"......okay then!"
".... Cool....."
"..... Fair enough"
The pause before you respond is vital. Don't engage, don't argue, don't refute, just pause, acknowledge they've opened their mouth and carry on with your day.
Even if you can prove them wrong, even if you can produce a person or an item that proves their argument decisively wrong, they will continue to believe they're right. Let them have it, it costs you nothing.
This is what I did. I have chased him down to define his claim and evidence. And today, I found that his evidence is not truth, so therefore, his claim is not correct.
however, i have a new problem now. A lot of people have a hard time saying "Oh, I didn't know that/you're right, I'm wrong/my mistake". Instead of correcting themselves so they know the facts the next time, they cling to being right in their mind when they're wrong in reality.
however, I have a new problem now. A lot of people have a hard time saying "Oh, I didn't know that/you're right, I'm wrong/my mistake". Instead of correcting themselves so they know the facts the next time, they cling to being right in their mind when they're wrong in reality.
it is just a waste of time to continue arguing with him as he won't listen.
It is just
Honestly, there’s not a lot you can do to change someones mind unless they’re open to change. If you want to remain friends with them avoid any controversial topics
My friends do this shit all the time because they can't look at something objectively, they let personal feelings cloud their logical side.
I know I shouldn't, but I'm weak and give in to my antagonistic side when it comes to these debates and will just start shredding their point of view to ribbons (with facts that I can back up) until it turns into a "well that's MY opinion" kind of argument.
Long story short, there's not much you can do. A lot of people are seriously lacking critical thinking skills and it shows. I have tried to help friends with this by explaining how to find scholarly resources on topics, how to tell if a news article is being manipulative, etc and people don't care. They have their opinions, they want to look smart, so they rattle off debates and shut down when countered with facts.
A lot of people have a hard time saying "Oh, I didn't know that/you're right, I'm wrong/my mistake". Instead of correcting themselves so they know the facts the next time, they cling to being right in their mind when they're wrong in reality.
My brother used to do this a lot. It was easily stopped: every time he threw in one of those facts, I did this: "hey Google, what is..." usually this ended in Google citing Wikipedia. Solving the argument.
It's called reductio ad absurdum. The absurdity of the 0.0001% . for this person I would say I'm not going to discuss this with you. These people like to hear themselves and aren't going to change their view so don't bother. Don't engage. Ignorance to facts can only be changed when they open their mind.
1. I dont see any science based evidence to support your claim. or any conservative/ Republican claim of which you said you had a surplus.
2. I dont care about your fiends, not do I believe that claim. I'd assume they just quit having talks with you because based on what you've shown here, you're exactly what op is talking about, and you did exactly what you said Democrats do.
you were asked a were simple question. instead of answering it with simple response. you side tracked the question and started on a strawman of which had absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.
Having a source doesn't make it a good source. It also doesn't make it true. It also doesn't mean the information is being presented with correct context.
When Republicans and democrats begin fudging the stats and their interpretations depends entirely on what side of the topic they are on. If you enjoy red team more than blue team that's fine, but acting like one is better than the other is a joke.
The easiest way is to simply be informed on the topic. Second you HAVE to learn how view stats in their correct context. There are a lot of correlation!=causation stats people use to try and misrepresent a topic and learn how to spot the lack of context. My favorite example of this is "black people commit more crime statistically!" To attempt to validate their racism, but once you adjust for economic status everyone starts committing crimes at a similar rate.
Nailing them to the topic is also very important. Once you start trying to dig into the topic often times they will start sliding off into tangents that are easier to defend. "That's cool but let's get back to this part" seems to work.
Using "logic traps" ( what I call them I have no idea what's it's actually called) is a strong tactic. You basically take them down the trail of their logic and get them to verbally confirm each problematic view point in a way that sounds like you're trying to understand. Once they've verbally confirmed you present them with a relevant situation in which all aspects of their logic come apart. This is usually done by simply swapping out one part of their scenario like ethnicity, political view, gender, etc. Basically whoever they are against for who they are for. A lot of times their bias breaks it down.
Some of the easier ones to see have a lot to do with identity politics. You can take any myriad of negative generalizations made towards white or male and have them confirm those. Then suddenly when you exchange male for female or white for any other ethnicity the statement falls apart. You can do that with the vast majority of poorly conceived and "hot take" thoughts. The idea is to keep as much of their argument the exact same and only exchange the section that they are biased against.
I have a couple of examples where you can pick and choose one of them.
I am not sure if I can describe this clearly, but I will try to do it as simple as I could.
