How to Win a Debate Without Even Trying | Socratic Questioning

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

LINKS AND CORRECTIONS: If you want to work with an experienced study coach teaching maths, philosophy, and study skills then book your session at [e-mail]. Previous clients include students at the University of Cambridge and the LSE. Support me on Patreon here: patreon.com/UnsolicitedAdvice701?Link& Sign up to my email list for more philosophy to improve your life: forms.gle/YYfaCaiQw9r6YfkN7

[@georgewarner5496]

FOR LOTS OF LAUGHTER TELL THIS ONE TO LADIES : Can you imagine an elevated motor car fitted with wheels on the ends of long stilts. A strong gust of wind would easily blow it off balance. The high heeled shoes that women wear are similar to that car. They are one of Humanity's most daft inventions. And I don't believe that a Christian woman that has a serious interest in Stoic Wisdom based on Rational Judgement and Sound Logic would ever wear high heeled shoes. The shoes contort the feet from their natural shape, minimise stability and traction, and have the opposite effect of minimalist shoes and barefoot walking. There are various situations that women may find themselves in that clearly elucidate the error of wearing H.H. shoes. E.g. Running to catch a bus or train. Running to cross a road where there is no pedestrian crossing and there is traffic moving fast in both directions. Running for your life when a mass shooting happens. John Wayne said : Life is tough but its even tougher when you're stupid. LOL.

[@MariadeLourdesAniesSanch-ze7hf]

I guess man

[@MariadeLourdesAniesSanch-ze7hf]

He is my body forever I like freedom please

[@happinesstan]

"The unexamined life s not worth living" But is the unlived life worthy of examination?

[@silvergreylion]

@@georgewarner5496 Thanks, though I think it needs a bit of modernization.

[@klosnj11]

Holy cow. "You can't logic someone out of a position that they haven't logiced themselves into." That sounds like something I should have known already, but I had never heared it expressed like that.

[@Bf26fge]

That is so true. I believe it was Mark Twain who said it is much easier to fool a man than to convince him that was fooled.

[@catlordofthe69th82]

I believe he is the one that said "No amount of evidence will ever persuade an idiot"@@Bf26fge

[@Itsunaiz]

Just cuz a quote sounds cool doesnt make it true. Sometimes a good debate can help open ppl’s eyes to rationale and make them requestion their emotional beliefs

[@rufuscollis303]

Once the "belief system" has been tapped into...there's no moving it. Even if that was based on lies,

[@klosnj11]

@@Itsunaiz while the statement is formulated as an absolute, I think it is safe to assume it is meant as a rule of thumb more than an unbreakable law of the universe. Of course there are instances where reason can change someones perspective if it was originally informed by emotion. But I think in the vast majority of such cases, pathos or ethos will get one further than logos alone. We are not purely rational beings. As Hume said, "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions."

[@jamestaquino7726]

To summarize… Pre-Arguing: Ask “What definitions are we using for the key terms in our discussion?” to find out if you really are arguing about what you think you're arguing about. The word “God” could mean multiple things. If two parties have different definitions and are both arguing whether or not God is real, they're not on the same page and have a distorted reality of what the other person is thinking. The second thing to ask is “Under what circumstances would we change out mind?”. The reason for asking this would be to gauge if they are even open to the idea of learning something new out of the debate, or are just a Martyr for their beliefs. The Ignoramus and Clarification: “I’m not sure I completely understand your position.” is a great way to diffuse the argument by turning it I to a discussion of genuine curiosity. By asking them to clarify their position, they have to think more elaborately of their position, revealing to them the holes in their logic. “What do you mean by that?” allows your opponent to clarify their argument so you can get on the same page as them, allowing you to articulate your argument based on their subjective worldview. Causes and Reasons: Ask “What is the reasoning behind that belief?” to have them explain their logic. If they reply back with what CAUSED their belief, state the separation between reasoning and cause. If they dismiss what you say and repeatedly state what caused their worldview, it very well may be a lost cause. The Alternatives: Put yourself in the other persons shoes. Live their life for a moment and ask yourself “what information may I be missing living the life that this person has lived?” . Knowing that they may be dismissing omitted information, ask “Under What conditions would you change your mind?”. This will get them to think critically about different perspectives people could carry, which could then open their mind for change. Implications and Complications: To translate peoples beliefs into reality and hold them accountable, ask “If what you say is true, then what would be a consequence of it? Positive and negative?”. This will get them thinking down the line of their beliefs, putting it to the smell test. Questioning Questions: Question questions to clarify the reasoning behind their curiosity. Find out why you're stance is causing them distress to address their logic and emotions properly. Forgive me for the long comment. Writing this for my own sake. Hopefully someone benefits from it like I have.

[@booboobeepbeep9964]

Thank you, this was a great summary. Very for exterior opinions, giving this an accurate summary of the video. Though I don’t think I would have been opposed to some of your personal opinions.

