How to Argue by Just Being Honest | Good Arguments with Fair Standards
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- While several things may be necessary to be good at debate, like an understanding of logic and rhetoric, if you just approach a conversation honestly and try to avoid self-contradiction, you will be laying pretty good groundwork for having a coherent and well-explained system of beliefs.
Disclaimer: I feel I didn't emphasize this enough, but this model has "limitations," which I say in quotes because it more so has to do with some of my language in this video, specifically how I jump from saying "baseless" to "something you want to be true." That may be a bit of a leap in so much as something like the law of identity is, for the most part (because I imagine you could probably spend hours trying to find a basis for it), baseless (as it is axiomatic) but it is far from simply being something someone "wants to believe." In situations like this, I apply a standard (that ironically is closely related to this video) in which if someone has to use the exception to the rule to claim that a statement I made of purpose, value, function, use, etc... is wrong, then that person can go eat a bag of dicks.
I'm clearly just saying that most people believe in things that are baseless simply because they want to, not that all axiomatic statements cannot be true. I think this can be fairly inferred since I'm also not saying that YOU as in the person watching this video and reading this comment holds a belief, which I somehow magically know, that is baseless and is held because YOU SPECIFICALLY want to believe it.
Sometimes, I don't speak like a computer. I know, it's crazy.
Being honest is a great quality but it does not always WIN arguments. People generally are biased and want to believe whatever they want to believe.
do you consider murder and killing to be the same?
No, murder is unjustified. killing is justified
@@nickolasmelonballer oh then maybe i misunderstood the genocide part would it be possible to explain that one again?
@@azurefoxbh9280 It's the idea of having an authoritative standard of justification. Saying "murder is illegal killing" means that genocide would not be murder since it would be sanctioned by law.
The justification needs to be moral or logical, not legal. Non-murder instances of killing are justified logically.
@@nickolasmelonballer ahh ok that makes alot more sense than last time thank you