Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement

[@sprouts]

Support us to make more educational videos at www.patreon.com/sprouts.

[@pyeitme508]

Cool

[@Kazzy-chan]

I have an argument, I believe people of Reddit will be enlightened and updoot this video if I were to share it with the world.

[@sprouts]

@@Kazzy-chan Pls do!

[@Mr_Tokon]

People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care

[@saumikdey1539]

Name calling 1:34 Ad hominem 1:49 Responding to tone 2:15 Contradiction 2:42 Counter argument 3:09 Refutation 3:42 Refuting the central point 4:13

[@emmanuelrainville8244]

Not All Heroes Wear Capes

[@seam322cub187]

What about just ignoring them? Maybe the narrator is not as smart as he thinks.

[@capscarlett7859]

@Thatoneguy agreed, there's no point arguing with a flat earther.

[@swampThaang]

I find that disagreements are rarely about getting to the truth. A million other things are going on beneath the surface.

[@aidenaune7008]

when an argument is not about the procurement and dissemination of truth, it is almost always true that someone is being deceptive, that the argument is based on opinion, or that someone is not actually arguing but instead proselytizing. if you find yourself in such a situation, I would suggest stepping back to discern which is the case. if the argument is based on subjectivity, point this out, it should dissolve the argument. if there is deception, further look into what the intended deception is, then confront, it should cause the deceiver to panic and expose their horrid behavior, or disengage. if the other is proselytizing, find out for what, then confront, the preacher will likely turn to deception as a response.

[@ceterisparibus8966]

why do you say that?

[@danielestrada5773]

I wanted to point out that H. Maturana proposed that if you're willing to start an argument or engage one, you must be willing to change your mind.

[@PIZZAdayisback]

​@@aidenaune7008who argues about objective things? Isn't that just what scientists do?

[@aidenaune7008]

@@PIZZAdayisback firstly, you are using "objective" wrong, it is a relational term, not an aspect. it relates one thing to another, like it being objective that the human body is mostly water. you need two things, a subject and an object, in order to use the term. instead, a better word would be "absolute" or "true." secondly, how can you know something is an absolute truth without proof of such or an argument as to why? would you blindly believe someone if they told you the sky was green if you had never seen it? you cannot just believe everything told to you, and you cannot believe it is a lie either, you must be able to discern what is true and what is not, and the best way to do so is an argument. lastly, just in case you misunderstand what I was trying to say, not all arguments are yelling matches. an argument simply means a conversation about a disagreement.

[@osbornejohnson7919]

1. As we have seen in the abolishment of slavery, voting status is not the deciding factor of who gets basic human rights. 2. Partial agreement. Freedom includes how one uses and cares for your body, but a woman cannot exercise control of her body by gouging out someone’s eye with her thumb. Your rights end where another’s begin. 3. There are known genetic factors that cause a difference in melanin distribution in the skin, as well as facial structure and muscle density. 4. Fully agree. The only way to deal with bad ideas is to discuss them openly without threat of violence or legal repercussions.

[@VulcanLogic]

With respect to the logic behind your #2, why should a fetus have rights to the woman's body, particularly if her agency in getting pregnant was never considered, or the pregnancy has a non-zero chance of causing the woman permanent physical harm?

[@NightWatchGaming47]

@@VulcanLogic Statistically very few pregnancies are the result of sexual assaults, obviously not none, but few enough that the matter is a statistical outlier (approximately 5%). If we set aside the outlier and first address the 95% of instance of the issue, we have to address the fact that the baby did not will itself into existence but rather was the result of 2 willing individuals. Then it has to be asked if the woman has the right to end the life of another human as the baby, from the moment of conception is both genetically human and factually alive

[@VulcanLogic]

@@NightWatchGaming47 So not only did you throw women without agency under the bus, including 10-year-olds raped by their own fathers, you didn't answer the question. Would you force a 10-year-old raped by her father to have that child? And after you answer that, why should a fetus have the rights to use another person's body? Because that was the question asked.

[@NightWatchGaming47]

@@VulcanLogic Not very Vulcan of you, making an emotional appeal to conflate the 5% occurrence with 95%. Perhaps the 5% is the exception, perhaps not, but you're painting with too broad a brush to address 2 very different situations with the intent to focus on the rarity. I am proposing before we address that 5% issue we first answer the question with regard to the 95%.

[@VulcanLogic]

@@NightWatchGaming47 This is why your opinion shouldn't count. You just made a 10-year-old girl have her own father's rape baby. No need to talk to you at all.

[@bobjeaniejoey]

Even the strongest argument is useless against stupidity. When finding oneself in a disagreement, proceed with the highest level of argument. If the presence of stupidity becomes evident in the opponent, disengage. One's time and energy to that point have been wasted, except for the discovery that stupidity is present. It would be foolish at that point to waste any more time or energy.

[@TruthSeekerAll]

Wise advice indeed. 👍✅🎯👏🏽

[@vimaladevishanmugam5943]

Wisdom: 100.

[@asap_qr]

It doesn't solve the matter tho rather we become more frustrated in finding ways to prove them wrong

[@sor3999]

You use reason on reasonable people. If you are aware of how lawyers or marketers persuade people they use LOWER LEVEL tactics such as appealing to emotion or ad hominem attacks. Even though they are fallacies, they work on real people and I'd bet MOST people.

[@bobjeaniejoey]

@@sor3999 No kidding. I look at almost all advertising and just laugh at their inane tactics. It's indeed sad that most people are susceptible to such manipulation. I will admit to being somewhat of a sucker regarding ads for one of my favorite products, though, which is premium cigars. The advertisers' promises of a creamy smoke, containing all that I could ever hope for in terms of robust flavor, coupled with an artfully composed photo of their latest beautiful tobacco offerings, perhaps also showing an attentive lovely lady and a rocks glass filled with a triple whiskey, do tend to make me lose my senses of logic, not always, but often enough to say that they've succeeded in winning me over to at least sampling their wares, at least on occasion. In other words, they've discovered my weak spot, I guess. Cheers!

[@Leto85]

Response to tone is what I've seen a parent do when realising the kid was right but frustrated because it had trouble getting their point across. It's an 'excellent' way to distract the child from the subject just so the parent can continue 'being right', while leaving the child in confusion and supressed anger.

[@snowrider9995]

Race and colour are an effect of genetics which decides our phenotypes, so clearly, they have a scientific root. However, there is no superior or inferior colour or race. A fish swims, and a bird flies. They are different and diverse. One can't mark a clear superiority or inferiority here. As the bird drowns in water and fish suffocates in air. Everyone is important for the functioning of a society. Maybe there will be a genius fish to invent an air suit and genius bird to be able to go scuba diving.

[@sprouts]

Yes

[@popsickle3549]

I disagree. We do not use race in science, we use gemides(I think I spelled this wrong). Race is real but the decision to make it distinct is what’s socially constructed. For example height and race are the same, we can find very clearly distinct heights all across the world based of Geographical places. Just like race, it happens because of where we live. So we could have had races based on height and they would’ve been equally as true.

[@snowrider9995]

@@popsickle3549 sure, there is no strict boundary that segregate people. Just like height we have a spectra of skin colour. If one takes ancestry test, we always find our ancestors from around the world...there is no pure blood as ancients used to believe. We all are humans, with the same number of chromosomes.

[@popsickle3549]

@@snowrider9995 I agree

[@ShawnRavenfire]

We have scuba-diving birds. They're called "penguins." ;-p

[@galladiel]

A good rundown of the types of counteragruments however if anyone argues that the Earth is flat, it is certainly not for the lack of videos of the Earth from space. It's that they don't believe those videos are genuine. So using Earth in space videos as an argument in this debate is pointless. Frankly, given the amount of BS being promoted as truth for the last 2 years I myself am starting to doubt a lot of things I thought were settled .

[@omarisrael4974]

If you think what you saw is BS why do you doubt yourself? It’s like the saying what you repeat a thousand times actually becomes a reality or something like that?

[@sukanyaroyart]

Maybe then show them books that talk about how Ferdinand Megallen made a round trip on a ship around the globe and returned to the starting point. They wouldn't believe that either, would they?

[@MyRoosterWisdom]

Good, welcome to real world

[@ziz.ranchero]

Nathanoakley1980, Brian's logic, quantum eraser. Represent.

[@kittytrail]

keep on doubting, that's how we got where we are (and i don't mean about the shape of our planet) and don't let idiots drag you down. they're idiots. you're not 'cause idiots never have doubts. 😉

[@alvinfriesen4918]

Many might disagree, but I learned this a long time ago when my teacher told me to think twice before responding. Now many people I know have to think twice if they want to understand me.

[@kinyacat5919]

This is literally what every discord users need to know xd Sometimes the arguments is just full of weak disagreements.

[@TheDavidlloydjones]

No. We do not need more error spread with skill, confidence, and total lack ofcare.

[@kinyacat5919]

@@TheDavidlloydjones who is this "we" exactly?

[@ziz.ranchero]

@@TheDavidlloydjones Nathanoakley1980, Brian's logic, quantum eraser. Represent.

[@simonebernacchia5724]

I would say even Reddit and Twitter, but is hard to pierce their adamantum skull

[@AndyTheBoiz]

@@simonebernacchia5724 If you try to argue with anyone on twitter they'd either cancel you or just dox you

[@Kerelsso]

Awesome video! I think it's pretty inoortsnt to know how to debate and argue nowadays, when social networks give us constantly a place to put this hierarchy on trial. I going to share it on Twitter right now, let's see if people wants to learn about it!

[@sprouts]

Thanks 🙏🏻

[@jaewok5G]

this comment is satirically sublime whether intentionally so or not.

[@achillepalermo2354]

1) At the base of this argument there's two ideas : the first is that the woman is putting her needs before the fetus's, but the fetus will suffer if he does become a baby, not if he gets aborted. The second one is that the rights of the fetus are being ignored, however, the most logical reason why the fetus should have rights is that it might become a human being, however that logic is flawed because, although different, there are many situations where everyone would disregard something that might become a human being, sperm, egg cells, etc 2) absolutely true, the control over our own body is the most basic of all rights, so unless the woman can't or isn't in the right state to make an important decision, she should always have control over her own body, even in the case where she would make the wrong choice.