[@nathanielnorton1972]

Thank you for leaving this here, I went through it aloud and it seems I have a deeper understanding now of this video, thanks to you 😊

[@5Texas5]

Thank you.

[@Venusneighbor]

Thank you 🙏

[@OfWavesAndWinds]

Also, ask yourself WHY do you want to win debate? Question your motive first. Furthermore, AVOID arguing with morons. Otherwise, you are wasting your time and energy.

[@riffz6065]

This transcends politics and debates. This is communication and self awareness 101

[@AlliePaints]

I mean debates aren’t inherently political (not saying you necessarily said that, but it seems like a potential flaw in your logic)

[@somevideos7432]

@@AlliePaintsnice, I see what you did there 😉

[@MZIH]

I’m not sure I completely understand your position, But you’re wrong

[@LessOfJonathan]

Some may even call it Philosophical :P

[@AlliePaints]

@@somevideos7432 TMW I Have no Idea what you're talking about because that was just a genuine statement 🤣

[@swagg_37]

2:22 the amount of times that we end up arguing “about nothing” bc the misunderstanding falls under the “pre-argument” part. loved how u broke down that “pre” stage

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you! I think it can be helpful as I have wasted so much time in the past before realising that I had just misunderstood someone's position

[@klosnj11]

How do you think that can be achieved online. Often we find ourselves in the midst of the action online; an argumentitive "medias-en-res" if you will. Do we formalize the debate? "So before we go any further, I want to make sure that we are all speking the same language...." That sort of thing?

[@GuardDog42]

Doubles as a way to pin people down on what they believe so they cannot weasel out of it if the conversation turns against them.

[@MrZZsharka]

@@GuardDog42Jon Stuart did this very well against Bill O’rille on a particular celebrity that Bill disapproved of being allowed into the white house, given his history.

[@nicechock]

Here is some great secret advice for you: "you cant win a debate if you are wrong".

[@ButUrWrongTho]

Almost every online argument you ever encounter comes down to 2 people operating off of different definitions of a term.

[@MicahMicahel]

they weaponize words this way. An anti vaxxer wasnt a person that doesnt want a new experimantal medication forced on yhe whole population. ignore nuance to just say they are against all vaccinations and even against science itself. "but it never stopped people from being contagious!" "heretic!"

[@vesicapiscis9717]

This is why I've stopped arguing with people online

[@Anti-Ekspert]

I disagree with your understanding of the word "term" 😜

[@nicechock]

@kazinaher7808 what do you mean by asking silly questions?

[@lfcbpro]

And at some point someone will bring up Hitler.

[@jordanmatthew6315]

This is why i am the silent student in school, observe carefully - write it down; but also remembering that i am human with my own desires and needs; its really fun how philosophy orders your mind but reminds you of personal goals.

[@PowerK1]

such cope

[@homosapien4067]

What do you mean by cope?​@@PowerK1

[@crappycat9056]

@@homosapien4067I think what this guy means is that you’re essentially “coping with that fact that you’re pretty shit and low status in class”, making stuff about how you’re actually “secretly smart” by observing and doing “smart” stuff while keeping a low profile. Just my guess on what they meant 🤷

[@MorteWulfe]

​@@PowerK1says the weeb with a Gundam avatar?

[@jarate8076]

@@MorteWulfe>basically said nothing but with shine

[@psycomutt]

Not defining terms is a also a good reason to just bail on a conversation. Lots of people refuse to define terms because they don't want to be nailed down and that's when I know to just leave the conversation because they just want to "win" at any cost.

[@deimonslagg1187]

Or they may be deliberately using ambiguity, counting on the hearer assuming one thing when they really intend another.

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@Gurkenklemme]

Hmm, reminds me of a certain, like kermit the frog sounding, psychologist.

[@jimj9040]

Some people are just incapable of critical thinking. No matter how many angles you show them how to re-think their position, their previous conclusion will never change. They never reasoned their way into their belief, so there’s no reasoning them out of it.

[@korumo2554]

I think they just want to win arguments based on their emotion, and yes it will be poitnless to debate if they are in that stand

[@GingeryGinger]

Define critical thinking for me here?

[@jimj9040]

@@GingeryGinger Critical thinking: using known and indisputable facts and building upon them without emotion or bias and being able to trace all you opinions back to first principles. Disagreements mostly happen when somebody lets emotion or bias into this process.

[@hakon_helgoy]

​@@jimj9040 I'm confused. If a requirement for thinking critically is already having opinions tracable to first principles, then thinking critically on a topic you've not already traced back seems impossible to do. In this case you'd only be able to do something "think critically" if and only if, you already believed certain things to be true. By this metric Descartes isn't thinking critically when he doubts everything around him, but only after he's found something he can no longer doubt.

