MrSpock
Live long and prosper
As a kid I was a bit of a physical bully, although most of the 'bullying' was to protect other kids or otherwise right a wrong. When I moved from my step-father and mother's place to my father and step-mother's place my father taught me what it was to be on the other end of that. I stopped physically bullying.
I soon learned that I could bully people mentally, quite easily. I wouldn't use direct insults, rather if someone contradicted me I would demonstrate clearly why their view showed how stupid they were in front of other people. Eventually I stopped doing that too, pretty much. It can be a useful skill to have, just as physical fighting can be a good thing to know just as long as you don't use it when it's not absolutely necessary. Another tool in your kit.
There are two ways to win a debate. The first requires either an opponent who lacks critical thinking skills or an audience who lacks same. In such a case the debate can be 'won' by getting people to agree to your point of view without good judgement of the merits of both ideas being presented, without proper analysis of the arguments put forth. This can be accomplished by making the other person seem unworthy of an opinion or unworthy of other people's respect, by outshouting the other person, by using specious argument etc.
These things are irrelevant to winning a debate the second way, which is to demonstrate to the other person how their argument is faulty and to have them voluntarily replace their point of view with one which you have successfully built in their minds through a process of cooperation as opposed to a process of competition. A good debate is an opportunity for the participants to learn from each other, an efficient way to get at the truth of a topic. I definitely enjoy such a conversation. Everyone involved wins. Sometimes a 'difference of opinion' isn't even that, it's a matter of the same idea being expressed in a different way and a productive, cooperative debate will demonstrate this. Sometimes the difference is the result of two people each thinking that a particular word has a different meaning. Again, this is resolved by the second way of winning, but not by the first.
Unfortunately this world contains many people who are loud, disruptive, and who do not respond to reason. When they make the choice to be unresponsive to reason someone will inevitably suffer for it, maybe it's best that they are dealt with in whatever fashion they are vulnerable to.
I soon learned that I could bully people mentally, quite easily. I wouldn't use direct insults, rather if someone contradicted me I would demonstrate clearly why their view showed how stupid they were in front of other people. Eventually I stopped doing that too, pretty much. It can be a useful skill to have, just as physical fighting can be a good thing to know just as long as you don't use it when it's not absolutely necessary. Another tool in your kit.
There are two ways to win a debate. The first requires either an opponent who lacks critical thinking skills or an audience who lacks same. In such a case the debate can be 'won' by getting people to agree to your point of view without good judgement of the merits of both ideas being presented, without proper analysis of the arguments put forth. This can be accomplished by making the other person seem unworthy of an opinion or unworthy of other people's respect, by outshouting the other person, by using specious argument etc.
These things are irrelevant to winning a debate the second way, which is to demonstrate to the other person how their argument is faulty and to have them voluntarily replace their point of view with one which you have successfully built in their minds through a process of cooperation as opposed to a process of competition. A good debate is an opportunity for the participants to learn from each other, an efficient way to get at the truth of a topic. I definitely enjoy such a conversation. Everyone involved wins. Sometimes a 'difference of opinion' isn't even that, it's a matter of the same idea being expressed in a different way and a productive, cooperative debate will demonstrate this. Sometimes the difference is the result of two people each thinking that a particular word has a different meaning. Again, this is resolved by the second way of winning, but not by the first.
Unfortunately this world contains many people who are loud, disruptive, and who do not respond to reason. When they make the choice to be unresponsive to reason someone will inevitably suffer for it, maybe it's best that they are dealt with in whatever fashion they are vulnerable to.
