get the matter settled.

Especially when arguing with friends, superiors, or significant others, is it not sometimes better to back down and let them be 'right' even if they're not? Haven't many of you done this so as not to aggravate the situation further?
Sadly, yes I have. I don't like that I do it. I don't want to berate and belittle my friends views, nor am I evangelical in the least...but, I think it's a good thing for people to speak up about their beliefs when the subject comes up, and be willing to explain or defend them - not in a confrontational way, but clearly, and articulately. But, this tends to piss off most people, who see anything other than blind agreement as a personal attack.

Also, how do you reply to the accusation that "you always thinks you're right"? What do you say then???
If I were feeling particularly snippy that day, I might come out with any of these:
"So, you think you're wrong when you disagree with me? That should make this easier in the future."
"So, you think you're wrong when you disagree with me? Then why do you argue with me so much?"
"You think you're right, don't you? So how's that a valid criticism?"
"Oh, so you think you're wrong a lot, huh? What's that like?"

I guess a more civil, polite reply might be something like: "I just think it's an important topic, and I enjoy debating it."

But, again, most people don't see debate as a healthy, helpful thing, they see it as a personal attack trying to embarrass, humiliate, belittle or insult them.

[mazyloron]

Maybe I could start discussing topics on which I am completely clueless! That seems to have worked out well for some... :D

I'd be laughing, if it weren't true.

[mazyloron]

Part of the problem is that many of the people who we'd argue most loudly with believe that their arguments are sound and are dismayed by the fact that they haven't convinced us... I'm not saying that we should try to find middle ground. As has been said before, if someone says that 2 + 2 = 6, we shouldn't compromise and suggest that 2 + 2 = 5 is a workable solution, for instance, but if you're able to keep this in mind, it makes arguing with these folks much easier. I work with 16-18 year olds and have much experience in this matter.
Agreed, if someone's just factually wrong, I think the truth deserves to be pointed out. The implications of that, or what we do with the correct data once we have it, is something that's open for debate in many cases. But if Side A and Side B are starting from completely different points with completely different "facts" on which they base their arguments, well...no one's going to accomplish anything.

Those on the sidelines do hear and do learn from what is said and done by those arguing. They not only understand the arguments and judge which is better (especially over time) but they also observe which of the people arguing is more in control and civil and tend to side with that person more often than not (in my experience.) This is one reason why I think someone like Hitchens hurts the atheist position; his rudeness and bluntness instantly turn people against him without hearing what he has to say (most of which I agree with.)

I've been the one on the sidelines for a while. I'm joining in more lately, which I think is a good thing, at least for the most part. I'm generally a quiet person, as you can tell from all my long-winded posts ;) I tend to lurk and read interesting topics, and form my opinions based on what I see being debated. I want to join in more and, I dunno, hone my debating skill? But I always feel like someone else has made the point I wanted to, or is arguing far better than I could.

So, please don't think that your audience is just the person who's spouting nonsense at you; there are plenty more of us watching and following along. And, I'd be willing to bet that it's those others who don't post at all, or only chime in for one or two posts in a thread, who are the ones who are the most open to changing our views based on the debate. Those in the fray tend to be fairly certain in their position, changing their minds is much harder. But those of us watching do notice who's being repetitive, juvenile or just plain belligerent, and who's being rational, concise and persuasive.

I don't know that that's a good motivation to keep on debating, but it's something that I doubt many people think about.

[arthwollipot]

It's not always futile. It's rare, but it does happen.

I've been involved in a couple of cases where a professed creationist has come around to the understanding of the truth of evolution. Only a couple, but it's happened. And when it does, it's worth every moment of apparent futility.

[Beerina]

This may seem to be an odd post on a forum that encourages 'lively discussion' but I would like to ask if there are any more of you that feel 'burned out' with respect to debates?

I consider myself to be a 'burned out Atheist' because I have long ago lost any desire for serious discussion reference Atheism vs theism. The futility of it all just became overwhelming.

