Conaeolos
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2017
- Messages
- 1,994
- Reaction score
- 416
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The purpose of all argumentation is to objectively determine what is better position a > position b, correct?
Generally it is consider a win if you can get the opposing side to agree, correct?
Since so many times neither side changes position, a judge is often used to determine merit, correct?
It is to this last point I raise my question. We know a good judge will use reason and evidence. It makes sense as the purpose in most cases is to excise in building ones rational thinking skills. Generally, to make for better lawyers etc and in concept the law is based on reason.
You will often hear in a debates without a judge however people bring up one logical fallacy or another to appeal to a judge which does not exist.
Ration is right!!!
If all positions are based on feelings(experience) and in most arguments there is no judge(with a motive to train reason). Why do so many people consider having the most rational argument make it most right?
Seems to me we’d be a lot better off if we spent less time getting hostile training our “critical thinking” and spent some of that time exploring “empathetic argumentation“. Not suggesting we should replace the other extreme “Emotion is right!!!” with some mother figure judge. I just mean that we train our ability to form our arguments and develop our positions in accordance with both measures as to have not only the best truth but the most practical truth.
I basically feel as of now, most of the time “empathetic argumentation“ has been reduced politeness. Interestingly, psychological data shows politeness drives peoples emotions nuts in the long-term and basically just slightly keeps hostility in check. In many cases it actually triggers someone to be less open to you. You will often find this when someone claim they don’t like a person for being snotty. Confidence, blunt and assertive expressions have always been shown time and time again make someone more receptive to a message in the long term.So why do we not study how to also effectively play people’s emotions in a argumentations as we spend so much time developing our critical thinking? Why is “emotional argumentation“ considered in such bad taste?
I mean one could argue a rational approach is better but so what if it lacks consensus. Even a strictly scientific argument like “evolution” if argued in an emotional void matter becomes “survival of the fittest” completely leaving out other aspects matters if “diversity/adaptability to account for environment change”.
Even in a husband and wife argument. Time and time again. I hear my friends tell me how crazy their wife is when they laid out the most polite-rational position in the world and she just said “no, I don’t care” and told him what to do; and I think to myself “I am not sure she is the crazy one buddy, you listen because she was honest and you tried to be polite-rational, fool”. After all, if they made their better factual argument with any sense of a strong emotion dimension, would not everyone be happier and making more right decisions?
Generally it is consider a win if you can get the opposing side to agree, correct?
Since so many times neither side changes position, a judge is often used to determine merit, correct?
It is to this last point I raise my question. We know a good judge will use reason and evidence. It makes sense as the purpose in most cases is to excise in building ones rational thinking skills. Generally, to make for better lawyers etc and in concept the law is based on reason.
You will often hear in a debates without a judge however people bring up one logical fallacy or another to appeal to a judge which does not exist.
Ration is right!!!
If all positions are based on feelings(experience) and in most arguments there is no judge(with a motive to train reason). Why do so many people consider having the most rational argument make it most right?
Seems to me we’d be a lot better off if we spent less time getting hostile training our “critical thinking” and spent some of that time exploring “empathetic argumentation“. Not suggesting we should replace the other extreme “Emotion is right!!!” with some mother figure judge. I just mean that we train our ability to form our arguments and develop our positions in accordance with both measures as to have not only the best truth but the most practical truth.
I basically feel as of now, most of the time “empathetic argumentation“ has been reduced politeness. Interestingly, psychological data shows politeness drives peoples emotions nuts in the long-term and basically just slightly keeps hostility in check. In many cases it actually triggers someone to be less open to you. You will often find this when someone claim they don’t like a person for being snotty. Confidence, blunt and assertive expressions have always been shown time and time again make someone more receptive to a message in the long term.So why do we not study how to also effectively play people’s emotions in a argumentations as we spend so much time developing our critical thinking? Why is “emotional argumentation“ considered in such bad taste?
I mean one could argue a rational approach is better but so what if it lacks consensus. Even a strictly scientific argument like “evolution” if argued in an emotional void matter becomes “survival of the fittest” completely leaving out other aspects matters if “diversity/adaptability to account for environment change”.
Even in a husband and wife argument. Time and time again. I hear my friends tell me how crazy their wife is when they laid out the most polite-rational position in the world and she just said “no, I don’t care” and told him what to do; and I think to myself “I am not sure she is the crazy one buddy, you listen because she was honest and you tried to be polite-rational, fool”. After all, if they made their better factual argument with any sense of a strong emotion dimension, would not everyone be happier and making more right decisions?
Last edited: