Is debating pointless?

i understand what you are saying 100% however you need to at least say your piece so you are heard my friend otherwise stupid people reign supreme

>>2060300
this desu

you've got to state your position but there's no point having a long drawn out debate with a friend or colleague since it's unlikely to change anyone's mind but you might just give them something to think about

>they're not pseudo sociopaths who just egg people on and make them feel intelligent and special for whatever half baked ideas or opinions they have

Will you guys EVER learn?

>>2060283
And thus you have found out why liberal democracy is an insane and dangerous idea.

>>2060283

You don't debate to convince your opponent. You debate to convince the lurkers watching the thread. Or, if this is outside 4chan, whomever is the audience of your informal debate.

>>2060283
That's why you have set up debates with people who are intellectually honest and mock people when they practice cognitive dissonance.

>>2060371
basically this

The (false) premise of liberal democracy is laid out by John Stuart Mill, and it's more or less like this. In the "free market" of ideas, if everyone gets to say their part, truth will naturally come to the fore as people will reject falsity with reason. This is obviously an insane utopian idea, because it pressuposes two false premises: 1) that people are reasonable, 2) they are interested in the truth. It turns out that the majority of people are driven by desire, not reason, and they prefer to conceal the truth. if it will help them fulfill their appetites. Now add to this powerful interest groups, crooked academics, bogus foundations, puppet politicians, the power of mass media, gullible, short attention spam, high time preference, desire-driven masses ("educated" = having a worthless degree or not, it often makes little difference), and you will have a general picture of our modern democratic system: Plato's worst nightmare x10.

Tl;dr Plato was right about everything.

>>2060371
This. Obviously this doesn't work well on 4Chan because of anonymity but IRL if someone stoops down to ad hominem or other fallacies he ends up looking like an idiot.

File: Cat-10-Nevinson-Returning-to-the-Trenches.jpg (130KB, 800x442px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 800x442px

>>2060283
It hones your critical thinking/argumentation skills, makes you question a lot of things you used to presuppose, drops some of your false or incoherrent ideas, improves your rhetoric and self-esteem and really helps with stagefright and social anxiety. Particularly with social anxiety.

That being said, it's becomes completely pointless as means of finding the 'truth' whenever it boils down to clashes of values (for example, when you clash freedom with security in debates on surveillance) as values cannot be proven in any way and it just comes down to rhetorical masturbation. Thankfully, it's often enough practical/analytical arguments, with values being silently agreed upon, so this is somewhat averted.

t. nearly 4 years of academic debate

>>2060415
Actually it's the opposite. On 4chan everyone is more or less equalized by anonimity, while IRL it is often not a matter of what is being said, but WHO is saying it. And someone with the best argument can be made to be look like a fool and the other using ad hominens and fallacies can appear wise.

>>2060361
>>2060409

WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH ALL THESE FUCKING /POL/ RESPONSES ON EVERY SINGLE THREAD ON /HIS/. YOU FAGGOTS HAVE A CONTAINTMENT BOARD FOR A REASON. FUCKING USE IT. REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>2060452
Thank you for illustrating my point.

>>2060361
Not really, people are much more likely to listen to arguments that aren't directed against them personally, e.g. when watching two politicians debate on tv. The politicians aren't going to change each other's minds and aren't really trying to, the point is to influence the voters.

>>2060409
And yet it has worked better than any other system.

>>2060361

But the fundamental premise of liberal democracy isn't that the group comes to better decisions than the individual.

The fundamental reasoning of liberal democracy essentially goes

>Governmental decisions can affect everyone.
>Thus, people have personal interests at stake in seeing certain governmental decisions that help them as opposed to ones that hurt them.
>People will not likely stand idly when a governmental decision threatens to affect them negatively.
>If there is no 'legitimate' method of affecting governmental policy that could affect someone within the system, they are likely to eventually resort to armed revolt to seek redress
>Armed revolt is bad.
>To avoid armed revolt, you need to create a 'legitimate' channel for said potential grievances.
>Therefore, you need something where everyone who is affected (or at least a broad of a base as you can get away with) has some means of affecting governmental policy.

>>2060283

A debate is not for the sake of your opponent but of the audience. Simply point out to them that your opponent has no arguments and is resorting to insults, this should be devastating to his position.

>>2060660
Again this pressuposes reason, agency and a unified abstract subject called the "people". All three are false. Hence democracy is utopian.

>>2060729

No it doesn't. It simply presupposes agency and the capacity for violence if they feel like they're being trampled upon, both of which are rather easily demonstrated.

>>2060734
No. Every successful revolution in history was planned, financed and conducted by powerful interest groups. The masses have no agency.

>>2060754
And this can be demonstrated as well, albeit not "easily", since the truth is often more difficult to grasp than appearances.

>>2060659
Wrong. Liberal democracy isn't responsible for Western success, capitalism is. Liberal democracy actually just limits the West's success, a fact they are discovering with the success of authoritarian state capitalism in Asia. Liberal democracy is a doomed model.

File: overhead.jpg (12KB, 582x386px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 582x386px

>>2060754

Learn to read, retard. I never once mentioned the success or failure of armed revolt, as it's not actually relevant to the point I made. The mere existence of revolt is a point against systems that foment it, successful or not; even in the best situation from the point of view of the state, you've just spent resources to raise force to kill your own economic base.

And guess what? Autocratic systems get a lot more armed revolt than democratic ones.

>>2060771
Again, I don't believe in the expediency of debating. I have stated my case for those who would be convinced. You on the other hand clearly fall into the category of Plato's democratic man, namely one that is governed by his lower appetites and will "reason" accordingly, therefore it is pointless to debate you.

>>2060283
>What's the point of arguing on 4chan (in an informal setting with no rules) when your opponent is just going to use shitposts to counteract your shitposts? Even if you are using memes to back up your shitpost, your opponent may still not believe them because of cognitive dissonance.

Thought I'd clarify the discussion for you OP

>>2060283
Debating in politics is stupid most of the time, unless you're dealing with intelligent, reasonable people. The moment an ad hominem gets used is the moment the debate becomes worthless, just stop there.
Debating philosophy is the most interesting thing to do, at least with someone who is about as educated as you in this field. If he's vastly superior to you he'll basically crush you under tons and tons of concepts you know nothing of and you won't change your mind at all.
And, if you have an audience, this >>2060371
You can't make anyone think exactly like you, but you can convince some people about some of your ideas.

>>2060769
>success of authoritarian state capitalism in Asia
What do you mean by success ? Because I'd rather live in Europe than in China, even if their economy is better than ours at the moment.

>>2060861
Their people are happier than those living in liberal democracies. Fact.

>>2060867
Yeah, I'm going to need a link to this survey.
Especially since if it's conducted by the Chinese government it's not trustworthy at all.
But even then, assuming they really are happier. Is happiness the only deciding factor of success ?