[@jimj9040]

@@hakon_helgoy The requirement was having Facts, not opinions. In order to think critically and form opinions you have to establish something to be true in the first place in order to build upon that base. You can continue to question the factual basis of anything and you may find you were wrong when you get new information. That’s how progress works. It’s impossible to doubt everything around you at the same time, but it doesn’t hurt to re-examine your core beliefs and those things that sprout from them every now and then. Descartes indeed Isn’t engaging in critical thinking yet when he simply is observing. Doubting is just a state of not knowing if anything is true…no thinking is involved in doubting. Once he gets to… I think, therefore I am…he now has something to build upon.

[@OrdnanceLab]

Great video. Glad to see the channel is growing like it should with content like this.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you! I really appreciate how you’ve been there from the start

[@TwoDudesPhilosophy]

My girlfriend must be a distant relative of Socrates, because I never win any of our debates.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! I think the same about my grandma - she always comes out on top even when I think I’ve temporarily got the upper hand

[@Anand2024]

🤣

[@guynamedjohn69]

Lol I always win. I'm sure she lets me. 6 years together now

[@bryanutility9609]

Just nod your head when she talks, 😂

[@deepblue1846]

If you lose you lose.. if you win you still lose.. sometimes it’s best to not fight lol

[@akkamal6999]

I really loved the way you added in some humor here and there in this video! Made me giggle a number of times hehe

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you! I am glad!

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@krrishagarwalla3325]

1. Pre arguing: Examining the underlying assumptions and key terms. What is your definition of god. ( What are your definitions of key terms ) 2. Under what circumstances you or I can be wrong ? 3. I am not sure that i completely understand your argument - not a defensive impression to clarify your argument. What do you mean by that? - approach with genuine curiosity. ( we truly know what we think ) 4. what has caused you to think that? - What are the reasons which has caaused you to believe this ? Why i believe what i believe ? -> If i had different experiences, how would i see this differently ? What perspective or alternatives you don't consider that ? -> Reductio ab surdum : Consequences of different philosophical views. If i believe this what would follow ? If it is worth accepting the view for the consequences? I am missing any questions, if yes what are they? ( Humility questions )

[@Toddster11111]

I actually felt my sanity returning as I listened to this. Two missing ingredients in our society are critical thought and meaningful debate. (Two things that our education system has utterly failed at teaching our children). Thank you... so much gratitude for your content.

[@threeriversforge1997]

Excellently done. One thing I tell young people is to gather up the older copies of the Great Authors, the Thinkers, that were published pre-1960. The way these books were written is altogether different than what we see today, what I sometimes refer to as High English, and it precludes the problem of books having been selectively "abridged" to remove non-pc content. Plus, they're very much a window in time that allows us to get a sense of how the world was in The Times Before. That aside, reading the older books, with all their big words, provides you with words and concepts that are decidedly lacking today. Words allow you to understand the thoughts you might be having because they give a name to a concept. Words do have meanings, and definitions do matter.

[@Lady-in-Red]

The point about the pre-argument stage is so true. It's useful even outside of debates, as I've had small arguments with friends about nothing, because we had wrong assumptions about how the other person defined a word. Very silly.

[@lpc1231000]

I always thought this was why we had dictionaries. I wonder if it is more about rationalization. Nothing makes me cringe more than when I hear someone say "my truth".

[@NalaniG]

I got so excited when I saw the notification that you posted :)

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you! That has made me smile

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@howdy-partner934]

Hello, Unsolicited Advice! Once again another spendid and comprehensive video, you have my applause. It is wonderful to see someone as dedicated as you are to refining your philosophy and out-view on life. I digress, thank you! 😄

[@Aterribletake]

Your framing is extremely useful in these, thanks for all your work

[@Kitthecatgod]

Your channel is genuinely the only kind of content I can still find on KZbin that’s informative and true. Thanks!

[@krabbypatty6996]

I just recently read about the first dialogue of socrates in the book republic by plato and honestly this gives me much essential knowledge to think critically and ask questions with more clarity

[@brokensystembrokentrust]

Recently I have become a HUGE fan of LOGIC. Thanks for this video.

[@drtyhrmt]

Oh, the irony.

[@MicahMicahel]

we were locked in our houses and fired if we refused an experimental medication that didnt stop people from being contagipus. How can people be so illogical? We still have mandated covid vax at government jobs here It doesnt stop you from being contagious. anyone that fell for yhe tyranny has zero logical capabilities. "ypu cant enter my house because you arent vaxxed" But it never stopped yhe spread!" At least 50% of people have no grasp of a childish level of logic

[@FajerAlharran]

@@drtyhrmt took me a while to realize what u meant😭

[@originalsklaus]

I'll try to condense this. It was truly a non-argument had with wife. I was, simply, telling her we won't be wasting a large amount of money that I had coming, like we had once before. Wasn't wasted as much, as not managed well. Now this second time she agreed but started saying "but... ". She started spending in her head already. In fact, one of the things was something I would highly enjoy, nevertheless, I wasn't going to start spending. It clicked in my mind, we were talking two different things, she, bringing in the emotional aspect, "if you like, wouldn't it be great to...", "don't you like... ", kind of thing. I was talking about the" financial aspects". I realized this but didn't tell her about this epiphany, looked at her and walked away. Not angry. Just walked. Later realized that if I had kept talking, I would have "lost" the debate based now upon talking emotions and not financial facts. It was a very subtle change. There was a time I would have fallen into that change without realizing. Since then, with anyone, not just her, I try to be aware that we're still on THE subject, whatever the subject may be. So, much for being condensed.

[@Resist.Tyranny]

But what do you mean "win" a debate? 🙂

[@helpumuch6887]

Underrated comment

[@shane727]

Lol

[@hunterhall1575]

Well it depends on what you mean by... :P

[@jellyfirelightsux1506]

In public, It could mean gaining the most 'favour' among the people. In a simple conversation, it could mean that you're trying to impose believes, thought or simply stating the truth to a person for the benefit of the individual which ultimately helps in cartering society. Obviously, winning doesn't necessarily mean stating truth. You might just end up changing someone's perspective. But that's just what I think

[@badwolf7777]

That's easy, bully the opponent into conceding, undermine their credibility or get the last word. That's the rule of the internet I think? I wonder how Socrates would have handled Reddit and Twitter 😆

[@armansingh5300]

Dude how tf you're not the biggest channel in KZbin? Please never stop making videos you're videos are actually better than 90 percent of the channels in KZbin. Dont know you just seems trustworthy.

[@slonsky2363]

Because majority of ppl are dumb as fuck and won’t get trough an intro of this video.

[@damnnamealreadytaken2052]

Most ppl Just like futile.

[@Anintora]

this is an incredibly insightful video that taught me the roots of the fundamentals of competitive debate. in competitive debate, we all learn to establish definitions, set burdens (conditions under which you or your opponent would be true or false), consider the impacts of a motion being put into place (implications), etc. etc. in our speeches. it's critical to understand the importance these parameters have in making rational and convincing constructive arguments.

[@diggity723]

every minute spent on this channel is worth it, have your ever considered creating a discord server or any other discussion forum?

[@thedungeon1578]

A friend of mine once told me that the one asking the questions controls the conversation, and that advice has served me well ever since.

[@markjohnson4217]

In that case, it is not a debate but an interrogation, especially the YES or NO tactic. I have a friend who is extremely insecure about being wrong, so much so that any small disagreement he will immediately turn into a police detective interrogation " Did you or did you not say or do such and such? YES or NO??" This is a way of backing someone into a corner and completely removing the word or deed from the context of the circumstance or event and like a prosecuting attorney, framing the answer (YES or NO)within the accuser's version of what took place. I have always found myself trying to correct him by providing the true context and the real intentions behind what I had said or done to try and wrench it out from the framing of his mistaken assumptions. But this makes it seem like I am dodging the question and being dishonest, which is part of his manipulative strategy, because then he has even more ammunition which 'appears' to weaken my position via a Strawman;, 'If I am insincere and cannot answer a simple direct question then it must follow that I DID say or do such and such with the ill-will that he imagined, since I am unwilling to be open about it and won't admit to the trespass with a simple YES.'' This pattern has ruined our friendship because tbe number of arguements in which the 'interrogation' has provided him with the verdict that he wanted after rushing to his erroneous conclusions is now beyond count. I have found ways of de-escalating and softening the rising tensions. But most importantly I have to be VERY observant and be mindful of every thing that is said and done around tbis person so that I have more clarity if it has to be recalled during one of tbese 'sessions'. You see Questions can be a terrible psychological weapon against someone who is not an enemy, especially when one's own words and actions can be turned against one so easily by an opponent who is determined to frame them in another much more negative way.

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@mmcintire65]

Bravo! As a recent subscriber to your channel, I want to encourage you to keep doing what you are doing. You boldly stand in the vanguard of those of your generation that make philosophy accessible to those who only see philosophy as an unattainable luxury. My own 31 year career teaching philosophy to 18-23 year olds has taught me that every generation finds their own resolution to the challenge of seeking Reality, Truth, Goodness, and Beauty. You continue that tradition brilliantly. I'm still working my way through all your posted videos, but I want to encourage you to do a video explaining your trajectory in philosophy as your life of ideas. Your generation and mine would appreciate that. --- Cordially, Professor Mark McIntire, retired

[@TheJoshestWhite]

Well said! Hope he sees your comment

[@Jeewanu216]

I spend a lot of my free time in debates on a variety of topics. It's just so fun! This video I think will help me and my friends to sharpen our critical thinking skills.

