Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Debating against emotions

vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 6:11:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I know how to debate against logical arguments but how do I convince a person who is only using their emotions? The things I learn here don't do much against people I know outside of certain websites >.> I'm sure you had these experiences yourself.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 6:19:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:11:19 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I know how to debate against logical arguments but how do I convince a person who is only using their emotions? The things I learn here don't do much against people I know outside of certain websites >.> I'm sure you had these experiences yourself.

first, you have to try to understand their emotions, why they are feeling those emotions, and try to convince them that the emotions are not correct in this particular situation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 6:21:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Psssh.. It's hard to do that even on this site.

I'm losing my last debate to someone who used entirely emotional arguments. The people who voted for him either didn't actually read the debate and think that I didn't offer an alternate explanation(because the other side kept asserting that I didn't, when I very clearly did), or the voted based on emotional reasons.

It is very hard to combat a mountain of complete bullsh!t and fallacious thinking. Especially when fallacious arguments are VERY effective at convincing stupid people.

I was faced with a similar situation in my first debate, but since it was more firmly grounded in things that are considered facts, it was a lot easier to convince people that my opponent is completely full of sh!t, has a terrible understanding of the topic at hand, burden of proof, what plausibility means, what probability means, and is blatantly taking a text that actually works against them out of context to make it look like it does the opposite.

Even though most apologists I come across tend to get an undeserving amount of support(usually simply because of the position they are defending), their arguments tend to be fallacious to the point of making you question the sobriety of the people who actually buy into their heaping piles of horsesh!t.

/rant

Yeah, people are fuggin retarded. If they weren't, the status quo couldn't be kept.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 6:56:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:21:31 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Psssh.. It's hard to do that even on this site.

I'm losing my last debate to someone who used entirely emotional arguments. The people who voted for him either didn't actually read the debate and think that I didn't offer an alternate explanation(because the other side kept asserting that I didn't, when I very clearly did), or the voted based on emotional reasons.

It is very hard to combat a mountain of complete bullsh!t and fallacious thinking. Especially when fallacious arguments are VERY effective at convincing stupid people.

I was faced with a similar situation in my first debate, but since it was more firmly grounded in things that are considered facts, it was a lot easier to convince people that my opponent is completely full of sh!t, has a terrible understanding of the topic at hand, burden of proof, what plausibility means, what probability means, and is blatantly taking a text that actually works against them out of context to make it look like it does the opposite.


Even though most apologists I come across tend to get an undeserving amount of support(usually simply because of the position they are defending), their arguments tend to be fallacious to the point of making you question the sobriety of the people who actually buy into their heaping piles of horsesh!t.

/rant


Yeah, people are fuggin retarded. If they weren't, the status quo couldn't be kept.

u mad?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 7:00:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:56:31 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
At 4/29/2011 6:21:31 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Psssh.. It's hard to do that even on this site.

I'm losing my last debate to someone who used entirely emotional arguments. The people who voted for him either didn't actually read the debate and think that I didn't offer an alternate explanation(because the other side kept asserting that I didn't, when I very clearly did), or the voted based on emotional reasons.

It is very hard to combat a mountain of complete bullsh!t and fallacious thinking. Especially when fallacious arguments are VERY effective at convincing stupid people.

I was faced with a similar situation in my first debate, but since it was more firmly grounded in things that are considered facts, it was a lot easier to convince people that my opponent is completely full of sh!t, has a terrible understanding of the topic at hand, burden of proof, what plausibility means, what probability means, and is blatantly taking a text that actually works against them out of context to make it look like it does the opposite.


Even though most apologists I come across tend to get an undeserving amount of support(usually simply because of the position they are defending), their arguments tend to be fallacious to the point of making you question the sobriety of the people who actually buy into their heaping piles of horsesh!t.

/rant


Yeah, people are fuggin retarded. If they weren't, the status quo couldn't be kept.

u mad?

Just butthurt
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 9:49:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:11:19 PM, vardas0antras wrote:

I know how to debate against logical arguments but how do I convince a person who is only using their emotions?

Use MOAR emotions!

(you can not convince anyone of anything - they can only ever convince themselves)
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2011 10:00:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Tell them to stop being emotional/irrational. Otherwise, you would have to appeal to emotions which would make your arguments fallacious. You would be losing some credibility which you may wish to retain.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 7:08:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 9:49:37 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 4/29/2011 6:11:19 PM, vardas0antras wrote:

I know how to debate against logical arguments but how do I convince a person who is only using their emotions?

Use MOAR emotions!

(you can not convince anyone of anything - they can only ever convince themselves)

Your spelling is atrocious, the "A" in "MOA" covers your "R" sound and so there's no need to write "MOAR" when you can write: MOA.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2011 7:37:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:11:19 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I know how to debate against logical arguments but how do I convince a person who is only using their emotions? The things I learn here don't do much against people I know outside of certain websites >.> I'm sure you had these experiences yourself.

When they're using emotive arguments, just point out that emotionally predicated arguments aren't considered valid or taken seriously until logic is implemented.

But in real life, I ignore them... Just slowly back away...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:29:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:11:19 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I know how to debate against logical arguments but how do I convince a person who is only using their emotions? The things I learn here don't do much against people I know outside of certain websites >.> I'm sure you had these experiences yourself.

I find it easy to fight back... in most cases. Some it is just impossible cause the person is right for the wrong reason.

If the argument is just plain dumb or for an easy example celebrity gossip. If the person is crying why is Lindsey Lowland going to jail she didn't mean it! Let them exert their point by questioning them. During this remember the dumb points they attempt. After fed up enough let em have it with the opening line;

Your feelings are irrelevant to the law which is why your an idiot. *Insert their dumb comments with reasonable back up stance*

Do not be kind to them just be blatant. By being rude I find it to get though their emotion much easier than "well such n such." No insult them,if their charged enough the person will not back down.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:48:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
appeal to the same or other emotions..

Try to evoke emotions regarding another aspect of the situation that they're not considering.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Phoenix_Reaper
Posts: 318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/12/2011 3:51:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/12/2011 3:48:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
appeal to the same or other emotions..

Try to evoke emotions regarding another aspect of the situation that they're not considering.

Or go on a slight tangent that the person will become connected with than back to main point and boom their wasted.
Phoenix Reaper - To rise from the ashes of defeat and claim your soul.

: At 3/15/2011 4:23:07 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
: Taste is for pussïes. Be a nihilist. Drink vodka.
devinni01841
Posts: 1,405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2011 8:32:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/29/2011 6:11:19 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I know how to debate against logical arguments but how do I convince a person who is only using their emotions? The things I learn here don't do much against people I know outside of certain websites >.> I'm sure you had these experiences yourself.

You can't, I've had this problem with the THIRTEEN year old in my debate class.... but she's getting better
There is nothing more bad-@ss than being yourself.

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Member of the Texas Army National Guard since 20111212

An Armed society is a polite society.