[@thomrichards8495]

This is probably one of the only places you will find well-constructed arguments in a comment section

[@RomainPuech]

1 - namecalling 2 - Ad hominem 3 - Responding to the tone 4 - contradiction 5 - counterargument 6 - Refutation 7 - refuting the central point Paul Graham, 2008

[@francorocket9908]

what book is based on this video?

[@thinkersonly1]

when there is a disagreement in topics, the most open minded and wise thing to do is 1- clarify what others are saying. Repeat it to them to make sure thats the point they are trying to point across. After making sure that you understood their statement, its important to do the 2- and this is the most important thing that most people DO NOT DO, which is , to actually do ask questions from the other person to understand why do they believe what they believe, and if there was no time, or the person is not able to explain clearly, to ask them for more info, for example, if a person thinks earth is flat, the open minded thing to do is to have them send you links to watch, books to read, and completely learn about the topic fully, the same with political sides, and economics, and etc. To understand why people believe the things they believe, its important to actually throw yourself into their world, and learn about other sides that is out of your comfort zone. That is how you become knowledgable, smart, can have interesting and wise debates. I teach this to my daughter, never argue, debate, open your mouth about issues, topics that you have not learned deeply, researched, yourself, instead of listening to tv box.... Everyone has an agenda to push and nowadays its hard to find anything , if you see anything online that has debunk videos, the more curious you should be about that topic! that means its a good info they are trying to hide. If you show flat earthers the google photos of the flat earth, you will offend them, because thats not actually what they believe. thats just an example.

[@rphb5870]

that right there is basically just a description of the scholastic method, developed in the early middle ages and spread though the ancient universities. It was a variant of this that lead to another important thought process: the scientific method, where we just direct it towards nature itself rather then just another person. But in order to have any of that we first need to have an idea that the universe is orderly, something that is uniquely Christian.

[@dimitrioskaragiannis1169]

The bad and difficult think with the step 2 is that the people have limited amounts of time to invest .

[@Ghibli-Dude]

I agree with doing part of this but not all of it. Definitely ask questions. Say, "I'm going to repeat what I believe you said, and correct me if I'm wrong". But, don't ask for links. If they are preaching conspiracy theories or anything else, you could fall into the rabbit hole and never get out. Just treat people like human beings, that's all people need in a discussion.

[@thinkersonly1]

@@Ghibli-Dude i dont mind going on a rabbit hole, i get to understand why millions of people think the way they do. I might learn thing or two. I am always up to learning something new. And it makes me knowledgable, and thats why im a great person to have a conversation with. I know about everything :) i can hold a conversation about anything :)

[@עינת-כ5ט]

Good video! sometime the argument becomes something that you want to win and not about to learn. and in my opinion This Is the big problem.

[@c-light7624]

Excellent video! I made notes and tried to dissect what I heard. Made my understanding greater! It even helped me formulate my thoughts on the viewpoint I opposed, which allowed me to make _multiple respectful (and on topic) counterpoints,_ instead of thinking, “That’s wrong, so stupid.” It’ll take practice, it’s extra work, and it’s a high bar to reach but, so worth it. I feel proud of myself rn. This is the content I live for!

[@omarisrael4974]

Great attitude, man

[@kittytrail]

you haven't much experience with idiots, don't you? 😏

[@explorerars4208]

Thank you sprouts you made my stress and depressing disagreement with others to happy disagreement

[@trirakshavverma503]

Can u make a video on opinions. Like how one becomes fixated on his opinion and won't ever change it no matter how much proof or contradiction is given

[@dubvc1]

There's video on defected KGB agent that has the answer to your exact question.

[@puddintame7794]

@@dubvc1 Demoralization?

[@dubvc1]

@@puddintame7794 yessir👍

[@ulflyng]

Most discussions takes place in emotions. Thus making it futile. I have often had better results just saying "I disagree", shrug and walk away

[@lastworlddeer]

Seems in conversations, when disagreeing. Only Agreements & Contradictions are what i do. Love to know what you guys do!! 😄😄

[@ulflyng]

"I have noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" - Ronald Reagan

[@folaemmanuel7719]

This sounds like survivorship bias; using the stance that everyone that is alive was certainly not aborted to prevent abortion from being legal. Well, consider the case where abortion is illegal and ladies who say got pregnant prematurely, were raped, etc or otherwise would have sought for abortion instead were forced to have the child, looking at consequences of that such as death during labor, post-partum depression, lack of proper resources to raise the child leading to child neglect, health issues etc... All of these are valid points IMO that that survivorship bias-based claim does not conclusively cover. PS: I am trying to practice "refuting the central point" as well as communicating my point :)

[@ulflyng]

@@folaemmanuel7719 Can't make laws for all, because of the very few you mention. Humans will anyway get what they want, I just don't want to pay for this

[@grapeshott]

We are educators, and the world is mean

[@PIZZAdayisback]

No, implying that the entire world is mean is simply ignorant of the good in the world and is a very simple (and dangerous) way of thinking because humanity's tendency to be negative. How did I do with that one?

