I think I’m going to start a topic replying to the creative adversaries articles:
Are creative adversaries in adversarial debates? My first impressions of the articles were that people want you to do stuff without being violent. They don’t got a lot of power to do that but having a lot of money and other stuff helps. Is that stuff related to adversarial debates? Idk but what makes someone adversarial? In both terms? That may help with understanding what they’re about.
I think I feel uncomfortable when winning or losing in debates. Idk if that’s part of adversarial debates, but when I see some arguments put forth or criticism happening I feel uncomfortable too. I’m thinking the person arguing is trying to win. Idk about a lot of this; it’s hard to think about.
It does look like people are trying to win in some debates. I think those debates were on the forum here. Idk if they were cooperative debates and who they were with.
Putting good arguments forward and criticizing is part of cooperative debates cuz how else are you going to reach a conclusion? You gotta have an idea about the topic. If you want to find the truth about it then you gotta find out what’s right or not. You also gotta point out problems in other arguments if you gotta. It’s more about the ideas you hold than you yourself.
The following are some of the things one will do in a cooperative debate:
I think “lose” means when you lose in an adversarial debate. Like, if you had that kind of debate and you do things from a cooperative debate, you would lose.
The first sentence’s quote also says that the losing will be more likely. Like, you don’t straight out lose if you do things from a cooperative debate. I think it would depend what you do. Maybe you have a harsh judge or maybe he’s not that harsh. I wonder if there’s judges in adversarial debates.
The quote also says things that’ll make you more likely to lose in an adversarial debate. They are:
For the first one I don’t really see it happening in public debates. I think those are usually adversarial. I don’t see people tell their opponent that maybe they made a mistake with their argument and they can say it better in another way. Is that the same as suggesting improvements?
What does suggesting improvements to an argument look like? How would that look like doing it to your debate opponent? It’s hard to think cuz doesn’t a mistake really hurt an argument? Is that what improvements aim at? To fix mistakes?
I think an improvement you can make to an argument is how you convey it. Like, what if you’re debating someone and you’re using a well-known philosopher’s argument? Your version might be flawed and isn’t as close to what that philosopher would say. Is that misquoting?
I think this would make you lose in an adversarial debate cuz it’s like you’re making yourself look wrong. If there’s judges and you’re criticizing your own ideas then you might lose points.
What ideas of yours would you criticize? Why does that happen? Is it because you’re just starting out debating? I know nobody is perfect and we get things wrong
If you do this in an adversarial debate it might not work out well. I got an intuitive idea that it’ll turn out badly. Does it seem weak that you are being helpful with your explanations? I think if you’re not trying to one up your opponent in adversarial debates then you might be doing something wrong.
I think if you try to be confusing then that may help you in an adversarial debate. Like, your opponent could say something wrong but he doesn’t know what position you really hold. Idk.
Yeah, I also got an intutive idea of this. Like, you gotta put effort into making the audience feel something. I think in essays you try to appeal to emotions no? It’s called Pathos. Is that wrong to do? What do the emotions have to do with the debate or the essay? Do people just have a hard time caring about things?
How does that form work? There’s a belief and it’s declared to be correct. The person who originally held it is the winner. What does “originally held” mean? Is that someone’s starting position of the debate? There could be a debate about veganism being good or bad. One person holds the belief that veganism is good and the other person holds that it’s bad.
Does the capitalist hold the belief that capitalism is the better system? And doe the socialist believe that socialism is better? I think that’s a yes cuz why would they be arguing it?
Also, the capitalist originally held the correct belief. What if the socialist changes his mind and believes the same thing? He wouldn’t win cuz he didn’t originally hold the correct belief.
It’s interesting that the audience doesn’t agree. You would think that if there was a conclusion and it was that capitalism was better, then the audience would agree with that. Were they not following along with the conclusion? Or was the conclusion wrong?
Why does one part of the audience find one side more convincing than the other? Were they convinced by the points put forth? Did it confirm their biases? Was the other side of the debate just saying nonsense?