[@jacksoncharles3595]

ah yes Ive found myself: Debating with imaginary people in the shower

[@th2k864]

Me in my car in Los Angeles traffic

[@jacksoncharles3595]

@th2k864 😂😭🙏sometimes man, it's the most entertaining thing to do

[@UtubeH8tr]

Glad you took my advice and changed the title. This sounds better than "destroy"

[@FootLooseAngel]

I'm blown away that KZbin would force you to censor famous paintings. Mind boggling use of pearl-clutching

[@madMARTYNmarsh1981]

Considering their A.I. has been trained on the same famous art, it is particularly egregious and hypocritical.

[@robertpowser5624]

They are hell bent on keeping boys from knowing what boob's like like!

[@blgdinger3]

It's like damn the ENTIRE screen is blurred wtf is going on 😂😂😂

[@rortyist]

This is all great advice. Part of why it works is that it allows you to challenge someone while maintaining some detachment from any particular position, and without necessarily knowing all the right answers yourself. That's the trouble that a lot of people get themselves into in debates -- they overstate some position, and then compound the error by refusing to back down. This can happen even if they're in the right on an overall topic, but then get sidetracked by being wrong about some supporting detail and overcommitting to it (instead of being humble, which is actually a strength in argument, not a weakness).

[@Mondomeyer]

The real secrets to winning arguments: 1. Be loud 2. Interrupt 3. Make up your own facts 4. Never let critical thinking enter into anything I learned how to argue from my parents.

[@doob.]

5. Threaten you opponents with harmful actions.

[@Mondomeyer]

@@doob. That's a good one.

[@rinishan]

Ouch, my condolences. At least you're able to make good humor out of it now, if there is a silver lining :)

[@PeroroGodzilla]

6. Make them think their wrong 7. Always Invalidate their stance's in arguments

[@jldriver02]

@@doob. 6. Act smug and condescending smack your lips and shake your head while the opponent is making their point. It helps if you are eating/drinking something

[@mbrown5494]

Critical thinking is a long kost skill today. It's the primary skill I've tried to teach my son. This is more about debating skills rather than thinking skills. I definitely don't have a clear methodology to thinking, but it works most of the time. Thanks for sharing!

[@YourtallCanadian]

Love YOUR VIDEOS! wish there was more content creators like you

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@YHShinVH]

I never realized that i was already doing this stuff subconsciously when i would debate people so this video is putting what i felt to be an instinctual way of arguing into words that can be explained.

[@Anti-Lawrence]

This is truly unsolicited advice

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@DJPastaYaY]

Very insightful video!

[@HermitGhost]

Logic and reason are two different things. Logic is going from one thing to the next likely thing. Reason is discerning the next best thing. Logic is mechanistic, reason is a value judgment faculty. Also, epistemology is key to any productive discussion. Not just "You don't know what you don't know." But "How do you know what you know?"

[@user-zu1ix3yq2w]

Idgi. But I wasn't allowed to "reason" as a kid. I don't have the contextual understanding of ur definition of reason

[@alextomlinson]

They sound opposing in the way you described them. Logic being a mechanistic progression of likelihoods, the other being a judgement of value about what outcome is ideal. I know they’re not exactly opposing, they’re just different tools. But for some reason my logic brain wants to oppose the “next best outcome” because it’s telling me that logic prevails over a value judgement. With that being said my reasoning brain is telling me that they should not be pitted against eachother. Have I gone insane? 😂

[@johnswoodgadgets9819]

"The heavily armed man grabbed the child in the back seat by the scruff of the neck, shoved her into the floorboard, and leaped on top of her." (factual) "When the shooting started, the bodyguard immediately shoved his employer's young daughter into the back seat floorboard of the car and protected her body from the flying bullets with his own." (factual, but with perspective) Logic cannot differentiate between the two statements of fact. Only reason can. Miss one relevant element when applying logic, and the entire logical premise fails. If anyone doubts this, try writing a few computer programs in direct machine language. That is the trap in mistaking logic for thought.

[@rockweiler777]

How delightful! I was laughing and applauding through the entire video. Well done, sir!

[@gothafloxacin]

The king has returned 🎉

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! That is very kind

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@jacobdallas7396]

More people need this video, I found this really helpful! Thanks!

[@Justineyedia]

Socratic irony is a rhetorical device that involves pretending to be ignorant to expose someone else's ignorance or inconsistency. It's also known as "playing dumb". Socratic irony is a technique used in the Socratic method of teaching. It can be a useful tool for leading characters and readers to correct conclusions.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah I have heard this referred to as “The Ignoramus” - it is a great position to take

[@Justineyedia]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool"

[@elisal98800]

Kinda manipulative

[@Manker00]

An extremely annoying technique, because if the other person is not retarded, they will recognize what you are doing and get upset that you are trying to ridicule the discourse without contributing anything meaningful from your own side. What will come up in many cases in the near future is the question of the meaning of the debate: Is it even worth the time?