[@raymk]

1: Disagree. Many dying people cannot vote, but that doesn't mean we can kill them. Black people in the past also could not vote. 2: Disagree. There's a certain thing woman and even man cannot do with their own body, such as being completely naked in public, and we as a society put limits on our own freedom. 3: Disagree. Our race and skin color is biological, but our ways to treat others can be constructed. 4: Agree. Dumb people must be told that they are wrong, and they must change for the betterment of themselves and the society. 5: ??? Who is "we"? EDIT: on the 4th statement, I don't mean to belittle someone who lack certain information. I forgot to say that we must correct these people with gentleness and graciously.

[@sprouts]

Thanks Ray

[@raymk]

@@sprouts I'm a bit confused on the fifth statement, the video suddenly uses two characters who refer to themselves as "we" 😂. "We" can possibly include me as well, so I object right away. Nice video, tho! I've shared it to my discord server, so more people can be educated on how to argue well. Much love 💖Thank you very much!

[@ilzamerson5242]

The ones that I have disagreement is the firsts two statements, which I consider to be related. In this sense, is not just a matter of having control of your own body, but also having to deal with the life of another human being. If freedom is inherent to everyone, the unborn person should also be considered for that purpose, regardless the capability to vote, which is, after all, also an act of freedom. I am not taking a position regarding rather abortion is right or wrong, or if women should have more control over their body, but I believe I am pointing out an argument to effectively oppose the firsts two statements together. It is a very complex theme discussed around the world by parliaments and even supreme courts of justice. I welcome anyone who wants to build a constructive debate regarding.

[@Ghibli-Dude]

X. A method used to derail the necessary conversation into related emotionally charged issues. Sometimes used unwittingly, and passed down by the leadership. Don’t do this. A. Calmly and reasonably define the essential issue at question. B. Apply knowledge and reason, and work towards an agreement. C. Agree on an answer to the question. Or, highlight what issues need to be resolved in order to be able to draw the answer. D. Accept that you may not agree with each other. Abortion example. X. The baby is a soul or has DNA. It is the woman’s body. A. Topic: when or how is a person human? Or, someone instead of something? B. Scientists don’t analyze the human condition but only work on defining “life”. Philosophers have no consensus on what makes one “human”. C. We must define what is “someone” before we can know if or when the fetus reaches that point. D. They will probably not abandon their convictions in the face of reason. They will probably try to save face in front of their tribe.

[@sahilchaudhary8279]

Lets agree to Disagree.

[@alexandretodorovic5950]

I disagree your agreement.

[@Dinhjason]

I agree with your disagreement

[@galymzhankyrykbaev2976]

I destroy this thread

[@matthijsvandervlist6773]

Classic 😋

[@Dinhjason]

Imagine having to do multiple takes for this one. "We are educators, and the world ain't round". You can hear the delivery get slightly hastier the 5th time. Had a good chuckle from that one. Fantastic topic covered by the way, I was just rehearsing these points to some peers of mine - invaluable insight for clarity.

[@noisyguest5249]

Bro, I heard 'We are educators and the world ain't brown.' :/

[@kittytrail]

by engaging with them you acknowledge their idiocy. never engage with idiots, it's contagious, time consuming and, mostly, pointless. they're idiots. 😬

[@TheWayofFairness]

I agree with truth when I discover it. I have nothing to say about incorrect thinking of others.

[@DaveNyhilus]

Awesome video. I do think that you encounter problems when arguing a point when an individual takes that point as personal item or identity. You counter the notion that the world ain't round with various facts and logic, but the person who made the statement now feels that you're attacking them because the belief that the world ain't round is a core and fundamental belief which gives them a sense of identity. They are part of the "educated" group who have higher knowledge, you doubt the sage wisdom they as educators have provided. You challenge the point they have made, but they in turn get offended and start calling you names. What started as a genuine conversation has now devolved into screeching, zealous, anti-social behaviour. Sometimes, you just can't convince fools.

[@sprouts]

Yes 👍 👍

[@brentbonham4398]

No. Other than their own progeny, the generation before always blames the next, and vice versa. 2. YES. When a predominantly male group makes legislation limiting female anything, they have no common basis for understanding and are therefore wrong. 3. The pigmentation is biological, the reactions to it are not. 4. Absolutely. It is my right to say it, it is your right to not listen to it. - BPB.

[@sprouts]

Thanks

[@maneli3769]

1. Disagree 2. Agree 3. Disagree 4. Agree to an extent 5. Agree to an extent

[@pyrotech8504]

Everyone should have to watch this.

[@ganstagranny]

One more is to be added.(from my perspective) asking questions abt there argument.something like socratic method

[@doomclasher9287]

(6:30) I'm gonna go back to the points listed at the beginning of the video and try to refute them 1. first of all, abortion has to do with unborn fetuses, not babies. Second, children aren't able to vote yet killing them is illegal 2. The same applies to men, so I'm confused by the quote 3. Something I heard about this a few years ago from a trusted source alters how I think about this to the point that I don't know what to think anymore 4. That is incredibly vague. Also, we have dictionaries and can check what liberty actually means

[@pfsmith01]

However, sometimes rhetoric IS more effective than dialectic. Especially when dealing with the below average side of the bell curve... All of the well crafted dialectic in the world isn't going to get through their lack of cognitive ability, let alone their existing programming.

