Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Debates are almost never about changing the other person’s mind; they’re about reinforcing your own beliefs. The participants rarely change their minds, but the witnesses - readers, viewers, listeners, etc. - can be influenced. To admit that you’re wrong would be to admit that your view is the weaker one. This is why “debates” about issues such as human rights are pointless and only serve to platform and promote oppressors and abusers.
Perhaps I'm playing in to the scenario OP is describing but I'd argue that being wrong (let's assume for this example it's provably, objectively wrong) isn't necessarily weakness, sometimes it's just incorrectness.
i'm possibly drawing a pedantic line between weakness (a potentially valid, but weaker argument) vs incorrectness ( an argument that is provably, objectively incorrect ).
Perhaps i'm just describing the difference between subjective and objective arguments ... hmmm, not sure
You’re right, but in common public discourse, there’s no real difference between the two. Debating is about persuasion - a view can be objectively wrong but still be considered stronger than a factually true one if it’s delivered in an attractive and relatively believable way. This is why right-wing views are popular.
i agree, but i don't want to.