Dec 20, 2023
HORIZONSNo the truth stands on it’s own. It should carry all the weight. Resorting to degradation doesn’t achieve anything except mindless submission in the other person.
Based
Dec 20, 2023If it’s a logical battle the winning party does have right to flex in that case I see no harm in making it spicy for entertaining purpose
- Dec 20, 2023
wat
Dec 20, 2023
LDThis could have been a good a***ogy if it wasn't for the fact that the situation being referred to here is markedly different from skill
The truth is always the truth regardless of time spent practicing or natural aptititude
Wouldn't it be practical to understand condescension borne out of frustration due to trends in behavior repeating themselves?
Debate is skill
Dec 20, 2023
fakerickhoodiepose these nuts in yer mouth nigga
the unhinged nature of this site is a true treasure
- Dec 20, 2023
TwicetagramIn Fortnite terms, imagine a player who consistently dominates in matches, landing precise shots and making strategic moves. Now, consider that this skilled player encounters a less experienced opponent repeatedly. Does the skilled player have the right to taunt and belittle the less skilled opponent just because they consistently win?
In the context of your question, it's similar. While someone may be factually correct most of the time, it doesn't necessarily justify condescension or degradation. In Fortnite and in discussions, sportsmanship and respect contribute to a healthier environment. Being skilled or knowledgeable doesn't give someone the right to treat others poorly, especially in a continuous and pre-existing dynamic.
In both scenarios, it's generally more constructive to encourage growth and learning rather than demeaning others. Everyone has different strengths, and fostering a positive dynamic can lead to better overall experiences, whether in a game or in a conversation.
The Buddha had many debates & never once looked down on his opponents
Dec 20, 2023·2 repliesThe correlation between being consistently correct in factual matters, often surpassing the 90% threshold in arguments, and the subsequent inclination or perceived entitlement to adopt a condescending or degrading demeanor toward the opposing party during such debates is a subject that warrants closer inspection. It's imperative to delineate that the mere possession of factual accuracy does not grant license or justification for the adoption of disparaging or belittling conduct in the discourse with another individual.
The bedrock of any meaningful and productive interaction, especially during moments of contention or friction, resides in the fabric of respectful and considerate communication. While one may experience understandable frustration in the face of disagreement or opposition, it is incumbent upon individuals to exercise emotional regulation, thereby channeling their expressions in a manner that prioritizes empathy, understanding, and cordiality rather than diminishing or denigrating the counterpart.
The significance of maintaining decorum and a respectful demeanor in conversations transcends the frequency or consistency of one's factual accuracy. Each dialogue represents an amalgamation of diverse viewpoints, where the preponderance of factual knowledge in a specific domain does not sanction the imposition of dismissive or derogatory behavior upon others. A robust and constructive exchange thrives on the bedrock of mutual respect, valuing differing perspectives, and acknowledging the presence of diverse viewpoints irrespective of an individual's specialized expertise.
Dec 20, 2023no
Dec 20, 2023Intelligent people can make their argument without degradation
Also intelligent people don’t argue with fools shout out Jay z
Dec 21, 2023·1 reply@op consider that your framing of this situation might be flawed. U say the one person is almost always right and the other one is usually wrong. but according to who? it seems like what's really going on is one of these people is just way better at convincing the other to see things their way. The illusion of objectivity gives the impression that one of these people has a stronger claim to what is true and real, and we tend to assume that what is "true and real" is also objectively good in some way. but as i've lined out above, there's no way to say for sure whether person 1 actually has this claim on reality, or if they're just good at convincing others.
if person one truly did have a more solid grasp of reality, I might say they're justified in their demeaning behavior. But because there's no way for them to actually know if they hold that advantage, I think they should avoid making assumptions and act as if they're on equal footing with their opponent
- Dec 21, 2023·1 replyTwicetagram
In Fortnite terms, imagine a player who consistently dominates in matches, landing precise shots and making strategic moves. Now, consider that this skilled player encounters a less experienced opponent repeatedly. Does the skilled player have the right to taunt and belittle the less skilled opponent just because they consistently win?
In the context of your question, it's similar. While someone may be factually correct most of the time, it doesn't necessarily justify condescension or degradation. In Fortnite and in discussions, sportsmanship and respect contribute to a healthier environment. Being skilled or knowledgeable doesn't give someone the right to treat others poorly, especially in a continuous and pre-existing dynamic.
In both scenarios, it's generally more constructive to encourage growth and learning rather than demeaning others. Everyone has different strengths, and fostering a positive dynamic can lead to better overall experiences, whether in a game or in a conversation.
this is a horrible point because in human arguments there is no real objectivity, but in fortnite things are totally objective. fortnite dancing on someone u just killed is permitted because u just killed them so obviously u have a claim to being good, at least more good than them. but in arguments, neither side is actually more objectively good, just one person is better at convincing.