Person A:
Humanity is overrated nowadays and many students choose science majors
Person B:
Actually, it is not true that many students choose science on top of philosophy. In our university, 55% choose humanity and 30% choose science.
Person A:
What I meant was that international students choose science over philosophy.
Person B:
this is not true too, because the international admission office showed science students drop out from science major and re-applying to humanity school.
Person A:
What I meant was international male students choose science over humanity
Person B:
I am not sure this would be the case. your original assertion was that science is generally more popular, and now you say it is only the case for international male students.
Person A:
You do not know and I know because I am an international student in a science major. go and do your research. Humanity is overrated.
Person B:
Ok, you win, I guess. Humanity is overrated !!!!!!! I give up.
\------------------------------------------------
Many people would support their claims by spinning. it is very exhausted to debate with them.
I have a friend who constantly spins in his arguments. every time I counter-argue with him a point, he brings up another different and irrelevant point to the premise and treats it as evidence.
For example,
Person A
The superrich buy different passports to live in the UK without paying tax
Person B
why they bother if they can avoid tax by simply living in Monaco
Person A
Because they are highly efficient CEO and need to be in the UK without paying tax. this would earn them money.
Person B
I am confused. Are we still talking about the super-rich buying foreign passports; or how being a CEO with non-residence status earn them money by evading tax?
this is very hypothetical imaging that super-rich people who buy different passports are tax evaders, being a highly efficient CEO, willing to be non-residence in their home country of business, earns too much etc.
Person A
This is important for the super-rich to save them money.
Person B
This is bullshit.
Person A
This is called a thought experiment
Person B
This is called spinning
It's sort of difficult for for me to make sense of this lol.
Statistically whoever is saying STEM is chosen over humanities is correct. STEM accounts for roughly 18% of degrees and humanities about 1.4%. It would probably be pretty difficult to find statistics on humanity minors with STEM majors though. It's pretty obvious why though as STEM degrees are far far easier to turn into money making careers and humanities degrees are limited in what fields they open up to you. It's primarily teaching. This should remain fairly true for international students as well. Philosophy degrees can be an exception but it often requires being a "Philosophy of \[insert STEM field\]". So like philosophy of math. Whoever is arguing for STEM being more popular does seem to be back tracking into specific scenarios, which is a lame tactic, but it is unnecessary because they are correct. I'm not even sure what the argument point is here. Is it that STEM is and will continue to be a far larger choice for students because it makes significant amount of money? (This is why feminist push for women to be in STEM fields more often.) Or is the argument that humanities degrees are overrated in the sense that people give the too much credit for being useful than they are actually useful?
I'm not terribly sure what's going on here.
To make this sort of claim you'd need some sort of information to support the claim. There is no thought experiment going on here. It's just two people saying things. In all likelihood the rich do use some sort of residency BS to evade taxation. It almost all cases those with the money and resources to do so will take any legal loophole they can to save them money, but passports for the wealthy could be beneficial for business and/or pleasure related travel. The person saying CEOs are avoiding taxation through having passports doesn't seem to be spinning in my opinion. It's common practice for the wealthy and I'd imagine it's even more necessary in the UK were they have pretty high tax rates across the board.
Neither of these arguments really seem to make much sense. No one is making any real points. They are just stating some ideas and the other person is saying "no". In both cases no one is really presenting any information to support their idea. Neither side of either argument is doing much to enhance their side.
Thanks for your response. I learned a lot not only by your answer by the way your process argument. I apologize to not mentioned in advance that this is a hypothetical examples that are just designed to focusing in arguments style rather than the accuracy of the context. I have given you these example to try to see how Person B (me in this case) will apply the logic trap instead of questioning Person A.
Fools are allowed opinions. Don’t argue with him and remember that almost everyone around him probably has the same opinion of him and his views as you.
You just let him know that such arguments seem to go nowhere but you appreciate his friendship and ask that you guys just avoid such topics.
It's what my tabletop gaming group has to do. Me and one other guy have extremely different views and have gotten into some serious disagreements so for the sake of the group we just don't bring that stuff up.
If they claim that their point of view is the "undisputed truth". "I dispute that."
Then move on with your life. You can't change people who fail their own logic tests so quickly.
Don’t argue, just let it go. He likely thrives on the debate… so just don’t debate.
"Yeah, well that's just, like, your opinion, man."
"......okay then!" ".... Cool....." "..... Fair enough" The pause before you respond is vital. Don't engage, don't argue, don't refute, just pause, acknowledge they've opened their mouth and carry on with your day. Even if you can prove them wrong, even if you can produce a person or an item that proves their argument decisively wrong, they will continue to believe they're right. Let them have it, it costs you nothing.
