Betas: What is your goal in a debate?

[Creepy-]

Please, only Betas respond to this poll [there is a similar poll in each quadra’s section]


In a debate, my main objective is...
... to win at all costs [I’m a Beta]
... to arrive at a high truth [I’m a Beta]
... to learn something from my challenger [I’m a Beta]
... something else [please explain]. [I’m a Beta]


ETA: The word "debate" [and "argument," for that matter] is not intended to connote a fight. For the purpose of this discussion, I intended "debate" to mean a discussion in which disagreement is expressed.

[Creepy-male]

an Beta?

Looks like someone got lazy with the Alpha poll~

(But that's cool, Betas are our bitches anyway.)

[Creepy-]

an Beta?

Fixed.

[strrrng]

I don't know. Just voted randomly. Depends on the topic and person. Usually I want to push them to see how confident they really are in their positions, and whether or not a little criticism will deter them. If they get all uppity, unnerved or self-righteous, I don't bother any further.

[Brilliand]

Looks like the only quadra that isn't quick to choose "high truth" is Delta. Probably everyone seeks knowledge in argument... the question is what they want to learn about. Delta->people, Alpha->creative belief systems, Gamma->raw, relevant facts...

Based on the pattern of argument belonging to intuition, I'll suggest that Beta argues to learn about emotions and spirituality. That suggestion seems a little bizarre, though, so I'd best wait for more evidence...

[Brilliand]

Just voted randomly.

...Kind of defeats the purpose?...

Depends on the topic and person. Usually I want to push them to see how confident they really are in their positions, and whether or not a little criticism will deter them. If they get all uppity, unnerved or self-righteous, I don't bother any further.

If argument belongs to thinking, on the other hand, then munenori is an oddball...

(chain of reasoning: this suggests -> blocked with -> matches the Alpha emphasis -> Gamma emphasis is on the other thinking -> munenori is a feeler (I think), so argument belonging to thinking explains him/her having an unusual view)

Further brainstorm: Thinking is to argument as feeling is to...?

[sigma]

Please, only Betas respond to this poll [there is a similar poll in each quadra’s section]

Other quadras might like debates, BUT... "I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee!"

[Brilliand]

Other quadras might like debates, BUT... "I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee!"

Funny thing is, Delta didn't like debates either. Could it be related to the Democratic/Aristocratic dichotomy?

[Park]

Funny thing is, Delta didn't like debates either. Could it be related to the Democratic/Aristocratic dichotomy?

But the question wasn't whether you like debates or not, but what your goal is when you find yourself in one. The dislike people have expressed is unrelated to the (essence of the) question.

[sigma]

But the question wasn't whether you like debates or not, but what your goal is when you find yourself in one. The dislike people have expressed is unrelated to the question.

my choice is to learn something from my challenger

[Brilliand]

But the question wasn't whether you like debates or not, but what your goal is when you find yourself in one. The dislike people have expressed is unrelated to the question.

But it is related to what I'm thinking about, which transcends threads.

[Park]

It's one thing to think outside the question and broaden/explore the topic, but some people actually think they are answering the question by doing this.

Q: What is your main objective in a debate?
A: I don't like debates.

[Brilliand]

It's one thing to think outside the question and broaden/explore the topic, but some people actually think they are answering the question by doing this.

Q: What is your main objective in a debate?
A: I don't like debates.

Fair enough. But only a beta can answer this question directly (and I already responded to the Alpha thread).

[Park]

Fair enough. But only a beta can answer this question directly (and I already responded to the Alpha thread).

I wasn't referring to you specifically. I was explaining the principle and sharing an observation.

[Creepy-]

I don't know. Just voted randomly. Depends on the topic and person. Usually I want to push them to see how confident they really are in their positions, and whether or not a little criticism will deter them. If they get all uppity, unnerved or self-righteous, I don't bother any further.

It sounds almost like for you, argument can be more about the interplay of two people than just their ideas [but correct me if I'm wrong]. So in the course of an argument you’re evaluating the other person and his reactions as much as you’re evaluating his argument?

[redbaron]

Sometimes I push to win because I want to win and dominate my opponent. Other times, I defer. Other times I couldn't care less. Usually I'm too lazy, it's not worth my time. I once got into a really heated discussion about the choice of c-section births and how prevalent they've become, with my EIE aunt. I'm fuzzy with my you know, I couldn't remember all the statistics I'd read which I was trying to throw at her and she was equally emotional so it was intense. I only bothered in the first place because she's my aunt and I believed in my stance on the subject (which is kind of rare actually. I'm usually pretty malleable with what I believe but I do have some things that are non-negotiable, usually based on experience though, never on book knowledge). When I'm right and I know I'm right, I like to bet people. But it's always in competitive fun. I only bet when I know I'm right so I always win! I love to win.

[Gilly]

For me it's more complicated than any of these options. When I'm in a debate over something, it usually means I'm at least reasonably convinced of my position, so I will generally do a lot to ensure that I am heard and that my opinion is giving fair credence; if I didn't have some degree of certainty, I would be sitting back and listening to other people talk. So yes, I often go to extremes trying to prove my point. However I'm by no means ever 100% set on something I purport, unless I have absolutely irrefutable evidence for it. Also a lot of times I get caught up emotionally in a debate, or simply want my side of the argument to be heard and considered, and so I will continue to defend my position until after the fact, at which point I will take into account the things my opponent has said and maybe reformulate my position then.

[strrrng]

It sounds almost like for you, argument can be more about the interplay of two people than just their ideas [but correct me if I'm wrong]. So in the course of an argument you’re evaluating the other person and his reactions as much as you’re evaluating his argument?