- OPDec 21, 2023·1 replypurrple rain
@op consider that your framing of this situation might be flawed. U say the one person is almost always right and the other one is usually wrong. but according to who? it seems like what's really going on is one of these people is just way better at convincing the other to see things their way. The illusion of objectivity gives the impression that one of these people has a stronger claim to what is true and real, and we tend to assume that what is "true and real" is also objectively good in some way. but as i've lined out above, there's no way to say for sure whether person 1 actually has this claim on reality, or if they're just good at convincing others.
if person one truly did have a more solid grasp of reality, I might say they're justified in their demeaning behavior. But because there's no way for them to actually know if they hold that advantage, I think they should avoid making assumptions and act as if they're on equal footing with their opponent
Only morons like you think that objectivity is an illusion and the only way to win an argument is through persuasion
- OPDec 21, 2023·1 reply
Actually sad how that ideology is spreading like a plague because Gen Z forgot how to apply logic to arguments
Now you have people like that running around thinking the world is a sales job
- OPDec 21, 2023OVO Steve Carell
The correlation between being consistently correct in factual matters, often surpassing the 90% threshold in arguments, and the subsequent inclination or perceived entitlement to adopt a condescending or degrading demeanor toward the opposing party during such debates is a subject that warrants closer inspection. It's imperative to delineate that the mere possession of factual accuracy does not grant license or justification for the adoption of disparaging or belittling conduct in the discourse with another individual.
The bedrock of any meaningful and productive interaction, especially during moments of contention or friction, resides in the fabric of respectful and considerate communication. While one may experience understandable frustration in the face of disagreement or opposition, it is incumbent upon individuals to exercise emotional regulation, thereby channeling their expressions in a manner that prioritizes empathy, understanding, and cordiality rather than diminishing or denigrating the counterpart.
The significance of maintaining decorum and a respectful demeanor in conversations transcends the frequency or consistency of one's factual accuracy. Each dialogue represents an amalgamation of diverse viewpoints, where the preponderance of factual knowledge in a specific domain does not sanction the imposition of dismissive or derogatory behavior upon others. A robust and constructive exchange thrives on the bedrock of mutual respect, valuing differing perspectives, and acknowledging the presence of diverse viewpoints irrespective of an individual's specialized expertise.
Unbelievable answer
I applaud you for being able to make it that hilariously verbose, while still making sense & flowing naturally
This is the best content I've seen this site produce besides Jadakiss laugh KTT1
- Dec 21, 2023·1 replypurrple rain
this is a horrible point because in human arguments there is no real objectivity, but in fortnite things are totally objective. fortnite dancing on someone u just killed is permitted because u just killed them so obviously u have a claim to being good, at least more good than them. but in arguments, neither side is actually more objectively good, just one person is better at convincing.
i just asked ChatGPT to explain op in fortnite terms
- OPDec 21, 2023HORIZONS
yeah, did I imply otherwise?Mindless submission implies that the person didn't agree at the end, just submitted to avoid degradation
That's not what the thread is referring to
Dec 21, 2023OVO Steve CarellThe correlation between being consistently correct in factual matters, often surpassing the 90% threshold in arguments, and the subsequent inclination or perceived entitlement to adopt a condescending or degrading demeanor toward the opposing party during such debates is a subject that warrants closer inspection. It's imperative to delineate that the mere possession of factual accuracy does not grant license or justification for the adoption of disparaging or belittling conduct in the discourse with another individual.
The bedrock of any meaningful and productive interaction, especially during moments of contention or friction, resides in the fabric of respectful and considerate communication. While one may experience understandable frustration in the face of disagreement or opposition, it is incumbent upon individuals to exercise emotional regulation, thereby channeling their expressions in a manner that prioritizes empathy, understanding, and cordiality rather than diminishing or denigrating the counterpart.
The significance of maintaining decorum and a respectful demeanor in conversations transcends the frequency or consistency of one's factual accuracy. Each dialogue represents an amalgamation of diverse viewpoints, where the preponderance of factual knowledge in a specific domain does not sanction the imposition of dismissive or derogatory behavior upon others. A robust and constructive exchange thrives on the bedrock of mutual respect, valuing differing perspectives, and acknowledging the presence of diverse viewpoints irrespective of an individual's specialized expertise.
Wow. Thank you, Steve Carell
- Dec 21, 2023·1 replyLD
Only morons like you think that objectivity is an illusion and the only way to win an argument is through persuasion
ridiculous. why are you so convinced that objectivity isn't illusory?
- Dec 21, 2023·editedLD
Actually sad how that ideology is spreading like a plague because Gen Z forgot how to apply logic to arguments
Now you have people like that running around thinking the world is a sales job
you fool. my philosophy comes straight out of the pages of the 2300 year old Chuang Tsu. Save your Gen Z complaints.
- Dec 21, 2023Twicetagram
i just asked ChatGPT to explain op in fortnite terms
yeah i could tell lol
Dec 22, 2023fakerickhoodie
Dec 22, 2023purrple rainridiculous. why are you so convinced that objectivity isn't illusory?
because he’s not a pseudo-skeptic nihilist like you are lol
Dec 22, 2023HORIZONSNo the truth stands on it’s own. It should carry all the weight. Resorting to degradation doesn’t achieve anything except mindless submission in the other person.
- Dec 22, 2023·2 replies
The second you start getting mad and being mean in an argument you already lost even if you're technically right
- Dec 22, 2023LD
Do you believe somebody who is factually right/correct the majority of the time (upwards of 90%) in arguments, deserves to condescend/degrade the other party while arguing, out of frustration?
This refers to a continuous & pre-existing dynamic between two people.
To reiterate: Do you personally believe this behavior is justified, given the context?
No right or wrong answers of course, simply opinion.
tbh im all for degradation if the other party is making low quality, dog s*** arguments that can be refuted with a Google or basic reading on the topic
people like to think that everyone comes into a discussion in good faith with no ulterior motives or agendas, or actively want to learn things through discourse, but that’s rarely the actual case when you get to the root of why people are arguing certain things/why they’re so averse to certain ideas over other ones