Discussion in '2014' started by Plums, Jul 20, 2014.
and what are these other 'things'
I didn't want to use 'thing' because it seemed kinda obvious that people would associate with more than just debating and to outline that all people have multiple things that people naturally associate with them. It's not a universal set of things though, because a lot of people's 'things' that other people perceive I don't see at all. So if I told you that I associate you most heavily with American music of the 21st century and American comics comics, which I do, other people would probably disagree on one or more of those or have a more extensive list. See?
omg tryhard alert
This just coincidence. You read too much mystery novel.
sure it does, being likable can let you win a debate even when you're wrong
Under what context?
People want things they like to be right, a famous person can literally argue that it's unfair they go to jail for breaking the law and people will agree with them
Alright, you're having a royal debate in front of the king of the universe against the king of the universe's best friend. The debate is officiated by the king of the universe. The king of the universe is a fallible human.
It was use of the term, "king of the universe," multiple times, wasn't it?
case and point
The judge of the debate is not the fanbase In your example. Take one of the biggest examples. Justin Beiber was deported and did time for his crimes no matter what his fans thought. Case disproves point.
Jiku demonstrated a context where your point would be valid by specifying a biased official authority.
You lose this one.
I activated your trap card
you're so clever
Except, you know, this was never about who judges what, but the ability to convince people. you turned two functionally similar competition for no particular reason and now seem to be under the impression it was some sort of trap.
(seriously, what does official authority have to do with the point in the first place?)
Don't get ahead of yourself. Who said it was about the ability to convince people? No one did, until you did just now. The number of people convinced is irrelevant unless specified; winning is defined by the context of the debate. In Jiku's example, the context is clear: you win if you convince the official judge. In your example, the context is not clear. I asked for context because context is necessary and you failed to deliver.
Necessary context: Why does what bystanders think decide victory if I lose in court (as Beiber did)?[DOUBLEPOST=1405996717][/DOUBLEPOST]
Let's assume that majority opinion is the specified criteria. Beiber still loses. A small percentage of the population supports him. The vast majority are against him. Your loss.
Even Hitler, who had a huge following and changed the world with it, was hated by a vast majority. He could have 'won' or 'lost' a debate about the Holocaust depending on which group you specify as the judges.
Suppose, for the sake or argument, that you rebut with something like 'but those people who dislike Beiber don't know enough to count'. Neither do most of his fans; that criteria—which would only be added just now—cuts your own argument in half. How much knowledge of the situation is enough to be a judge? Which particular group is fit to judge?
This all ties back to one common question. Who does he need to convince in order to win?
Jiku recognized that this matters. She made the party you need to convince clear. She also explained the entire judging party's bias with little room for doubt. The victor is obvious.
erg, my poor wording strikes again. I should said something more along the lines of "a likable person has an easier time convincing someone their side of a debate is correct"
Is wasn't specific enough, and that led to you taking it to a rational extreme, when I was speaking more generally.
The issues that can come from from two people holding different contexts in their minds >.>
Who does it help convince? The courts? The fanbase? The whole race?
all of the above, at times, but mostly individuals
I rest my case.