[@patrickmorris3721]

Or it takes a highly knowledgeable person to play the fool

[@ninnajadaddy]

well, and humbly, presented young man. thank you

[@arshia389]

I really love your vids specially those that hit the delicate questions in my mind during reading novels and articles. I'd like to see your review on zapffe's pessimistic prospective.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah thank you! And I would need to check it out first. Edit: I’ve looked and his main work seems to be untranslated (and I sadly cannot speak Norwegian) - I’ll check out his translated stuff though

[@arshia389]

, unfortunately, it's true. You can check Thomas Ligotti's conspiracy against the human race. He mainly wrote about Zapffe's article: the last messiah and his sentiment and ideas. He adds this article to his book. I hope it will help you out.

[@arshia389]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 , unfortunately, it's true. You can check Thomas Ligotti's conspiracy against the human race. He mainly wrote about Zapffe's article: the last messiah and his sentiment and ideas. He adds this article to his book. I hope it will help you

[@casparuskruger4807]

Good points mentioned here. If someone challenges an argument that I put forth and DOESN'T ask me a question, he is done. I'll just then ask him then to steelman my argument. If they respond without a steelman- or not ask what "steelman' means when arguing, I will simply tell them I will not continue until they do so. Period. He who deflects, evades and lies-- loses. ALWAYS be the one to ASK THE FIRST QUESTION. The person who asks the questions then controls the conversation. And HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE until they answer a question you ask. The opponent may want a clarification of your question, which is fine, but do not allow the conversation go in another direction from there. After clarifying your question, ask him if he now understands the question and until he replies with a 'yes', do not continue.

[@danielhaven]

"I don't like pizza." "What do you mean by 'pizza'?" "The food made of dough, tomato sauce, and mozzarella cheese." "What do you mean by 'cheese'?" "The food that's made from milk that comes from cows." "What do you mean by 'cows'?" "The farm animals we use to produce beef, milk, and cheese." "What do you mean by-" "Listen. If you make me go through this infinite loop of answering definitions for every word, I will make you drink hemlock." "..." "..." "What do you mean by-" *glug glug glug*

[@Triple_J.1]

Yes! Specify what the ingredients are. That will resolve much debate.

[@brooklyn5755]

😂😂😂😂 LOL

[@jacklikescereal4312]

ayooooo

[@LogicallySoundMM]

Aiyoo kadavule haha ! That's hilarious 😂

[@MicahMicahel]

"you're an anti vaxxer" "What do you mean by anti vaxxer?" "You dont want one specific vax mandated into everyone because it is experimental and untested" "how does that make me against all vaxxes?" "it doesnt... this is just how propganda works"

[@ianmclennan3371]

It's been so long since I've seen legitimately good content on KZbin. 👌

[@pussyhammer6969]

Because you've been on pornhub.

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@HaleluyahBatman]

what if my opponent has a gun

[@Perrypool09]

This is the first time I've actually seen an underated comment 💀 This made me cackle so hard

[@JimsyFlimsy]

If you argument is not full of holes, you will soon be full of holes.

[@SmoothBlack108]

Thanks, this is what we need more of. People debating without trying

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@notaheretic6675]

Nietzche Arrives Elaborates Leaves No debate to lose If there is no debate to have

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! He has already left the room with a swish of his moustache

[@coffeefish94]

So glad you also appreciate the more profound implications of Gino D'Acampo's "if my grandmother had wheels" comment. It's very underrated as a thought experiment imo

[@Geordie504]

The real problem is that you had to blur the naughty bits of classical paintings. I presume this was for ranking purposes, it disappointing that this is the environment where we live.

[@AnHebrewChild]

Hi there. I'm always looking for stimulating, well-honed YT content. I've only watched this one video, but so far so good. Subbed. Cheers

[@FortheloveofGamingyt]

Thanks for these videos! I am a philosophy major and this stuff fits into my studies nicely.

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@thescholarofmagic]

A very well made video, containing a vital life lesson.

[@Ana_MF]

Critical thinking? Are you trying to corrupt the youth or something ??? Congrats on reaching 100k!!

[@motivationlobby859]

Are you stupid

[@mrnice7570]

Trying to get em to stop and think before chopping off appendages

[@JamesDimond-l7u]

Soc rates was woke af...

[@checkoutoftheabove9809]

​@user-qb2ze8pn9c 6 would have been. How would he do shit a sleep 😂

[@thesufferer7276]

so.. Define what's corrupt according to you 😂

[@devindodge8648]

Well bloody said mate. Thank you for teaching me.