I am now starting to get that same sense of futility with regard to most other topics of discussion as well. I've recently had a few arguments with a close friend of mine about matters of common interest. In fairness, my friend had a few drinks and wasn't exactly clear headed, but even when sober he tends to spew nonsense from time to time.

The point is that even when I can show evidence to substantiate my argument, I am either shouted down or the evidence is ignored. Often it is countered with that old straw man "well you can't believe everything you hear (see, read)" etc.

I am now beginning to get the impression that, with human nature being what it seems to be, all argument is pretty much pointless (unless perhaps for self entertainment).

Why do we continue to argue when it becomes abundantly evident that your opponent is impervious to logical, rational evidence? I no longer feel compelled to explain the obvious to the oblivious.

Have any of you ever felt this way???

All the time. I learned as a child there were many things obvious to me that weren't obvious to others. Some of my adult life was spent learning to make sure that what I thought was correct actually was. I actually learned one valuable thing from one of the few (other) engineers at work I actually respect* : to take your time to understand the problem before jumping in with things to try. It saves massive time, not to mention trouble, in the long run.

The point was driven home to me one day when we were trying to update some hardware with a new firmware because some demo we had was not working properly. The tech said it quite possibly would not work and would make the board unusable because the video out would be hosed. The guy in charge (I was just a paltry 27 at the time) said to go ahead with the flashing, "on his authority."

This proceeded to fubar the video output of the device just as if it were a movie. "I'll go get John," said the technician, and he went and got the good engineer who studied it all, and tracked down the right binary, and flashed it properly.


Fast forward to here -- I see so much "invasion" by the "clueless" to the paranormal type boards, but they are handled relatively gently, with firm and repeated restatements of why this or that is so. The process repeats itself in the other forums as well.

Most of it I ignore, but I hit the religion and political forums pretty hard, largely because they're both rather devastating to large masses of people, as opposed to just ones and twos that, say, a psychic fraud might cause problems to (including deaths.)

Of course, in the modern West, religion suffers the advantage of the population being trained to be tolerant of the religions of others, as an offshoot of stripping it of real power. No real power, no real rages anymore. Sadly, that has transferred to politics, with the incumbent rages and sophistry and screwy beliefs that only work in one's mental model. For example, God and sin and Hell, and therefore we should kill witches and gays and make people go to church and pay to the church, or We The People this and that and therefore take everyone's money and tell everyone how to behave and spend it on Good Things...after the priests take their cut.

In neither case is freedom respected. In both cases, people defend their positions long past rationality, and in both cases, have no problems with forcing everyone to kowtow to how you should behave or spend your money.


So religion, and more importantly, politics, are two of the major arenas where this silliness can still rear its ugly head and take away freedom.

Life isn't about whatever stream of hot air someone can produce, so you get all smiley and happy to force me to obey your weird little view of reality, "for my own good", or, if nothing else, to "prevent my wicked ways from destroying the big picture of humanity".

I'll give a thousand dollars to anyone who can tell if the previous sentence is talking about religion or politics.





* I don't mean that in an "I'm snotty to other engineers" way, nor that, for lack of a better term, "regular" engineers do worthless work. Rather I respect the way one respects recognizable high talent.

[Autolite]

If I were feeling particularly snippy that day, I might come out with any of these:
"So, you think you're wrong when you disagree with me? That should make this easier in the future."
"So, you think you're wrong when you disagree with me? Then why do you argue with me so much?"
"You think you're right, don't you? So how's that a valid criticism?"
"Oh, so you think you're wrong a lot, huh? What's that like?"

I guess a more civil, polite reply might be something like: "I just think it's an important topic, and I enjoy debating it."

But, again, most people don't see debate as a healthy, helpful thing, they see it as a personal attack trying to embarrass, humiliate, belittle or insult them.

I agree that it seems many people view argument as a personal attack rather than an attempt to resolve anything. I think the friend that I had mentioned earlier may have some self esteem issues. His arguments become more vicious as my counterpoints become more difficult to refute. Thus the reason I am beginning to think that most argument is futile or unproductive.

When accused of 'thinking that I'm always right' I've often thought of countering by claiming that "It's not that I'm always right, you just seem to be consistently wrong!"