I know it happens often that a part of the audience finds one side more convincing. That just doesn’t sound good tho. It’s like we’re trying to truth-seek but failing. Maybe one person can be rational and get more benefit from the debate, but as a whole something’s going wrong. Doesn’t this sound alarming to anyone? Like, if we’re trying to find the best ideas so people can live better lives or stay away from harm then it’s not going well. Maybe it’s not as bad as it sounds.
Yes
Why is it impossible? I think one person would probably misunderstand a point or not agree on another. It can happen with more than one point. Now what happens if it involves a whole audience? There’s a lot of people not agreeing or understanding a point. Is that part of why it’s impossible?
I see that people recognize that it’s impossible from experience. So, they saw first-hand that the audience trying to agree on a conclusion doesn’t really work out?
People trying to agree on who is the winner reminds me of school. You got a class lesson and not everybody understands it. Some people need help with understanding and others got the idea of the lesson. It’s impossible to have everyone agree that they understood the lesson.
Yeah, that makes me think people need to work on their epistemology. If the conclusion about the ideas are not reached then something is going wrong. Maybe it’s more of an individual thing where you should focus on your rationality, but as a society it seems bad.
I would like to know what those points mean and what they’re worth. It’s enticing to use points but what do those have to do with the truth of the ideas? Also, what other things do they do besides count points?
A part of me thinks it’s ironic that we count points and not agree on the debate’s conclusion. We use something that we’re good at so we don’t have to do the thing we’re bad at. Idk but is it possible for the audience to agree on the winner of the debate? Is tht the same as agreeing on the conclusion of a debate?
So in adversarial debates you can win because you got enough points. You might have gotten them because you were more elegant than your opponent and had better rhetoric.
If it was a cooperative debate you could be more elegant while being wrong about an idea no? I forget what elegant means but maybe you’re more elegant cuz your orginal position is older and you had more time to refine how you state it. The other guy probably just found out about the disagreement and didnt have a lot of time to refine how he says his argument.
Imagine if one side found a scientific or philosophical discovery but because he got less points than his opponent he loses? That doesn’t sound ok. Why don’t people just admit that they don’t know about something, instead of being wrong about it? A part of me thinks im asking this rhetorically. Also, I think i mean they dont know how to tell the truth
“All that” is the stuff about getting points for being more eloquent or for using better rhetoric than your debate partner. Also, it’s the stuff about people deciding who the winner is by using points I think.
I think I see how the debates are more concerned with the skill of the debaters. Like, if you have better spelling or if you have better public speaking skills then you could win a debate. There’s more focus on the skills that are used in the debate. Are some of those skills the ones used to find the truth? What about the conclusion of the debate?
How does it look like being more concerned with the skill of the debaters than the truth of the ideas? I think some things would look off-topic to a rational audience member. Like, they wouldn’t see how stumbling on words and losing points makes critical rationalism wrong about induction.
That’s interesting cuz I think that’s what me and @Eternity are debating about. What’s a sport and how is it different than a truth-seeking activity? I think they have different goals.
A sport sounds good and bad to me. Like, a part of me doesn’t take a sport seriously. Idk if it has to do with not taking the people in it seriously or what it means realistically. What’s real about a sport?
A sport sounds good cuz people can train and get better at something. How good is it to get better at something?
The “they’ll” is “People” I think. Instead of recognizing that a debate is being treated as sport, they see the two concepts like one.
What does muddle mean? That sounds like saying there’s overlap between two things but being wrong about it.
I think I see intuitively the muddling. Like, people will see the sport part of the debate and think that it’s part of truth-seeking. Does it happen that people see truth-seeking stuff from debate as a sport? I’m unsure
The quote says that people are muddling the conceptions together. Are those treating debate as a sport and treating debate as a truth-seeking activity?
Is that why many people are drawn to debates? They can become invested in the sports part of debate and think they’re viewed as a pursuer of truth? I have a feeling I oversimplified in my head what was said in the quote.
The prestige sounds good cuz I think prestige helps you out in society. If you got that then maybe you’ll be taken more seriously by others. You could be taken more seriously by other intellectuals or even friends and family.
Why do people like going for prestige? I think I would go for some so people can see me in a better way and not have to put a lot of effort. I don’t know how often I go for prestige and stuff.