[@Bananahairboi]

This post proves that you don't even need to know Socrates's rules for debating/arguing. BECAUSE EVERY SENTENCE SOUNDS SO CONVINCING WITH YOUR CHARISMATIC BODY LANGUAGE AND DEEP TONE EVEN IF I DISAGREE WITH IT.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! Thank you! That is very kind of you to say! Though slightly terrifying as I make the most mistakes out of anyone I know

[@Bananahairboi]

:D therefore you make the most progress than anyone you know @@unsolicitedadvice9198

[@TheJoshestWhite]

There's a quote from a great movie called "Thank you for smoking": " If you argue correctly, you're never wrong."

[@Tony-V89]

Thanks for this video, and sharing this thoughtful methodology from Socrates, and this debate discussion in general.. it is very useful no matter what one's position is.

[@GuardDog42]

Or you can just bring a plucked chicken and shout "Behold, a man" It's successfully ended every argument I used it in.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! I love that story

[@rattlesnaketv]

Your channel is awesome.

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@Anand2024]

Just like always great content 💯

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Thank you!

[@planetary-rendez-vous]

Looking at the titles of your videos... Instant sub... I hope I watch all of them.

[@krumpliii]

My dude... i just googled the term "Socratic Method" because it came up a in a random video's comment section about an hour ago. How strange... this is the first time i heard this term, and actually looked into it.

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Ah, well I hope the video helps!

[@eensio]

Splendid teaching! The social media gives more and more meanings for many people. It is important that it could be constructive. If we do not care the quality of public discussions, we shall easily fall to use social media only for provocative purposes. The result is sadomasokistic fight in the field of comments. Thank you for your inspiring views!

[@Fenrisson]

0:40 - Narrator: "And then, it did."

[@unsolicitedadvice9198]

Haha! And I will never stop being annoyed about it

[@Fenrisson]

@@unsolicitedadvice9198 I feel you, mate!

[@Kthxbye988]

Rock!🤘

[@nicksyoutubeaccount]

Awesome video. I've wanted to learn stuff like this for so long.

[@ThatVeganTeacherYouTube]

Hi. I’m curious. Are you vegan yet? Why or why not? Did you know that nobody has ever debated an ethical vegan and won? Vegans always win because the other person always ends up in a contradiction regarding the sentience of animals and people with cognitive disabilities - unless he-she thinks it okay to kill and eat those humans.

[@oldsoul3539]

Chistopher Hitchens used to say that whenever he found himself feeling frustrated in a debate it meant he didn't know enough about the topic, so he would fix it by going and reading up on it more.

[@CiscoWes]

I wish he would practice this when he’s trying to debate believers.

[@acebirdjohn]

I'm not entering debates to win them, but to learn. People that enter debates to win them aren't great people to have a debate with.

[@the_eerie_faerie_tales]

and often the debate is actually beneficial for the audience rather than the opponent.

[@54V4]

This is very helpful, thanks, it shed some light on my debating style.

[@YoungCisto]

Jordan Peterson liked this video ,)

[@downshift4life]

JP is a demented old man, his opinion is irrelevant.

[@rexemondaforever2283]

This is a great video I wish more people watched and learned from, it is so annoying when you debate with someone who you only later realize would never change position under any circumstances

[@jole5468]

Debating to win is garbage, debating to create a shared new understanding is where value is at

[@Sagacifer]

Nice video. In summary, understand and entertain your opponent’s position thoroughly.

[@eliansalinas7022]

Information is the most deadly weapon, and the most useful tool.

[@theguywithone]

Thank you for the video and information. You earned my subscription. I look forward to watching more of your videos.

[@SirQuantization]

This should be a required video for all students worldwide

[@likesmusic11]

This man is GOOD! I learned quite a bit and he has a new follower!!!!

[@SomeKiwi]

I find it fascinating how my view on debates and arguments has changed over the years. I’ve used much of this over many many hours trying desperately to convert my friends and strangers into a cause I care about. Yet I feel that it was an inefficient use of effort. I knew the quote, “you cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into” yet it took a shit load of real life experience to truly get it. For a period of time I was somewhat nihilistic about reasoning and the ability to impact anything in the world, I believed that the vast majority of people made emotional decisions on everything that matters. Now, however, I’ve come to appreciate logic and reasoning skills as a tool and a hobby. When you find someone else who is willing to be radically open with their thoughts and has the self awareness to also acknowledge irrational positions, there is a beautiful friendship to be had, it’s a great hobby. With debates direct confrontation and humiliation serves more as a tool of persuasion used against the audience reading or watching the debate - when you attack someone directly they entrench themselves, you will not change their view but you can heard them into making such wildly unreasonable statements that the audience is likely to be dissuaded from sympathising with their position. And lastly, the approach of leading someone to your conclusions collaboratively is so much emotional and mental work - it is what counselors ans therapists do as a job. I’ve found in mentoring that it’s never guaranteed to work but it’s worth doing if you want to help someone become a better version of themselves.

