question about arguing

[ruger2506]

If your not in it to win it, why bother? Find a weakness or flaw and use it to crush your opponent.

[thyme4change]

I guess I would need an example, because I'm not quite catching on.

[oreo]

Sorry, still don't understand the question. Can you give an example of a "bad" argument you might make?

[azphx1972]

I would generally say no but I need to know the exact circumstances as well.

[ruger2506]

May 11, 2011 19:05:31 GMT -5 oreo said:

Sorry, still don't understand the question. Can you give an example of a "bad" argument you might make?

The way I understand is........Would you use bad data (untrue data, illogical data, etc) if you knew 2 things. 1. Your opponent isn't smart enough to know you are using bad data and 2. You know by using bad data, you'll win the argument.

How did I do Horatio?

[ihearyou2]

You're asking Money geeks to try to think outside the box , an impossible point. Let me give the twits an example:

Let's say you were arguing that T-Bonds are a better investment then money markets. Money markets overall were currently paying a better yield then T-Bonds however you know the poor schmuck doesn't know that so in your argument, you say and currently T-Bonds are paying better then most money market accounts. You used a faulty premises to win your argument.

If you are interested in the truth then such a logic should never enter your mindset. Over here with the YM twits they will be short sighted and look at winning the argument as the primary objective.

End of lecture.

[Tiny]

What does winning the arguement mean to you? Having the last word? Getting the other person to just give in and agree with you? Actually changing the other person's mind? I guess it comes down to that - do you want to win so you can claim superiority or do you view it as 'teaching' the other person something?

Generally, sophistry will use the opponents 'stupidity' or even just base 'human nature'. If someone falls for this, well, what can you do? Marketing and Politicians often rely on Sophistries.

I think a general rule of debate is that the first person to resort to name calling and/or abusive ad hominem attacks automatically 'looses' the arguement.

[oreo]

OK, no I wouldn't lie to someone to win an argument, I'm way to paranoid of being called on it later and I HATE to be wrong!

[dancinmama]

May 12, 2011 17:26:54 GMT -5 oreo said:

OK, no I wouldn't lie to someone to win an argument, I'm way to paranoid of being called on it later and I HATE to be wrong!

[sil]

If you were arguing with someone over money,( a philosophical point, not on how to spend your money,) and you thought you could win the argument by making a dumb argument, would you?

*******************************************************************************************************

I do make lazy arguments and generalizations. I like to see who's going to pounce on me first to quote my source.

I mean, seriously, I'm posting on an message board during work hours because I'm a little bored today and this crew entertains me. I'll chime in with experiences from my life and with my world-view, but I'm not scouring the 'net to cite my sources for the benefit of winning a message board pissing contest. Personally, I think posters who act like they are in Debate Club are kind of funny.

EDIT, since lazy arguments and generalizations could most certainly be considered "dumb arguments"

[thyme4change]

Let me give the twits an example:

Another reason my husband is a much better catch than IHOP. He is nice and doesn't call me names.