Hacker News Reader

Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

> Thank you. I think this is sufficient grounds for me to avoid wasting any of my time arguing with you.

Conversely, has anyone managed to change your mind here in this thread?

Probably not...

The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion.

Some debate for sport/fun, others to make a point. In the end a good debate serves to strengthen one's own ideals via plugging of logic holes poked by the opposite party. Occasionally someone may change their viewpoint -- but only someone with a very strong ego would believe their sole argument was so compelling...

If you surround yourself in an echo chamber, it's easy to believe your viewpoint is the only correct one.

View on HN

> The point of good argument isn't to convince the other party they are woefully wrong and everyone should just eventually come to the same conclusion.

Applied to both parties in the argument, yes it is. Argument is digging for truth. The most productive outcome is for some or all of the parties involved shift their beliefs to more accurately reflect reality.

Just to clarify - when you argue, are you attempting to present the actual reasons you believe your point to be true? If not, then you are arguing in bad faith, and contributing heat to the discussion rather than light. If you really are arguing in good faith, then it's just plain crazy to strengthen your position upon being confronted with flaws in your reasoning.

> Some debate for sport/fun

In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling".

> > Some debate for sport/fun

> In the context of a serious discussion, I believe the term for this is "trolling".

That's not always true. Have you never had a sporting debate with a friend who's opinion you knew full well going in?

In addition, a common debate preparation tactic for "serious" debates is often to argue from the opponent's side. This forces one to better understand the opposition's stance, better prepare for common responses and assertions, and discover potential logic flaws in one's own position.

> Have you never had a sporting debate with a friend who's opinion you knew full well going in?

Huh? You mean have I argued with a friend about a belief of theirs I was aware of ahead of time? Yes? If you're asking if I was disagreeing with them just for fun, while pretending to be serious, then no, because I try not to be a jerk to my friends.

I'm well aware of debate tactics and devil's advocacy, and for the most part I think they're epistemic poison. It's great to examine your own arguments for flaws, because you might actually be wrong! But the idea that you would do so merely for the sake of patching up any holes you find is revolting.

I suggest you google "arguments as soldiers" if you're not familiar with the phrase. Not for the sake of learning or gaining perspective or anything, it'll just help you understand where I'm coming from so you'll be better-equipped to take me down.

> so you'll be better-equipped to take me down.

Seriously guy?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com