[@kittytrail]

you, you've met more than your share... 😹

[@creativitysubs9935]

How ironic. Your opinion is outdated. 2012 called and wants it back. Times have changed, old timer. Nowadays the majority on both sides in the US are easily brainwashed by rhetoric.

[@ezycuberz4563]

I feel happy this video exists

[@GodHelpMe369]

my life, so far, 45 years of: - hell - misery - suffering - depression - despair - abuse - bullying - torment - nightmares - terror I want to die I can no longer bear this hell that is my life it's dark it's ugly it's filled with pain and poverty and loneliness and trauma and aloneness

[@mikehess4494]

Seek first to understand where the other person is coming from. All disagreements come from a fear of losing something. Find out what they fear losing to understand why they think and feel the way they do.

[@fg1650]

I agree, if a women doesn’t have control. Her body she is not free, her body is a part of her being, and is she isn’t in full control of it via someone using or taking advantage, means a part of her isn’t free

[@marianicou4796]

We do not choose when to be born, in which family to be born, what colour of eyes to have etc, but I don't see you questioning if the absence of control there makes you an unfree person. If it makes you unfree, then why pretend to be free and claim abortion as an act if maintenance of freedom? If you are free, why do you treat the decision of God to send a baby to you to be of less value than, e.g. giving you your intellect, your family of origin, your height, etc? Also, why do you not treat a beating heart in an infant as life, but you treat a beating heart in a child as life? How do you decide that it is not murder?

[@Ga61-n9f_her3]

1) Abortion is legal in some states,but illegal in others. And that's not because babies can't vote but because the couple can decide if they want to have a family or not or if the state agrees with abortion. 2) If someone else tells her how to chance,what to do with her body whenever he wants,then I agree. But that applies to men too,not only to women 3) If your parents are black,you're most likely to be black too(unless you are not albinous). And if you are born in a country or a continent like Africa,you are also likely to be black. People changet their body features to adapt to their life,depending where they live. So I agree,but it is also natural 4) Yeah,you have the right to tell people what they don't want to hear,but they have the right to not listen to you at all. Liberty means anything at all,but if you broke someone's liberty,yours can be reduced,depending by the crime that was commited.

[@Ga61-n9f_her3]

Love your videos,man! :)

[@sprouts]

Thanks :)

[@mehdicirtensis]

I prefer first to let the person explain more his point of view and argue it

[@segfault1361]

Anything up to Level 6: Refutation should be trivially easy as long as you know what you're talking about and can properly articulate your thoughts. Refuting the Central Point is really the only step up, and it sometimes requires actually talking to that person directly and ask probing questions to derive the central point.

[@roallposselt4527]

"if liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear" I agree, I think that all people should have the right to say what they want as long as they don't call for violence, or what they say could be harmful to others, like shouting "fire" when there isn't a fire, but that said people dont't have to listen to them, they simply can't stop them from speaking in the first place, so you can't ban people for saying what they want to as long it isn't harmful.

[@amirrezaamini9907]

I'd name the video "The rudest disagreements to the most polite ones". This is the strongest disagreement I guess then.

[@johnizitchiforalongtime]

I had to get over stage fright, public speaking is not my thing, yet i got over it.

[@siamaktahaeiyaghoubi897]

"We are educators and the world ain't round" My disagreement: 😡😡👊👊

[@gigi3103]

Excellent video, once again doing a great job at helping people think critically. I would offer a further level of response that is more discursive, rather than merely countering. Instead of immediately rebutting a statement you disagree with, ask neutral, respectful questions aimed at understanding why they believe what they do, before providing your own view e.g. 'that's a thought provoking idea, what makes you believe that?'. This will help get to the root of the statement without causing defense. If you don't find their statement convincing, your response can be 'how interesting, I personally feel X because Y'. The aim is to take a journey together in pursuit of knowledge and understanding. You might find that you challenge your own preconceptions in the process, or gain greater sympathy for those who disagree with you.* *Naturally, you could still receive responses that seem emotive and ill considered, but at least this way you encourage others to think critically with you, rather than becoming defensive and more entrenched in preconceived ideas.

[@sprouts]

Great point!!!

[@CarFreeSegnitz]

Yes, good argumentation SHOULD make a better world. But many have arrived at erroneous beliefs through feelings and tribal loyalty. Presenting good argumentation may actually be counter-productive. They’ll dig their heels in. If you really mean to correct erroneous belief it may be necessary to deconstruct why the believer came to their belief from a social and psychological perspective. “Believing the Earth is flat makes you feel smart, right? You must admire the person who convinced you the first time.” They are probably not crazy or stupid for arriving at their beliefs. Adopting those beliefs brought acceptance from their chosen group.

[@zee-21511]

I'm saving it for tomorrow. Then, I'll carefully craft my reasonings.

[@daveulmer]

You left out the concept of Truth. There really is True Knowledge and False Knowledge and lifeforms need true knowledge to survive.

[@jimflagg4009]

You could say, "If the World is not round then what is it?" So that when you argue you make sure you are not talking about the same thing.