[@hhwippedcream]

Thanks, Awesome video! I wish more folks took the pre-argument seriously. Many folks don't understand the point of it and accuse a person of arguing semantics. In theory - it is a great framework, but both participants must agree to the terms for the disucssion to get anywhere.

[@keykosantana]

This makes me think the intense arguments with myself are both insane and beneficial. It allows me to question my beliefs, where they come from, identify holes in my beliefs, and causes people and myself to question my sanity. However, I’d like to find ways to identify what would change my mind so I can demonstrate my willingness to have my belief changed.

[@AnRodz]

Beautiful video. Thanks. I agree with everything (@8:11 :), it's like a verbalized echo of my thoughts. Very honest approach. It sometimes gets misinterpreted, in my experience.

[@yggdrasil9039]

Very good unsolicited advice

[@NoKidsNoProblem]

Interesting video. I'll have to utilize this method more.

[@NishkamTheGeneral]

This is totally on point. The difficulty is finding someone willing to change their mind 😅

[@ceciliacrocker390]

Just came across your channel, loved the video, thanks 🤩😍

[@HuggetFisk]

0:04 "Have you ever just known that someone was wrong about something, but were unable to put your finger on how?" "Just knowing" doesn't really happen. Whenever you felt that you "just knew", you may indeed have been right or wrong. When the objective is accurate truth, intuitions, or gut feelings, should always be examined critically and tested. This is not just a highbrow tedium, it's a discipline that is crucial for the sake of objectivity. Unexamined intuition is good only for survival. In a stressful survival setting full of risks and unknowns, following your gut and asking few questions off the script may work quite well, but when we seek the accurate truth, it's different. Bias very often comes from intuitions, and that is why it is so crucial to be aware of your own intuitions and to actively challenge and seek to subvert them. The truth is not always intuitive to everyone, and anyone can be biased about anything. If you feel stone sure that you don't have a bias about something, you just might have it, and you might not see it until you've experienced your mind really inverted and dissected.

[@georgehegarty7277]

The objective should not be to WIN the argument , but for each person to listen to each others point of view , and learn from the experience.

[@crazyham]

Fantastic Video Sir & Great information. You communicate clearly & it's very easy to follow 🙏 I've Just Subscribed 🙏 Thank You.

[@eugenepearson4467]

If you have second thoughts, you are two ahead of most people.

[@notbrendon]

2:34 - Aaaand that right there is the main problem. I can count on two fingers how many times ive debated someone who was not egoically invested in winning and simply interested in truth.

[@AnOdinaryReaper]

This actually helps a lot in court that I’ve noticed. People don’t actually understand and only assume. Very dangerous.if you have the option..Ask, learn as mush as you can.

[@dvldgz6306]

I'm subbed now. This is a good channel.

[@Manderson0228]

There are some great life principles on display in this video... I think if this video had 1000x more views... maybe the world would be a better place.

[@ytpah9823]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 *🤔 Socrates' mission was to promote critical thinking in ancient Athens by questioning beliefs people couldn't justify, showing the importance of examining one's own beliefs.* 01:11 *📚 Pre-arguing involves clarifying definitions and assumptions before debating, highlighting the need for clear communication and understanding of key terms to have productive discussions.* 03:02 *🧐 Socrates often began discussions by seeking definitions for key terms, emphasizing the necessity of agreement on definitions for a meaningful debate.* 03:43 *❓ Asking "Under what circumstances would you or I be wrong?" helps establish a basis for a good faith discussion and understand the factors motivating someone's belief.* 04:51 *🔍 The Ignoramus and Clarification technique involves admitting uncertainty about an opponent's position to open the possibility for clarifying questions, helping uncover potential flaws in arguments.* 07:38 *🔄 Considering the causes and reasons behind beliefs distinguishes between emotional/pragmatic causes and reasoned arguments, underscoring the difference between what can be challenged with logic and what cannot.* 10:43 *🤲 The Alternatives question encourages considering how different experiences might alter one's views, fostering empathy and a fuller understanding of various perspectives.* 13:32 *🎓 Implications and Consequences explores the logical follow-through of beliefs, using reductio ad absurdum to challenge positions based on their logical outcomes or inconsistencies.* 16:35 *❓❓ Questioning Questions reflects on whether all relevant inquiries have been addressed, advocating for epistemic humility and the recognition of potential oversight in discussions.* Made with HARPA AI

[@xander1756]

I have been and continue to be more interested in why I used to need or desire to win a debate, and why folks still do. If another's opinion has zero adverse affect on me, I have zero interest in arguing with them about their stance on a subject.

[@thedude5740]

It is difficult to discuss reality without running into contradictions, as reality is a duality that has the opposing ends of every spectrum to contradict its counter position.