Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Why modern debate methods are useless. You end up like Charlie Kirk, K'fools, and BV. Hence, no truth.
Today 12:08 pm
Give me an example of Kirk repeatedly doing that.....he relied on logic and reason to establish truth as he laid waste to the libtards.Vegas » 33 minutes ago » wrote: ↑ I read a lot of ancient Greek philosophy. I believe they understood what debate meant. Their one goal was to arrive at the truth. Even if it was a small bit. They considered that an enormous victory. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras ( highly intelligent, but also an asshole), Parmenides, Zeno, and many others had only one goal when debating. To help each other arrive at the truth. If they arrived at an irrefutable conclusion, then they all won. If not, then they kept trying.
Today? It's about a winner and a loser. It's not about finding the truth. Hell, someone can be completely full of ****, but still declared a winner of a debate simply because they talk cunningly and know how to manipulate the conversation more than their opponent. Yet, they are still full of ****.
The most common tactic that thse ignorant sleazy fools use these days is to respond to questions with questions, avoid answering directly, and make the other person defend themselves instead.
We all know @Blackvegetable does this. K'fools (Andrew Wilson) does it repeatedly. Charlie Kirk did it incessantly.