• ⚠️ UK Access Block Notice: Beginning July 1, 2025, this site will no longer be accessible from the United Kingdom. This is a voluntary decision made by the site's administrators. We were not forced or ordered to implement this block.

N

noname223

Archangel
Aug 18, 2020
6,162
Today I watched the debate between Mehdi Hasan and Michael Gove on Trump.



Mehdi obliterated Gove and humiliated him. It was very impressive. I kind of enjoy listening to Mehdi Hasan he knows his facts. I was surprised he only has a bachelor degree in Oxford though.
I was interested to learn more and found out he published a book in 2024. The title is "Win every argument".

So I downloaded it and I was pretty disappointed. I read an AI summery and then dived into the book. The letters are pretty big and the book has less than 200 pages.

There is a lot of anecdotale evidence and only very few empirical evidence. Further, is the empirical evidence pretty superficial.

I think though one has to remind oneself who the audience for this book is. No scientists but people in debate clubs or the mainstream consumer.

I have a problem with the original conditions of this book. The goal is to win the argument by all means. And fake it, till you make it is one advice. And I think that's bullshit. There is too much emphasis in this book on debate strategies that should not be used to frequently. Like the different types of ad hominem arguments and when to use them. I think it is good to know them for counterarguments. I think when you listen to Mehdi, there is one big lesson: learn your facts and do a thorough research. All these strategies are useless otherwise.

And I realized some strategies mentioned in the book are too toxic. You can use them for psychological warfare e.g. setting traps. But I want constructive and fair discussions. The internet is already full of trolls with their toxic behavior. I care more about finding out the truth than to win a debate by all means. And I think wanting to win the debate by all (also toxic) means can backfire pretty easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Forever Sleep
Dejected 55

Dejected 55

Enlightened
May 7, 2025
1,264
A lot of people, maybe even most people, and surely most powerful people, believe the win is the thing. However you get to the top doesn't matter as long as you get there. They don't care who they hurt along the way and don't care if they are right.

My father one day was arguing with someone at work... this was many years ago... and my father knew he was right, but the other guy kept arguing... and my father could sense at some point the other guy realized he was wrong and started subtly shifting his argument until at the end the other guy was completely on the other side and trying to assert that was what he had been arguing the whole time. The other guy walked away convinced he had won the argument and convinced my father of what my father was originally arguing already. It was crazy.

I've listened to people argue or debate before and they seem to be talking to each other, back and forth, responding to points... but if you listen closely, you can see many times they are not in the same conversation at all. They just are saying what they want to say, irrespective of the other person, so they aren't really having a conversation or a debate.

In a TRUE debate... I would expect two people to believe they have opposing viewpoints going into the debate and they may very well come out of the debate with the same opposing viewpoints. BUT, if it isn't at least possible one of them could learn something new and change their viewpoint and find common ground... then there is no point to the debate. A debate's purpose should be to inform. You believe you are correct, and you have proof to back your assertions, and your goal isn't to "win" or "pawn" the other side... but to prove to your opponent that you are right in your position... so, to me, to "win" a debate you almost have to convince your opponent to rethink one of his positions. I could also argue it's a partial win if you show you are willing to consider something your opponent has said might be true.

In the end, as far as politics goes, the goal should be the betterment of all the people in the country. You have a debate because two people believe taking a different path to get to the common goals of the people... each genuinely thinks their path is the right one, so you debate in hopes that one side convinces the other OR at least convinces more of the people. But if either side is only debating to "win" the debate, then they aren't actually required to believe anything they say or that their ideas are the best ones for the people... and then everyone loses.

I get tired of debates being scored and each side saying "got 'im!" afterwards like they accomplished something. The world keeps turning to shit because people want to win more than they want to be right.
 
F

Forever Sleep

Earned it we have...
May 4, 2022
12,824
It's probably what infuriates me the most about UK politics. That they will argue seemingly for the sake of it. They will belittle any proposition the opposing party puts forward, it seems simply because they feel like it's their job to disagree.

It's all of their jobs to consider every strategy put forward by every party and rate it on its merits. I've always felt like, if they spent less time bickering and cussing each other out, they could spend more time fixing the actual problems. It can be amusing to watch until you remember that these are the people charged with making decisions that will affect all of us.

All that: 'The right honourable gentleman' preceeding a childish insult crap. It's like a school playground. My Grandma always used to have more time for the House Speaker (effectively the umpire,) than any of the politicians!

I'd say the truth is more important or- as close to it as we can get. There again, it can be enjoyable to watch someone who is not only very well informed but also, very articulate putting someone arrogant but less well informed to shame.

I do remember a Green Party candidate being grilled on their policies. While I love the idea of the Green Party, this was some kind of housing project and, she was clueless on the figures. You really can't expect to hold your ground as an MP if you don't even remember your own policies and how they will work economically.
 
Gustav Hartmann

Gustav Hartmann

Enlightened
Aug 28, 2021
1,205
I believe only very fiew people start a debate to find the truth or find out whether the own opinion is wrong. Normally I have a preconceived opinion bevore I go into a debate, but I try to be open for better ideas.

At high school I tried to test out what I have learned about rethoric: You can win every debate no matter how wrong you are as long as your rethoric is better. At home with my far right parents I argued like communist and at school I shocked my left wing classmates with fascist ideas. I knew that I did not knew the truth, I just loved to provoce.
 
Dejected 55

Dejected 55

Enlightened
May 7, 2025
1,264
All that: 'The right honourable gentleman' preceeding a childish insult crap. It's like a school playground. My Grandma always used to have more time for the House Speaker (effectively the umpire,) than any of the politicians!

Made me think of this...

 
  • Yay!
Reactions: Forever Sleep