'Debating' relies on a degree of trust that you don't really get with random people so you're kinda just talking to a wall unless you have some existing relationship. Like don't let things slide (irl) just cause you don't wanna fight about them, but in order to actually change someone's mind they need to trust that you actually want what's best for them.
this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
askchapo
22768 readers
399 users here now
Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.
Rules:
-
Posts must ask a question.
-
If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.
-
Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.
-
Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
That's why you use rhetoric, sophistry, dirty tricks, stage magic, appeals to emotion, and physical violence to win "debates".
Debating about facts with well sourced information and arguments is a bad way to change people's minds. Scaring them, bullying them, flattering them, misleading them, tricking them, confusing them? Much more reliable.
Is it actually better though? If you convince someone through those means, they'll just change their mind for the next person who uses those tactics
I mean, from what I understand, yeah, it is better. Reasoned argument not only doesn't change people's minds, it often causes them to re-trench in their exsting beliefs to protect their ego and sense of self.
Whereas a good polemic or some rhetoric side-steps that whole thing. Instead of telling them they're wrong and explaining why you just try to get them real, real angry about something you're angry about.