Exactly. A lot of Fe stuff comes into play; and it's just as "logical" as any Ti "structure" to their argument. I can look at someone's facial movements when they're stating their position and know to a pretty accurate degree what their intentions behind saying it are. Why bother with someone who is looking for conciliatory bullshit, just saying things to annoy you, or throwing context-less information out as if it's supposed to be taken seriously.

It annoys me when Te valuers get caught up in what the person is saying, because it seems like they take an argument at face value, assessing them as if they all have equal weight (initially). I prefer to see if the argument is "worth" listening to before I actually bother with them. It's why sometimes I'll cut people off with curt responses and they'll think I'm evading, or say "lol @ you" online, because I just see it's absolutely worthless to deign to entertain them.

Of course I want their ideas correct, and if they present correct ideas from an "incorrect" disposition (motivations), I will listen to the ideas, but still mock them in some way for their "less-than-noble" motivations. And seeing how people react to pokes, pushes, and the like (so to speak, lol) reveal so much about their position.

'alksdfjnlbs'oaekfl;ns'kp

[strrrng]

maybe some people's reactions are less about their actual position and more about not wanting to seriously respond to/deal with your challenging, absolutist, mocking tone?

Maybe you just can't handle it.

[strrrng]

Ftr, the "pushes" aren't really about mocking, taunting, etc. It's more about just gauging where the other person is at, to see if they're serious, genuine, etc. Not simply bullying.

[strrrng]

lol. whatever makes you feel good.

lol, who's assigning motivations now?

[munenori2]

BOOM! Smack his face into the ambience of the place.

[strrrng]

well, I think you get a kick over feeling like you've somehow gotten the better of someone.

Depends. If they're acting like a moronic ass, then yes. Or if I'm in a bad mood. I wouldn't say this is by any means my natural goal.

ftr, most of the times when you reply to something I've said, you talk to me like I'm a total idiot, whether you mean to come across that way or not. so then I just don't want to take you seriously.

When have I replied to you? A few times on the wiki and in some type thread about Denzel Washington? I don't know; I criticize things, but it's mostly to get them correct.

[strrrng]

ok, cool, that helps.

and in that "ashtonian typings" thread. it may only be a few times but it was enough. I guess it's the overly critical and condescending feel of your posts that turns me off. "Get it?" or "Get it right!" or "Stop doing/thinking this or that" etc. it's too demanding and absolutist I guess.

Ok, I apologize. My antics are rarely every directed at a specific person; I just usually add stuff in for effect.

to answer the thread,

"to win at all costs" .... sounds too cutthroat, like it's saying I would be okay with doing something shady or with cheating in order to win, and I wouldn't ... unless the opposing side was cheating too, but then it would become a contest about who can cheat the best.

That can be annoying. It's like, once you get dragged down to that level, it's lose-lose. The other person ultimately "loses" though, as they are stuck in whatever cycle has them needing use those tactics so consistently.

[Park]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yLPDeyy_5U

BOOM! Smack his face into the ambience of the place.

LOL, the guy with the red shirt cracks me up.

[Brilliand]

maybe some people's reactions are less about their actual position and more about not wanting to seriously respond to/deal with your challenging, absolutist, mocking tone?

It reveals something about their opinion of their position, which may not be the truth of the matter, but the truth of the matter may actually be beside the point.

[Jimbean]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yLPDeyy_5U

BOOM! Smack his face into the ambience of the place.

That is a good video! Good education for self defense.

[Ezra]

It is to arrive at a high truth, although this is misleading. Minor, but misleading nonetheless.

Essentially, one of three things can happen in terms of the truth being reached, to conclude an argument between an intellectual adversary and myself:

1. I convince the opposition that my point of view is correct.*
2. The opposition convinces me that their point of view is correct.
3. I realise, that through argument, not only is their point of view skewered, but so is mine, and thus a "higher truth" is reached.**

Generally, I learn something about my opponent as I argue, but this is not my sole aim; it tends to occur naturally. I never want to "win at all costs", although often people who are of a weaker temperament than myself will accuse me of desiring such. They are wrong.

When I'm winding people up, it is just that - there are no ulterior motives. If I'm arguing irrationally, it's normally because I'm playing around with the person. This is normally recognisable by my use of profanity. On incredibly rare occasions, I'm so frustrated with a point of view that, rather than criticising it, I'll swear about it.

*Let it be known that I always believe my point of view to be correct (otherwise to hold it would be illogical), so when I convince my opponent of "my point of view", I see this as convincing them of the truth.
**This event best characterises the option I chose on the poll.

[Park]

I never want to "win at all costs", although often people who are of a weaker temperament than myself will accuse me of desiring such. They are wrong.

If I'm arguing irrationally, it's normally because I'm playing around with the person. This is normally recognisable by my use of profanity. On incredibly rare occasions, I'm so frustrated with a point of view that, rather than criticising it, I'll swear about it.

I could have said these same things. (Even though I am probably much less openly argumentative than you) (<-- I realize this is kind of relative though)

[Kaze]

I generally only get involved in debates when someone is spreading and/or believing in nonsensical bullshit and I need to educate them. There are a few subjects out there that people are passionate about on an idealistic level, but could have their facts off. Like dumbass redneck republicans not even knowing what their own party platform may be. Or atheists who are (justifably) skeptical of religion, but not keen on religious/ecclesstical histories (or on the flipside, theists who've got their own heads up their asses about religious history). Once I have spread a few more facts into a debate, I'll do something else. It's rare than I even do this anymore though. Debates are boring.

[discojoe]

My goal is to get people to agree with me.

[silverchris9]

It starts out to prove I'm right, then it becomes to prove I'm not wrong, then it becomes to figure out what I think. I always know what I think better when I have to say it (that's not 100% accurate, but it's close.)

[Satan]

most people just talk a load of shit. you can't learn anything from them.