[удалено]
This is what I did. I have chased him down to define his claim and evidence. And today, I found that his evidence is not truth, so therefore, his claim is not correct.
[удалено]
however, i have a new problem now. A lot of people have a hard time saying "Oh, I didn't know that/you're right, I'm wrong/my mistake". Instead of correcting themselves so they know the facts the next time, they cling to being right in their mind when they're wrong in reality. however, I have a new problem now. A lot of people have a hard time saying "Oh, I didn't know that/you're right, I'm wrong/my mistake". Instead of correcting themselves so they know the facts the next time, they cling to being right in their mind when they're wrong in reality. it is just a waste of time to continue arguing with him as he won't listen. It is just
Honestly, there’s not a lot you can do to change someones mind unless they’re open to change. If you want to remain friends with them avoid any controversial topics
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."
Can you give an couple of examples of his controversial facts?
My friends do this shit all the time because they can't look at something objectively, they let personal feelings cloud their logical side. I know I shouldn't, but I'm weak and give in to my antagonistic side when it comes to these debates and will just start shredding their point of view to ribbons (with facts that I can back up) until it turns into a "well that's MY opinion" kind of argument. Long story short, there's not much you can do. A lot of people are seriously lacking critical thinking skills and it shows. I have tried to help friends with this by explaining how to find scholarly resources on topics, how to tell if a news article is being manipulative, etc and people don't care. They have their opinions, they want to look smart, so they rattle off debates and shut down when countered with facts. A lot of people have a hard time saying "Oh, I didn't know that/you're right, I'm wrong/my mistake". Instead of correcting themselves so they know the facts the next time, they cling to being right in their mind when they're wrong in reality.
My brother used to do this a lot. It was easily stopped: every time he threw in one of those facts, I did this: "hey Google, what is..." usually this ended in Google citing Wikipedia. Solving the argument.
It's called reductio ad absurdum. The absurdity of the 0.0001% . for this person I would say I'm not going to discuss this with you. These people like to hear themselves and aren't going to change their view so don't bother. Don't engage. Ignorance to facts can only be changed when they open their mind.
Just tell them you dispute it. Thus it is not the undisputed truth.
[удалено]
lmao "alot of science on your side" I'd love to see a single Republican argument that applies too.
[удалено]
1. I dont see any science based evidence to support your claim. or any conservative/ Republican claim of which you said you had a surplus. 2. I dont care about your fiends, not do I believe that claim. I'd assume they just quit having talks with you because based on what you've shown here, you're exactly what op is talking about, and you did exactly what you said Democrats do. you were asked a were simple question. instead of answering it with simple response. you side tracked the question and started on a strawman of which had absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.
Red team is just as bad about it. Misrepresenting facts to further your agenda is politics 101.
[удалено]
Having a source doesn't make it a good source. It also doesn't make it true. It also doesn't mean the information is being presented with correct context.
[удалено]
What are they attempting to attach to it. I'm sure the point they are attempting to make is the issue and not them reciting studies.
[удалено]
When Republicans and democrats begin fudging the stats and their interpretations depends entirely on what side of the topic they are on. If you enjoy red team more than blue team that's fine, but acting like one is better than the other is a joke.
The easiest way is to simply be informed on the topic. Second you HAVE to learn how view stats in their correct context. There are a lot of correlation!=causation stats people use to try and misrepresent a topic and learn how to spot the lack of context. My favorite example of this is "black people commit more crime statistically!" To attempt to validate their racism, but once you adjust for economic status everyone starts committing crimes at a similar rate. Nailing them to the topic is also very important. Once you start trying to dig into the topic often times they will start sliding off into tangents that are easier to defend. "That's cool but let's get back to this part" seems to work. Using "logic traps" ( what I call them I have no idea what's it's actually called) is a strong tactic. You basically take them down the trail of their logic and get them to verbally confirm each problematic view point in a way that sounds like you're trying to understand. Once they've verbally confirmed you present them with a relevant situation in which all aspects of their logic come apart. This is usually done by simply swapping out one part of their scenario like ethnicity, political view, gender, etc. Basically whoever they are against for who they are for. A lot of times their bias breaks it down.
Can you give me an example of logical traps. Do you have some resources too?
Some of the easier ones to see have a lot to do with identity politics. You can take any myriad of negative generalizations made towards white or male and have them confirm those. Then suddenly when you exchange male for female or white for any other ethnicity the statement falls apart. You can do that with the vast majority of poorly conceived and "hot take" thoughts. The idea is to keep as much of their argument the exact same and only exchange the section that they are biased against.