[@fribersson]

Great video. 1st: accurate. 2nd: depends when another life is involved (I’ll let the ladies figure out their solution, and disagree among each other). 3rd: would need to find a convincing definition of “socially constructed first”. Most people use “socially constructed” as word think, without explaining specifically who and how constructed what and when. As such, it is unclear and rather nonsensical. And “biologically natural”: that would assume other things are not (hair colour). People using “socially constructed” often mean “how people interpret”, but the choice of words is confusing on purpose. 4th: we can also respect other people NOT wanting to hear about something. Freedom to speak does not mean forcing someone to listen. I could talk about getting food poisoning, but forcing people to listen to me is disrespectful and has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Great video, will share.

[@cisium1184]

I can't really say I agree with any of them, because I'm not 100% sure what any of them mean. All are subject to more than one interpretation, so I would need to clarify what the speaker means through further questioning. Is that a default disagree?

[@Nomed38]

Some would say it is a disagreement because they see it as an argument against what they are saying. There are also people that get very hostile towards anyone questioning them on their ideals or beliefs. Do try to be careful out there since there isn't reliable traits to determine if someone will become hostile when asked to clarify something they said, though some would claim there are traits to indicate hostility towards questions.

[@vikki8699]

Never correct a fool, he will hate you for it. Correct a wise man, he will listen to the new information, ask questions and thank you for it.

[@phil..rubi123]

The most effective way to argue without effort is to ask the wright questions. (If you are 100% sure you are correct). Ask questions so that the other person answer. And they will understand reality with their own words not yours.

[@Ice-yp4wg]

1. "Abortion is legal because babies can't vote." - Disagree. Because children can't vote either until reaching voting age. 2. "No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body" - Disagree. Mainly because I smell a bit of ad hominem logic here. Like, why just women? 3. "Race and skin colour are socially constructed, not biologically natural." - Strongly Disagree. Just wrong. Obviously forgetting genetics is a thing. 4. "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - Mostly Agree. Yes. One of the main benefits of liberty is exactly the right to criticize for the sake of hoping another will improve. Especially to leaders. However, it shouldn't warrant any unjust vexation with no benefit whatsoever. 5. "We are educators and the world ain't round." - Disagree. Hippity hoppity, your position and tenure is no longer your property. Unless this is in some kind of christian school actively teaching this kind of stuff then I'm just changing next enrollment rather than have to hear more of this.

[@PORTAL-Gate]

We are educators and the world ain’t round. :yes and run to live another day

[@antoniogantioqui9769]

I've learned to be an assertive communicator, rather than passive and aggressive.😊😊😊

[@oswaldoorozco114]

When you engage in a conversation objectively looking to be the winner and as a result making the other party the looser I think you both loose. Part of why political and religious discussions go no where. The most rewarding conversations I’ve came across are when you try to understand the other party. Understand their cognitive processes and why they conclude what they conclude. Understand potential biases you may have and they may have. Are we speaking from emotion rather than logic? Often times if you are overly emotional about a topic you open yourself up to being bias. There’s something to take away from every social engagement. If you want to wrestle with someone for the sake of it. Chess is probably better or jiu jitsu. Food for thought.

[@sprouts]

I agree!

[@idkreally5263]

I am gonna use all of these, in case I'm loosing argument.

[@hyperjazgames]

Could a form of valid argument also be a question, though? In the example, "No woman can call herself free who does not control her own body" that is a vague statement. Control her body in what sense? Control when she urinates? Make the choice whether or not to carry a fetus to full term? Those are two completely different scenarios. Plus, we have addressed why this hypothetical freedom isn't, so then what is it? I do not argue much, I often just ask questions that allow people to find the conclusion I came to. It probably has a lot to do with me being a teacher, thought.

[@emmanuelrainville8244]

I don’t know the names in english, but those are all sophism which are ‘False claim or reasoning despite appearance of truth’ Sophism which comes from Sophists who opposed Socrate with these kind of answers.

[@jaewok5G]

4• limiting speech that we agree with isn't rational [likely], only that with which we are naive, ambivalent, or oppose. 'free speech' is not just the right for one to speak, but also the right for one to hear others speech. if a person is prevented from hearing an idea by a third person or authority, then they have lost a choice of their autonomy. even if the opinion is 'bad' or 'irrational' or 'unsubstantiated,' it could be any listener that would be able to refute it or better formulate it towards a workable solution - if given the opportunity to first hear it. there is no other way to progress except through a conflict of ideas and a negotiated [argued] solution of compromise or agreement. limiting speech only reveals an inability to think or defend one's own opinions. edit:typo

[@HrabiaVulpes]

I think it only works if both sides willingly participate in moving up in hierarchy of arguments. Usually arguments move down, fast.

[@sqsp5794]

All disagreements are inherently equal and the idea of them having a hierarchy is classist 😂

[@tankofnova9022]

I have a question about reactions to higher forms of disagreements. How do you respond to those with weak egos who lash out at the idea of being challenged at all? You see this in modern activism. Feminists calling men victimizers for not bowing down to them. Vegans calling meat eaters murderers while ignoring that plants are also alive. There are others. These are just a couple examples.

[@Ty-mullah]

If liberty means telling people want they do not want

[@dracotitanfall]

Sadly, for most people it doesn't matter how much evidence or reasoning you put forward since they have inner emotional resistances or insecurities that stop them from accepting that information or critically evaluating it in good faith.

