How to win more arguments

[PhotonGuy]

Throughout life more often than not we disagree on stuff and the martial arts is no exception. As a matter of fact I would say you will find among the most disagreements in the world of martial arts. So, here is a video on how to win more arguments or at least come to a mutual understanding and resolution of sorts. Thoughts on the video?

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Mong Zi said, "I don't like to argue. But sometime I don't have choice." When he said that, he was arguing.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Some people are just butts, others are ignorant, and based on what I see today, people seem to care less about the facts and more about making someone else appear as if they are clueless. It'll all balance out in the end. Things will get bad enough to where facts will matter again.

 

[PhotonGuy]

So perhaps what's said in the video should be done on this forum.

 

[Buka]

I wonder if this thread will foster arguing about arguing?

Could be epic.

 

[JowGaWolf]

So perhaps what's said in the video should be done on this forum.

Depends on the goal of the person. I your goal is to present facts then it's best to keep presenting facts. In situations like that the goal isn't to win the argument, but to provide useful information so that anyone else who sees the conversation will get use out of a "meaningless" conversation. For me personally I rather that some presents facts when some presents inaccurate information. I often read conversations that more than 5 years old, only because I'm looking for information.

 

[Steve]

A fact is a fact, but a conclusion is often a combination of both fact and opinion. For example, I could post video evidence of BJJ being used in a street fight and say, "BJJ was successfully used on the street, therefore it is extremely effective in street fights."

Another hazard of facts is that they can still be subjective. Take the recent exchange about whether Wrestling or BJJ was "more popular" in the UK. Both sides presented 'facts' based on how they defined "popular." Neither was really wrong or right in that, but I think the argument went on for a page or two. If the term "popular" is that volatile, it's no wonder that "self defense" or "effective" cause so much trouble.

About the video, the one thing that I thought was a little off is the presumption that the person with whom you are "arguing" is dogmatic and hasn't thought things through. Asking someone to explain their rationale as a way of bumping them up against their dogma only works when that person is unable to really explain their position. Approaching a discussion as though you are the reasonable one and the "other guy" is irrational and ignorant is no way to have a thoughtful discussion.

 

[JowGaWolf]

A fact is a fact, but a conclusion is often a combination of both fact and opinion. For example, I could post video evidence of BJJ being used in a street fight and say, "BJJ was successfully used on the street, therefore it is extremely effective in street fights."

Another hazard of facts is that they can still be subjective. Take the recent exchange about whether Wrestling or BJJ was "more popular" in the UK. Both sides presented 'facts' based on how they defined "popular." Neither was really wrong or right in that, but I think the argument went on for a page or two. If the term "popular" is that volatile, it's no wonder that "self defense" or "effective" cause so much trouble.

I rather have that type of this type of input than a one sided dominant argument where no one replies to the nonsense.

I have a family member that's into the spiritual stuff and she has started staring into the sun because some group said that the body absorbs light energy through the eyes. When I see groups like this, everyone is in agreement and belief. No one says, looking directly into the sun is bad, here's a video showing why. They call it Sun Gazing.
In a world where people are so ready to believe whatever they read on the Internet, a good argument can draw out some good information that may at the least cause people to question what they are reading enough to do more research.

I'm learning a lot through Martial talk about how people define a term. Many times I will see a discussion here where there's a disagreement and after 4 or 5 pages it becomes clear that both were using a different meaning for the same word. If anything, it has taught me to be more in tune to the perceptions that one may have about the meaning of a word. I find myself putting thing into context or from the perspective of, when using words / terms in which the multiple meanings and perspectives may cause someone to assume that I'm talking about their meaning or perception of the term. It took me a while to get to this point, but I learned. lol.

 

[Flatfish]

I wonder if this thread will foster arguing about arguing?

Could be epic.

You're wrong!

 

[Gerry Seymour]

I wonder if this thread will foster arguing about arguing?

Could be epic.

No way it could. I don't see how you could even hypothesize such a thing. Now stop trolling.

 

[Gerry Seymour]

A fact is a fact, but a conclusion is often a combination of both fact and opinion. For example, I could post video evidence of BJJ being used in a street fight and say, "BJJ was successfully used on the street, therefore it is extremely effective in street fights."

Another hazard of facts is that they can still be subjective. Take the recent exchange about whether Wrestling or BJJ was "more popular" in the UK. Both sides presented 'facts' based on how they defined "popular." Neither was really wrong or right in that, but I think the argument went on for a page or two. If the term "popular" is that volatile, it's no wonder that "self defense" or "effective" cause so much trouble.

About the video, the one thing that I thought was a little off is the presumption that the person with whom you are "arguing" is dogmatic and hasn't thought things through. Asking someone to explain their rationale as a way of bumping them up against their dogma only works when that person is unable to really explain their position. Approaching a discussion as though you are the reasonable one and the "other guy" is irrational and ignorant is no way to have a thoughtful discussion.

Asking someone to explain their position might be a good way to separate the dogmatic from those who have simply drawn a difference conclusion. It can also be useful in ensuring we not arguing against a strawman - something that often happens because the other's position simply isn't properly understood.

 

[Kung Fu Wang]

Asking someone to explain their position ....

The issue is people may not be familiar or interest in your (general YOU) position.

Sometime the online discussion just remind people to see things from a different angle that they may not pay enough attention before.

For example, in the "turn on heel" thread, not many people look at it from a "foot sweep" angle. There is nothing to win in that kind of argument.

 

[Steve]

Asking someone to explain their position might be a good way to separate the dogmatic from those who have simply drawn a difference conclusion. It can also be useful in ensuring we not arguing against a strawman - something that often happens because the other's position simply isn't properly understood.

Totally agree. I've personally experienced some situations where I've realized that when I think I'm just answering someone's questions and explaining my position, they think I'm arguing and being entrenched. It's a weird dynamic around here. It's one thing to agree to disagree, and that makes perfect sense where two people just fundamentally disagree. It seems that sometimes, though, people presume that they disagree when they really don't. My experience is that most of the time, if we stick it out and stay at it, folks realize that they actually don't disagree on most things.

Of course, there are exceptions.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Of course, there are exceptions.

I disagree on the exceptions part. Wait. I think there's an exception to agree or disagree? If one exsist than does the other exist by default? lol

 

[Gerry Seymour]

Totally agree. I've personally experienced some situations where I've realized that when I think I'm just answering someone's questions and explaining my position, they think I'm arguing and being entrenched. It's a weird dynamic around here. It's one thing to agree to disagree, and that makes perfect sense where two people just fundamentally disagree. It seems that sometimes, though, people presume that they disagree when they really don't. My experience is that most of the time, if we stick it out and stay at it, folks realize that they actually don't disagree on most things.

Of course, there are exceptions.

Agreed. I think.

We lose a lot of context in text-only mode here, and most of us struggle more when we read someone who uses a different communication style, until we get used to them.

 

[donald1]

internet arguments are not useless! i just happen to be a expert on arguments online! ill have you know im very offended by this.

 

[JowGaWolf]

Agreed. I think.

We lose a lot of context in text-only mode here, and most of us struggle more when we read someone who uses a different communication style, until we get used to them.

It took me about 6 months just to tell when Drop Bear was joking lol. But now after a year I think I have a good grasp on when certain people joke and I have a better understanding of their knowledge. There have been times where certain people have made a comments about an article and I knew right away that I wasn't going to like it. The only reason that was possible because I spent 6 months trying to figure out when someone was joking and separating that from the actual knowledge they have. Even though I feel comfortable some people in here, not being able to hear the tone still makes it difficult for me when I read what someone types.