Can anyone

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
when is "an argument" won?

why is "an argument" in quotes?
when should an argument be in quotes?
when, what, how. why bare you so stupid?

Originally posted by moonbus
Hey, you got a response; better than stoney silence.

Yes, maybe I am the one with the negative Karma, gulp!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
who decides who won? what does "winning" ensue?

if you measure success by "getting your opponent to change his mind" you must reevaluate the reasons why you debate.

There are some arguments that have essences that are along the lines of:

A: You have contradicted yourself. B: No I haven't.

A: You were saying something different before. B: No I wasn't.

A: What you are saying doesn't make sense. B: Yes it does.

A: That piece of evidence does not support your assertion. B: Yes it does.

In these kinds of arguments, "A" can be right, and demonstrate it ~ and thus "win" ~ even without getting "B" to agree or concede.

It's up to everyone else to decide whether they agree with "A" or "B", or with neither. It's in the nature of forum life, as is the fact that there is never any definitive or unanimous pronouncement of who the "winner" is.

Actually, what intrigues me more is whether ANYONE will admit to having been convinced by ANYONE, atheist or theist alike!

Looks to me that the SAME arguments are being propsed ad nauseum, (e.g. creation vs evolution) with the same predictable responses on both sides, and the inevitable unsatisfactory conclusion.

😕

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
when is "an argument" won?

There are several ways in which 'an argument' can be 'won' in given contexts.

If you are having a formal debate then there can be judges and/or an audience vote.
Or informally a community can indicate which side 'won' the argument.
Politicians might be said to 'win' a debate if they get the biggest [positive] change in
their polling numbers and/or win the election.

If you are having an argument about issues of fact then one side can demonstrate that
there position is right and the others is wrong.

If you have an argument that ends up with agreement between those arguing in favour
of one of the arguers then that person/side has won the argument/debate.

There are all sorts of potential 'winning' conditions for arguments in different circumstances.

If you demonstrate that your opponents arguments are logically invalid could constitute a
win... Potentially regardless of whether they admit it or not.

Sometimes a side will feel they have won because they got the best 'zingers' in during the
argument.

However it's perfectly possible [and common] for both [or all] sides of an argument to claim
that they won the argument. Often because people don't agree on what constitutes a win,
and most people don't use or understand logic and reason very well.

As an example, RJHinds 'arguments' are regularly shown to be both factually incorrect and logically
unsound. But as he has not the first clue what constitutes a logical argument or how to determine
fact from fiction. I am sure that he thinks he wins most/all of his 'arguments'.

Have you chaps noticed that an exceptionally high number of comments in this thread getting thumbs (both up and down)? That's telling you something about engagement, if not winning.

I would like to think that what it's really about here is not gainsaying an opponent, but rather a meeting of minds. Though some others here might disagree with me on that....

Originally posted by CalJust
Actually, what intrigues me more is whether ANYONE will admit to having been convinced by ANYONE, atheist or theist alike!

Looks to me that the SAME arguments are being propsed ad nauseum, (e.g. creation vs evolution) with the same predictable responses on both sides, and the inevitable unsatisfactory conclusion.

😕

I can readily admit to having been convinced by people on this site that the
position I previously held was wrong/incomplete/ect...

However the people that changed my mind were other atheists.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I can readily admit to having been convinced by people on this site that the
position I previously held was wrong/incomplete/ect...

However the people that changed my mind were other atheists.

Were these all spiritual/religious related matters? Is there any topic that a theist could change your mind on or are you only open to atheist point of views?

Originally posted by divegeester
Were these all spiritual/religious related matters? Is there any topic that a theist could change your mind on or are you only open to atheist point of views?

They were philosophical matters.

I am open to having my mind changed by anyone, about just about anything.

They just have to base their argument on evidence and sound logic/reasoning.

I believe that it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that gods don't exist, but
if anyone has evidence that proves me wrong then I am open to that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
They were philosophical matters.

I am open to having my mind changed by anyone, about just about anything.

They just have to base their argument on evidence and sound logic/reasoning.

I believe that it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that gods don't exist, but
if anyone has evidence that proves me wrong then I am open to that.

Understood.

I disagree though with your pov that "gods" a proven beyond all reasonable doubt not to exist. I disagree for a number of reasons:

- "Beyond reasonable doubt" is a legal term not a scientific one and therefore is not applicable in this case

- if you choose to state/make a hypothosis that "gods don't exist" then surely the onus fall on you as the owner of the hypothosis to prove it. If I make a hypothesis that "gods exist" them the onus falls on me.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
who decides who won? what does "winning" ensue?
if you measure success by "getting your opponent to change his mind" you must reevaluate the reasons why you debate.


It is not only about changing other people's minds. I have sometimes come away from a discussion (both here and elsewhere) with a clearer understanding of my own convictions and with better reasons or additional evidence in support of them.

A question makes you think; an answer makes you think you can stop thinking. Searching re-examination is essential to intellectual integrity and sanity. And this is best carried on in company; someone else will sooner spot the flaws in your logic than you will. (Same on the chess board, BTW.)

I am willing to change my mind if shown compelling reasons to do so; but it is not the result alone which matters. The process is essential. As in psychotherapy: it avails nothing for the therapist to simply tell his patient "you married your mother"; the patient must come to see it for himself. That is why the process of discussion is essential, whether it results in someone's changing his mind or re-confirming what he already believed.

In this sense, several participants to a discussion can all come out of it as 'winners'--though they disagree and not one of them changes another's mind. Discussion need not be a zero-sum game.

Originally posted by CalJust
Actually, what intrigues me more is whether ANYONE will admit to having been convinced by ANYONE, atheist or theist alike!

Looks to me that the SAME arguments are being propsed ad nauseum, (e.g. creation vs evolution) with the same predictable responses on both sides, and the inevitable unsatisfactory conclusion.

😕

Originally posted by CalJust
Actually, what intrigues me more is whether ANYONE will admit to having been convinced by ANYONE, atheist or theist alike!
_________________

I've become convinced that some atheists are still searching for confirmation that God exist; and that a few of them are also considering the claims of Christ to possibly be true; the rest to exercise their intellects and egos with argumentation 24/7.

Originally posted by FMF
There are some arguments that have essences that are along the lines of:

A: You have contradicted yourself. B: No I haven't.

A: You were saying something different before. B: No I wasn't.

A: What you are saying doesn't make sense. B: Yes it does.

A: That piece of evidence does not support your assertion. B: Yes it does.

In these kinds of arguments ...[text shortened]... s the fact that there is never any definitive or unanimous pronouncement of who the "winner" is.

yes, this is in a real, structured debate, with an impartial moderator.


you can't have that here. this forum is about having fun. about having an intellectual challenge as much as you possibly can with the likes of rjhinds or freaky posting.

if you really want a good debate that you could crown a "winner" of, you need to designate someone everyone trusts and have him moderate, you need to have a clear topic of debate and you need to only allow a few persons to debate, and have them go in an established order.

i don't think the forum format is suited to this kind of debate. i can't even hide comments from a particular user (not censor, just have them not show in may personal browser while i am logged in). imagine how much easier it would be to have a discussion if you wouldn't have to browse through some of the posts.