[@tangoto1209]

It seems that all of these statement's were specifically made to be, for most people, morally in the right but not for the right reason, or for a misleading, vague reason. Which is why, in most cases I believe one should always ask for clarification or elaboration on an argument they disagree with.

[@refraf8030]

What is the main difference between counter argument and refutation. They seem similar almost identical to me. Also I didn’t quite understand the example you used for the final point of the hierarchy (refuting the central point).

[@DodgeThatAttack]

I think its worth noting that someone using a weak refutation like ad-hominem doesnt automatically invalidate them - but it is typically unecessary and is not enough of a refutation on its own

[@DragonsAndDragons777]

I look around the internet and it's all stage on eof disagreement

[@13thravenpurple94]

Great work 🥳 Thank you 💜

[@keypiece9764]

1 Yes, 2 Yes, 3 Not really, 4 Yes.

[@Ghibli-Dude]

X. A method used to derail the necessary conversation into other related side-issues. Sometimes used unwittingly, and passed down by the leadership. Don’t do this. A. Calmly and reasonably define the essential issue at question. B. Apply knowledge and reason, and work towards an agreement. C. Agree on an answer to the question. Or, highlight what issues need to be resolved in order to be able to draw the answer. D. Accept that you may not agree with each other. Abortion example. X. The baby is a soul or has DNA. It is the woman’s body. A. Topic: when and how is a person human? Or, someone instead of something? B. Scientists don’t analyze the human condition but only work on defining “life”. Philosophers have no consensus on what makes one “human”. C. We must define what is “someone” before we can know if or when the fetus reaches that point. D. They will probably not abandon their convictions in the face of reason. They will likely try to save face in front of their tribe.

[@amampathak]

absolutely brilliant video

[@ziz.ranchero]

Seems like Graham is claiming the set of logical fallacies is hierarchical. Instead let's say it's communicating something about the pedagogical system of the survey population.

[@jfilm7466]

Liberty Vs Freedom?

[@yawnyantekyi-owusu9066]

1.Disagree 2.Agree 3.Disagree 4.Disagree 5.Disagree

[@EmoBearRights]

1) Cruelty to children is illegal in theory and yet children can't vote either. However this is just one the problems with this arguement. Foetuses aren't babies they're proto babies, and babies lack the self awareness to realise that. Life is incrementally developed - there are so many miscarriages at early stages that you have to have three on the trot for to investigated for problems so even nature is fuzzy on when a foetus is a variable life. I actually agree with 2.

[@raymk]

Hi, Kat 👋😉 Let me give you my thoughts regarding your ideas. "Fetuses are not babies". Sure, fetuses are not babies in the term of human development, but both of them are still considered a human. Someone who is very old and lost many of his ability to move, eat, breath, or even think do not make them less human. "Babies lack the self awareness to realize that" I'm a bit confused about what the babies lack the awareness to realize. Babies at all stages (including at the very early stage) do not have the capability to realize so many things, that doesn't mean we can just kill them. "Nature is fuzzy on when a fetus is a variable life" A fetus can grow to be like you and I when given a proper environment. A fetus is also a human being because his/her parents are human beings. And I do not see how we can define what is alive if we can't even say a fetus is alive. Thanks!

[@omarisrael4974]

@@raymk good refutation

[@raymk]

@WildChild Hello, WIld Child! What a name! Let me refute your arguments. What do you mean by "non viable"? Babies cannot live by themselves even outside the womb, but that doesn't mean the babies can be killed. Being viable or non-viable also doesn't grant anybody to kill someone else. If there's a patient who cannot live with the help of a machine, that doesn't mean we can kill them. A possibility of miscarriage (the baby dies by natural means or by accident) does not mean we can kill them intentionally. If there's a person who has a chronic illness with the possibility to die in 3 months, that doesn't mean we can kill that person within 3 months. Thanks for reading! Have a very nice day there~

[@Bahamamos]

0:50 really when conversations occur and they agree, they create a echo chamber, then might get overly violent to see how wierd someone can even disagree with them... (Looks to the left)

[@Leto85]

The truth lies always in the middle: and thus the Earth 'is' flat when you stand on it, but round when you look at it from far away. XD World-peace activated!

[@PurpleOtakuBB]

From the statement: Abortion is legal because babies can't vote. In my humblest opinion, I view the statement as technically right because in some countries like Nepal and Ireland, abortion is legalized. In fact, 67 countries as of 2023 have legalized and decriminalized abortion as per request. Moreover, no laws were written that babies can vote in any country as of today. However, I'd like to refute the notion that abortion is legal simply because babies can't vote. This reasoning lacks logical coherence and seems unusual. Making the statement that it's okay to abort babies because they can't vote doesn't make any sense. The ability to vote should not be the sole determinant of the value or right to life of a human being. Furthermore, if I may express my personal opinion on this matter, I strongly believe that abortion is morally wrong. I grew up in a community where a child is seen as a blessing and a gift from a generous and loving God. The sanctity of life is highly regarded, and the idea of intentionally ending a life is deeply troubling to me. In conclusion, while abortion may be legal in certain countries, basing its legality solely on the fact that babies can't vote is an illogical argument. The value and right to life of a human being should not be determined by their ability to participate in the political process. From a moral standpoint, I firmly believe that every life is precious and deserving of protection.