I haven't tried that line yet. Perhaps one of you could give it a go and let me know how well it works... :D

[mazyloron]

I agree that it seems many people view argument as a personal attack rather than an attempt to resolve anything. I think the friend that I had mentioned earlier may have some self esteem issues. His arguments become more vicious as my counterpoints become more difficult to refute. Thus the reason I am beginning to think that most argument is futile or unproductive.
Your friend sounds a lot like my friend. He also has self esteem issues, male ego issues, and gets nasty or personal when he feels he's not "winning" an argument, even though it's often not an argument. He has to be right all the time. Even if I'm stating that 2 + 2 = 4, if I didn't preface it with, "Yeah, I agree that..." then he'll argue it's 37, or something. It's infuriating.

When accused of 'thinking that I'm always right' I've often thought of countering by claiming that "It's not that I'm always right, you just seem to be consistently wrong!"

I haven't tried that line yet. Perhaps one of you could give it a go and let me know how well it works... :D

"Maybe, if everyone's always telling you you're wrong, there IS something to that whole argumentum ad populum thing."
"If you'd stop being wrong all the time, I wouldn't have to keep arguing with you."
"It's not that I'm right, it's that you aren't."

These are fun. I'll have to work one in somewhere.

[Uncayimmy]

Who doesn't think they are right when they get into a discussion/debate/argument? Only jerks, that's who. Of course I always think I'm right. When I think I'm wrong, I keep my mouth shut.

[Tapio]

{snip}

The point is that even when I can show evidence to substantiate my argument, I am either shouted down or the evidence is ignored. Often it is countered with that old straw man "well you can't believe everything you hear (see, read)" etc.

{snip}

Have any of you ever felt this way???

Have I ever?! The last time was just yesterday. Just check out this thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=143180) I started in the SI&CE sub-forum (I think my last post sums it up pretty good).

It's like you just nailed what I feel happened there. Uncool.

I know I have to grow a thicker hide...

[HansMustermann]

Autolite, no offense, but after seeing your style of debating in some of the threads here -- which mostly seems to consist of repeating the same unsupported assertion a thousand times -- I can see where the accusation comes from that you just have to be right. You sound _exactly_ like someone who's into it just because he has to be right. I know that it's not polite of me to say that, but someone had to say it. Sorry.

Plus, it's not even a debate if you approach it from the angle that you're a priori right, the others are a priori wrong, and they need to be told that until they accept it. It's preaching, propaganda, etc. And it's annoying and boring for those who realize that no matter what they say is going to even matter in that discussion anyway. So, well, no wonder they take it personally.

Try approaching a discussion more from the point of view that:

1. it's a _two_ way exchange of information

2. you too can occasionally be wrong (I know _I_ can) and, who knows, the other guy might actually have a point

3. being 100% sure that you're right and the other guy has to be converted, is actually _the_ way to end up sounding stupid in the long run.

It's not just my observation that some of the smartest people end up arguing some of the most stupid positions, and supporting them with more stupidities. Heck, even whole books have been written about that phenomenon.

And it all boils down to _having_ to be right. If they ever say something which was wrong or unconvincing, they can't just back off and say "huh, I didn't know that." They just have to be right, dammit, 'cause they know they're so smart and can't be wrong. So they dig themselves deeper and deeper into stupidity, every step piling up more stupid assertions to back the ones added at a previous step.

4. even if he is wrong, it's more useful to actually address his actual points than to basically repeat that you're right because you said so

5. diplomacy goes a long way. It's easier to get people to see things your way if you _don't_ come across as someone who just has to be right at all cost. The moment you came across as the guy doing it just for his ego, not for them, people stop being interested.

6. you can't convert anyone who doesn't want to be converted, so, well, pick your discussions based on whether you think you'll an interesting talk, learn something new yourself, or give some useful information to someone who's actually interested. Not based on being some apostle on a mission to convert people to your point of view.

It'll be both more productive and a lot less tiresome for everyone involved.

[Autolite]

Autolite, no offense.

