Star Trek vs. Star Wars (and a collection of memes)

It works tremendously well in that regard. It also is effective in reaching large numbers of people who are sitting on the fence. Where it fails (completely) is when trying to convert someone who holds the opposite opinion.

They are not mutually exclusive. They often accompany one another. The ridicule tactic only truly works when accompanied by facts (which is what we saw in the video).

 

Could you elaborate this point. I want to make sure I understand your point.

I must admit that I have no idea who that is, so I can't comment on it.

 

I agree with all of that.

You bring up an interesting point, that is, what to do with facts that counter one's point of view. In a discussion, things that counter your point of view are just as important as the things that support it. When it comes to debates, things become trickier. In an honest debate, I think it best to acknowledge the counter evidence and then discuss why your point of view is still relevant and should prevail (similar to the process that should go on inside of one's mind when formulating their viewpoint to begin with). All points and counterpoints are acknowledged, weighed against one another and the debate goes from there. This has the advantage of maximizing the chances of arriving at "the truth". The ideas that result from such a process are well informed and grounded. This is my preferred method.

In a win at all cost debate (such as politicians vying to be elected), often the opposite is true. Admitting or acknowledging counter facts is risky because it can "lose" you the debate. Someone who presents themselves and their side as strong and infallible is often conflated with someone who is right. Important factors to consider are the format of the debate (how long you have to speak, how deeply topics are discussed, etc.), the goal of the debate, the audience and so on. Acknowledging and thoughtfully considering counter facts can be seen as a weakness by a general audience, especially if not everyone debating is willing to do so. The advantage of this method is that by not allowing counter facts to take a foot hold, your stance appears stronger to the audience and you are more likely to walk away with the victory (such as getting the vote and being elected). The weakness of course is that the we do not move towards the "truth" and in many cases can actually regress. Absolute truth is pushed aside in exchange for garnering support to your side.

In truth, we usually have a combination of the above and the thing that differs is to degree to which each school of thought sways the exchange.

 

I hear you on that one. It is very difficult if not impossible to employ type #1 when the opposition is using type #2

That is a very difficult but noble effort to take on. I must admit that I will often resort to employing type #2 tactics when they are employed against me. A fight fire with fire mentality. Not saying that it is the right (or wrong) approach on my part, but if I am being honest, that is the way it usually goes down. I'm a bit of a social/debating chameleon in that regard, I blend into whatever environment I find myself in (and yes, I recognize chameleons don't actually use their colour changing abilities to blend into their surroundings in nature, a more accurate, though less used analogy would have likened it to one of those stealthy species of octopuses)

My calm and contemplative Slann side quickly gives way to my blessings from the dark gods!

 

Truth be told, that is probably a healthier mentality than mine...



Chaos, it marks us all. (evidently it doesn't seem to mark @Aginor ... but it certainly marks NIGHTBRINGER!)

That makes sense, most people that know me consider me to be highly competitive.

It is at these times that I get to drastically increase my forum word count!

 

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=511366753007436

Still better than the Disney lightsaber fights!