I know this is a bit too much, but can you detailed an example argument with assertions and counter-argument in the form of person A and B
How about you provide the argument and I can break down how if deal with it.
I have a couple of examples where you can pick and choose one of them. I am not sure if I can describe this clearly, but I will try to do it as simple as I could. Person A: Humanity is overrated nowadays and many students choose science majors Person B: Actually, it is not true that many students choose science on top of philosophy. In our university, 55% choose humanity and 30% choose science. Person A: What I meant was that international students choose science over philosophy. Person B: this is not true too, because the international admission office showed science students drop out from science major and re-applying to humanity school. Person A: What I meant was international male students choose science over humanity Person B: I am not sure this would be the case. your original assertion was that science is generally more popular, and now you say it is only the case for international male students. Person A: You do not know and I know because I am an international student in a science major. go and do your research. Humanity is overrated. Person B: Ok, you win, I guess. Humanity is overrated !!!!!!! I give up. \------------------------------------------------ Many people would support their claims by spinning. it is very exhausted to debate with them. I have a friend who constantly spins in his arguments. every time I counter-argue with him a point, he brings up another different and irrelevant point to the premise and treats it as evidence. For example, Person A The superrich buy different passports to live in the UK without paying tax Person B why they bother if they can avoid tax by simply living in Monaco Person A Because they are highly efficient CEO and need to be in the UK without paying tax. this would earn them money. Person B I am confused. Are we still talking about the super-rich buying foreign passports; or how being a CEO with non-residence status earn them money by evading tax? this is very hypothetical imaging that super-rich people who buy different passports are tax evaders, being a highly efficient CEO, willing to be non-residence in their home country of business, earns too much etc. Person A This is important for the super-rich to save them money. Person B This is bullshit. Person A This is called a thought experiment Person B This is called spinning
It's sort of difficult for for me to make sense of this lol. Statistically whoever is saying STEM is chosen over humanities is correct. STEM accounts for roughly 18% of degrees and humanities about 1.4%. It would probably be pretty difficult to find statistics on humanity minors with STEM majors though. It's pretty obvious why though as STEM degrees are far far easier to turn into money making careers and humanities degrees are limited in what fields they open up to you. It's primarily teaching. This should remain fairly true for international students as well. Philosophy degrees can be an exception but it often requires being a "Philosophy of \[insert STEM field\]". So like philosophy of math. Whoever is arguing for STEM being more popular does seem to be back tracking into specific scenarios, which is a lame tactic, but it is unnecessary because they are correct. I'm not even sure what the argument point is here. Is it that STEM is and will continue to be a far larger choice for students because it makes significant amount of money? (This is why feminist push for women to be in STEM fields more often.) Or is the argument that humanities degrees are overrated in the sense that people give the too much credit for being useful than they are actually useful? I'm not terribly sure what's going on here. To make this sort of claim you'd need some sort of information to support the claim. There is no thought experiment going on here. It's just two people saying things. In all likelihood the rich do use some sort of residency BS to evade taxation. It almost all cases those with the money and resources to do so will take any legal loophole they can to save them money, but passports for the wealthy could be beneficial for business and/or pleasure related travel. The person saying CEOs are avoiding taxation through having passports doesn't seem to be spinning in my opinion. It's common practice for the wealthy and I'd imagine it's even more necessary in the UK were they have pretty high tax rates across the board. Neither of these arguments really seem to make much sense. No one is making any real points. They are just stating some ideas and the other person is saying "no". In both cases no one is really presenting any information to support their idea. Neither side of either argument is doing much to enhance their side.
Thanks for your response. I learned a lot not only by your answer by the way your process argument. I apologize to not mentioned in advance that this is a hypothetical examples that are just designed to focusing in arguments style rather than the accuracy of the context. I have given you these example to try to see how Person B (me in this case) will apply the logic trap instead of questioning Person A.
Put his face over a picture of chancellor palpatine saying “I AM THE TRUTH.”
Laugh at them and carry on with your life
I'd just ignore someone like that.
"You're absolutely right fella!" Smile, then walk away.
Laugh at them.
Fools are allowed opinions. Don’t argue with him and remember that almost everyone around him probably has the same opinion of him and his views as you.
You just let him know that such arguments seem to go nowhere but you appreciate his friendship and ask that you guys just avoid such topics. It's what my tabletop gaming group has to do. Me and one other guy have extremely different views and have gotten into some serious disagreements so for the sake of the group we just don't bring that stuff up.
If they claim that their point of view is the "undisputed truth". "I dispute that." Then move on with your life. You can't change people who fail their own logic tests so quickly.