The “noble goal of truth-seeking” sounds like something fake. Like, if one were to be seen as pursuing that goal then you’re doing something pretty good. And it doesn’t have much to do with actual truth seeking.
Why phrase it like “noble goal of truth-seeking”? Is that related to social dynamics or does it mean the literal noble goal of truth-seeking? A part of me thinks it’s noble cuz it’s hard and not popular to do. I forget what noble means.
I think @ActiveMind is saying there’s a lot of social dynamics in debate. I think there would for sure be social dynamics in adversarial debates. They might even be in cooperative debates too.
At first I thought that @ActiveMind said that there’s a lot of trying to win in debates. How are social dynamics and trying to win debates related? I forget that when one is trying to win at the expense of truth-seeking that’s what adversarial debates are about.
Being viewed as more intelligent than your debate opponent sound good socially. Like, now you’re seen as the smart person. Maybe the other person is smart too but not like you. You won the debate.
It’s hard to talk about social dynamics stuff. It sounds so foreign to write about. Like, what is even going on?
I think you being viewed as smarter when you won is a social dynamics thing. That’s one of the things that @ActiveMind was referring to when he said there’s a lot of that.
Being proved wrong sounds bad cuz now you look dumb no? Does it look weak too? I remember ET was talking about something similar in another article. It was something along the lines that if you make a mistake it’s bad socially and if you admit to one it’s even worse. I think it was from Postmortems Help Address Causes of Errors
Reading the quote at the top of this reply makes me think I’m only reading about people’s preferences. A part of me thinks I don’t see anything wrong. People can like what they like. That makes me think that liking stuff is based on objective stuff too. For example, if you like that someone gets hurt then that might indicate there’s a problem with your ideas.
On the second sentence, is “they” the people that don’t like to be proved wrong or admitting it? I think yeah, cuz the sentence looks like it’s about extra steps that those people do when they change their minds.
Why are they changing their opinions so much? Are they being proved wrong a lot? Do they have to now admit they they were proved wrong? This reminds of when public intellectuals change their mind about topics but don’t let others know that they were originally wrong. Like, they go silent about it and don’t let the people they influenced with their ideas know. They rather not admit that they were wrong cuz it might look bad on them.
That’s interesting that there’s like a ceremony that happens after changing many of their opinions. It’s like they have to watch their back or they’ll get hurt socially. Idk how tht works.
It seems like from the quote above people may try to get social points after they change many of their opinions. They do that by pandering to their new tribe. To do that they gotta attack their old tribe and say how they were wrong.
There’s a lot that goes on in social dynamics. It seems so normal when stuff like in the quote happens. It’s as if nothing bad is happening and we should accept it. The problems happening look kind of invisible to me. I think I get seen as overthinking it if I bring a problem up. It’s like I get gaslighted for thinking there’s something wrong and not because I think people gave up on reasoning.
I don’t think I’ve seen people try their hardest to not accept a good point. Like, what actions do they take to do that? Is it visible to a debate opponent?
Also, it kind of makes sense that they don’t want to seem dumb for being wrong. Like, being concerned about what others think is something people do. That stuff can get in the way of the truth.
I would believe the first sentence like if there’s a debate about abortion and one side is pro-abortion, then they might not like when someone on pro-life raises a good point.
Is a political goal related to a hot-button issue? Like, that’s what’s talked about a lot in politics so it would be good to have a likeable opinion.
The latter part of the quote is interesting cuz money or value is on the line. There’s the matter of the truth and the matter of keeping the value. It sounds like it’ll be hard to talk to someone who’s not acknowledging a good point from the other side.
Strategically conceding points sounds like something an adversary would do. I think an adversary would have some kind of gain other than seeking the truth. Also, it seems like they also have a somewhat good understanding of social dynamics. They know how people would react to certain actions in the debate. This all sounds like something I would not be able to catch. I would probably “lose” the debate cuz of that.
Does all this stuff have to do with how our society isn’t merit-based? Like, you could get ahead by cheating, lying, or committing crime. Idk if committing crime has to do with merit. That just sounds like breaking the law.