[@td5786]

If I may as well express my personal opinion. Your religious views should not dictate what is in the law, right? Would you be okay with the law complying to some religion you don't follow? For instance, being forced to wear a particular religious outfit, because for some it's deeply troubling for someone not to wear them? I'm not against religions, I just think it should be a personal choice and stay outside of laws.

[@VIDEOSASDE]

I see many links to Arthur Schopenhauer's dialectics ("Art of Being Right")

[@jaewok5G]

LOL!! I can't even! 5• the earth is not round [nor ellipsoid]. circles and ellipses are flat 2-D shapes, they should be saying, "the earth is not a sphere," but the earth is not a sphere, it's an _oblate spheroid."_ however, it is a challenge to make the convincing argument in a room with relying on uncommon experiences such as "the view from space."

[@jujuoof174]

Very interesting, thank you!

[@Lunarmobiscuit]

The first explanation I’ve seen covering Critical Thinking that ignores logic and reasoning, as in the 2,000+ year old studio of what makes a valid and sound argument, and what are fallacies.

[@puddintame7794]

That could be taken two ways. I wonder which way you mean it?

[@rphb5870]

We don't discuss with people who say "we are educated and the world aren't round" because either they are joking, or they are too dumb to understand, and it is pointless to discuss with them in either case as in a battle of wit between a sage and a madman the madman wins as he don't understand defeat.

[@GabiHMrrobot]

Name calling and ad homien arent the same?

[@keesdenheijer7283]

Not really, when I would say for example: Your argument is wrong because you are too old to get it right, that's an ad hominem but it's not name calling per se.

[@GabiHMrrobot]

@@keesdenheijer7283 i ask bc, în a way, sound similar and i cant Distinguish

[@christofthedead]

they are both ad hominems. Name calling is technically an "abusive ad hominem", where the intention is just to throw an insult that doesn't refute the argument in any way. A standard ad hominem will insult the person in a way that fallaciously implies that their argument is weak due to a character flaw. There's also valid ad hominems, where the attack on the person highlights a valid reason that their argument is flawed (ie they have vested interests, they're a known liar etc.)

[@blueberryoatmeal4009]

Ad hominem attacks an attribute of the person (not necessarily authority, so the definition in the video isn't quite correct). Name calling could be seen as a subtype of that. But ad hominem doesn't have to be verbally abusive, and there's a school of thought that it isn't necessarily fallacious either if the attribute being attacked is relevant to the discussion (for example: "you are part of the tobacco lobby, so we shouldn't trust what you say about the effects of smoking").

[@sfritz4358]

Answer to all 5 at the start of the video: 1. No, voting isn't applicable until you're 18. 2. How do you know men aren't chained by this reasoning as well? 3. Race is a constructed principle, but both it and skin color are directly affected by genetics. 4. I have a mixed opinion and can't give a good answer to this question. 5. No, it's a sphere. Answer at the end of the video: The same thing basically, since I couldn't just answer yes or no to the questions without feeling morally ambiguous... I agreed with the first half of each statement, but felt that the logic behind the decisions was faulty and needed corrections before I could consider them seriously.

[@Karonclip]

I'm so above these native people

[@jaewok5G]

2• it's unjust to limit the argument to 'women' and 'body,' when no person is free who does not control the fruits of their labor which includes that and also men and what one can do with one's body - ie free will. in any society, with every rule, someone's autonomy is being limited. while not explicit in the comment, the opinion is largely associated with the debate over abortion but except in the extreme and limited examples, the woman has made a choice to engage in the activities that result in pregnancies, and while it grown within her, it is not her body, but another that lives.

[@AFlemPen]

Gosh if only people had discussions like this...but since even science can sometimes be wrong, what's the solution ? I need to know

[@tinandglass]

Ain't is not considered a word because it is not a contraction of two words like isn't is, but we've been using it for hundreds of years despite the fact it doesn't have an origin. It's a presciptavist (rules based) way of looking at and using language.

[@saksonsoaps7000]

I generally try to go for higher levels of disagreement because those are far more productive arguments. However, sometimes, (and I hate to admit this) it’s just more fun and satisfying to go for the lower, infinitely more immature levels of engagement simply to get someone all wound up and pissed off. Especially if it’s a topic I don’t really care about or if I just think the person is a prick. I guess we can’t be grownups all the time..🤷🏻

[@Icelander00]

Thanks

[@Leto85]

I think I'd ask further if someone would claim the world is flat and they are educated. I may disagree, but I'm curious to see where they're coming from.

[@jaewok5G]

1• even if babies could vote, they'd likely distribute into the same camps as everyone else who has already been born and therefore beyond the scope of 'abortion.' abortion is legal because it's an easy solution to a complex problem.

[@SecretSquirrelFun]

Thanks for sharing this video, much appreciated. I’m quite pleased that I thought about saying that the world was more like an oval shape. But I thought that that would be a slightly obnoxious response. Although I do understand that it is also a really good response because it’s not connecting the two statements and forming an possibly incorrect assumption about this. The “central point”idea, is such an interesting way of looking at things but - being totally honest, in order to really get a proper understanding of this, I’d have loved to have been guided through each one of the statements. I’d find it difficult to do this on my own after only 8 minutes. 🙂❤️🐿🌈