None taken. I understand that I do tend to repeat the same arguments over and over and that that can be unproductive and annoying. I just can seem to find a way to get my point across and it's frustrating for me also.

Perhaps the bottom line is to try to avoid debating if it's something that one is not very good at.
Time to find another hobby... :)

[Fnord]

Sometimes, it's more effective (and certainly more fun) to stand by and watch someone else's "perfect" idea blow up in his or her face, and then step forward and say, "I thought that might happen, and I have an alternative solution ... Why didn't I mention it before? I came up with it just yesterday ..."

;)

[Fnord]

... I no longer feel compelled to explain the obvious to the oblivious...
Sigworthy!

May I use it?

[BlackCat]

Perhaps, yet even 'real world' situations it can often be futile also.

It brings to mind an incident I had at work with a supervisor one time. The 'discussion' involved the best way to carry out a particular job. I proposed a relatively quick and efficient approach while the supervisor insisted on an unnecessarily labor intensive approach.

I countered that, if permitted, I could easily demonstrate that my idea was far more practical and simply requested his permission to do so.

Permission was denied.

During the discussion it became almost immediately apparent that boss lacked a most basic understanding of a simple principle related to the job. Realizing this, I did some fast back-peddling and agreed to carry out the job as he had specified.

It seemed pointless, and perhaps detrimental, to carry the discussion any further. The consequences of proving the boss wrong seemed far worse than not getting the job done properly and in a timely matter.

It boils down to the fact that I was trying to argue with a superior who obviously didn't understand his own job and had what seemed to be a horrific fear of being proven wrong (and by a subordinate no less).

I get the impression that this fear of being proven wrong is so powerful that most people will ignore reality just to save face. It sort of puts a damper on the whole point of argument. Well, it does for me anyway...

I understand being burned out. I used to argue on R&P, till I finally had to give up because it was not really worth it and took too much time and energy. I sometimes respond to things, but for some reason, after I do, I tend not to come back to that thread because it's just not worth my time. I doubt anyone notices anyway, but I sometimes feel bad about it. I mostly just lurk and read anymore, then I don't have to get emotionally involved.

Anyway, I understood your story all too well, and learned my lesson the hard way too: that people don't like to be told they're wrong.

I had an economics professor who decided to tell the story about the Chevy Nova, and how it means "doesn't go" in Spanish, so of course, no one in Spanish-speaking countries would buy it until they renamed it. (If you've never heard this "story" or even if you have, check out the Snopes article (http://www.snopes.com/business/misxlate/nova.asp), it's a good read.) Anyway, I had read about this legend being disproved, so I, meaning well, sent the link to the professor. The response I received was not pleasant, and he actually accused the website of intentionally misleading people. I was rather shocked and didn't know what to say in return, so I said nothing. I don't think he ever figured out who sent him the email, and I felt lucky that nothing happened to my grade. I did give him a scathing review at the end of the semester, though. :)

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps the bottom line is to try to avoid debating if it's something that one is not very good at.
Time to find another hobby... :)I recommend the Community and Humor subforums :)

[rain]

I think a big issue dealing with religious debate is that many atheists don't seem very concerned with empathizing with why some people are religious in the first place. Not everybody who escapes religion experiences the same kind of liberation as Richard Dawkins and others have felt. With the exception of those who have been forcibly indoctrinated, many religious people have faith in God and heaven because it's a coping mechanism. God is like an invisible friend you can talk to when times get tough, and Christianity allows you to believe that your deceased relatives and friends have gone to a better place.

So to put it simply, the only times when I would engage a Christian in debate is if he uses the Bible to support a political belief I disagree with or if he has approached me on his own expressing doubt.

[arthwollipot]

So to put it simply, the only times when I would engage a Christian in debate is if he uses the Bible to support a political belief I disagree with or if he has approached me on his own expressing doubt.I cut my teeth as a skeptic debating about creationism. While creationism is religiously based, it is ultimately a political movement. From there I realised that no two Christians believe the same things so I like playing with their different beliefs. Hey, it's a pastime and I enjoy it. :)