If your aim is to win, then you’ve already lost.
If your aim is to learn, then you’ve already won.
if you follow cryptic saying, you’ll be trampled by a herd of stampeding aardvarks with a strange fetish with alphabetized vegetables.
athelas, that’s uncanny. Did you come to my birthday party?
Incidentally, the correct collective noun for aardvarks is an “epiphany”.
athelas, that’s uncanny. Did you come to my birthday party?
Incidentally, the correct collective noun for aardvarks is an “epiphany”.
**
I was just trying to think of an example. I don’t have a negative bias against black holes at all, just that I don’t understand them that well. Perhaps I should have used Bigfoot, or alien abductions as an example of something I feel is far-fetched instead of something which the scientific community supports.
I guess I really don’t understand what you’re getting at.
I always read several sources before I accept an idea. Such as, if I’m interested in an historical figure’s life, I’ll read three or four books on this person, because often each has a different perspective or interpretation. Or, on a scientific matter, I’ll read several articles from other scientists who are evaluating the same subject.
As I said before, I’ll consider a source generably reliable if it is non-biased and respected by its peers. I don’t know why this would need to be re-evaluated, unless you’re saying that certain sources gain more credibility over time. I consider NPR a reliable source, but not infallible. I will occasionally check out a story I have heard to see if other sources verify it.
I’ve won when my son actually cleans his room.
In the context of the SDMB, I don’t spend much time considering winning or losing. It is enough if my opponents and I have provided a fair and thorough airing of the issues with sufficient facts for others to draw informed conclusions.
- when I (or anyone else involved) learn something
- when all parties involved agree upon some idea or course of action (as in when my wife and I agree that she’s the dominant female, and that I should do all the cooking, cleaning, etc)
If winning is the aim, you’ve already lost.
except in the case of “sport” argument, debates and such. Then there are judges, rules, etc.
That´s truly wise. Yoda wise!
I don’t necessarily go into an argument trying to “win.”
I do present my point of view as clearly as I can, and counter the other person’s arguments as logically as I can. But I never want to make the other person look foolish or even sway them to my way of thinking.
Still, if they end with, “Well, you’ve given me a lot to think about, I’ll consider what you’ve said,” then that’s a victory of sorts.
All of the above refers to a difference of opinion, not a matter of backing up a contention with facts. I mean, if someone were to insist that Albany was not the capital of New York State, for instance, I’d fully expect them to change their position once I proved conclusively that it was.
I consider myself to have won an argument when:
- the other person(s) concedes my point
- the other person(s) admits I’m right
- the other person(s) fall at my feet and start worshiping my brilliance.
It’s time for me to stop wasting my time when
- I’ve refuted their points and they haven’t refuted (all) mine, and they still won’t admit anything
- They persist in citing emotion, hearsay, biased reports, or opinions as if they were fact, in the face of substantiable information.
- They don’t seem to be ‘getting’ what the heck I’m saying, no matter how small of words I put that metaphysical concept into.
And, of course, it’s possible that I might be wrong, though I’m trying to cut down on that.
The truly annoying thing is when they mistake my abandonment of a pointless argument for my admitting they’re right. Grrr.
No one ever wins an arguement.
As a Humo(u)rist, the answer is obvious: When I get 'em laughing!
As a Humo(u)rist, the answer is obvious: When I get 'em laughing!
hmmm
What a strange computer hiccup…
It isn’t about “defeating the other person”, as others have said; if you have that mindset then you’ve already lost. We’re here to fight ignorance, in whatever form or location it might be, including oneself.
When the participants in a discussion have suceeded in pushing back the boundaries of ignorance somewhere, they have won (when I’ve helped that process, I feel that I’ve won, to answer the OP directly). When any of them have dismissed the possibility that ignorance can exist within themselves, that person has lost, and that can happen before the discussion has even begun.
Back again to the OP, when I know or understand more about the universe after a discussion, I’ve won then, too.
I’ll let you know if I ever do.
But, since I have lost several arguments (my concession) I think it is safe to say that I feel I’ve won an argument when more than one of the following things happen:
- Misrepresentation of my position after previous acceptance of it
- Ad Hominem
- Shifting the burden of proof
- opponent’s equivocations between disjointed and topic-jumping responses
- Refusal to answer direct and repeated questions
Largely, a debate is only won by default (in that I consider myself to have won)—I think it is unfortunately rare for people to admit their error. Yes, I am a person. 
All the time!!!
In objective arguments I’ve won when I post a link to MIT that says yes in fact the sun is hot.
In subjective arguments ultimately I’m only out to satisfy myself. I don’t care to change anyone’s opinion; I only care to prove to myself that my opinion is correct in the face of opposition. Often, that’s not been the case. Believe it or 10 months ago I liked George W Bush and his foreign policies, but a series of debates with a Bosnian refugee in a class on Islamic Revivalism changed my mind, and proved to me that I was wrong in my earlier belief.
All the best debaters are open to change. As soon as you close yourself off to the possibility that you can be wrong about even your most fundamental beliefs you’re not a debater, you’re a fanatic.
I’ve won when I feel satisfied.
But I’ve won a major victory when I feel hungry for more.
I don’t think I’ve ever won an debate.
When people gradually shift to more polarized views, the debate is lost.
When someone starts making personal attacks, the debate is lost.
I’m a poor debater as I try to see the other person’s perspective so as to try and understand them. So what ends up happening is when my “opponent” makes a solid point, I usually let them know that the point is well taken. I then try to move on from there but, more often than not, the person is too wrapped up in the one point they made to continue the discussion.
Like I said, if I meet any of you in the GD, I’ll most likely concede some points. You’ll feel good and I’ll have learned something. Everyone is happy