I will make this one unpolished, given the fact i received lately repetitive comments on ai use for polishing, this one and i will go back to ai polishing.
Following is my opinion, i can be wrong, i am open for discussion and/or correction, this is written one shot and unrefined. Very brief take on the subject.
Greetings,
I noticed many have a beginner level in debates, and i saw no one point to that, in fact, many encourage that beginner behavior as if it is somehow advanced.
I will go briefly into this, and talk about the most common mistakes,
First, some are literally repulsed by debating, that reminds me of corrupted spirituality, when you will want to debate a Monk over something, and he will pull something like : The Truth is Beyond the mind, just sit in silence.
EnLiGhtNed.
How can we invent something without discussing it, should a scientist sit in silence and some technology will be made on its own?
How will we refine ethics ? It is by discussing those or by sitting in silence.
This is passive, sitting in silence, silencing the mind and those kind of things, have their own place, it is not a constant state to be in.
In Zevism, Debates are encouraged, if you stand on truth, why you fear debates ? And get irritated by them?
‘Our God, Zeus, does not demand blind obedience. He encourages inquiry, self-development, and the full exercise of the intellect. He does not punish questioning; he rewards it. He does not withhold knowledge; he offers it. He does not require the diminishment of the human soul as the price of his favour; he requires its growth. This is the nature of the True God: one who made his children to become Gods in their own right, not to grovel as slaves.”-High Priest Zevios Metathronos
Only Yehuboric things censor debates, because they cannot defend themselves with reason. They resort to many other options.
This by the High Priest in Vultus:
[These things can be a little "alien-like" materials, but they are alien because they are advanced. Lastly, nobody can tell you any nonsense about Zevism, as it's too backed up and supported, and both you will know where you stand firmly and why you are with the Gods, and those against you, will know they cannot debate you]
´will know they cannot debate you ´
The fact that HPZM used this phrasing, signals clearly that he has a very sharp mind, and that he does love debates, and he published knowledge that is coherent, and does not have ´loopholes’, while constantly encouraging discussions in his threads.
Which clearly encourages debates. As a thing that shows the truth even more clearly.
Another thing, i saw he once said he approves sometimes replies that are against him, and some clergy members face palm themselves because of it
This is not strange for someone who has a mind of that caliber.
Many top Debators will not mind even you flaming them as long as it is not empty flaming, and if you still providing sharp ideas, i do not say they will appreciate it, but they will label this secondary and push you through the debate,
Many will even go as far as accepting direct insults just to not let you run away from the debate; it is a known technique people use unconsciously to start insulting or flaming after getting trapped in a debate, so the debate stops there, and many will stay respectful and refuse to fall in that trap showcasing your weakness.
So the more potent ones mind is, the more you will notice he will not back from a debate easily even if you start being inappropriate. In fact that will just undermine your position and strengthen his.
Additionally, when one is that good at debating, he becomes very very coherent, he will not slip easily, so when making a thread he will not have many contradictions etc.. since his mind on itself, start flagging the contradition the moment he will make them, like a anti-virus integrated in his brain,
I have almost 100 messages in around 15 days, and many are lengthy, if i now write something that contradicts something in another thread, my mind on its own will flag it, so even if i talk a lot, i can be wrong, but it is very hard for me to make obvious contradictions and rookie mistakes, and if those are made, and someone corrects me, i will instantly refine that point,
Which will make me instantly sharper, so imagine being in a state where criticism empowers you,
This is in fact what the debates do, they help you battle test, and also, it helps you be sharper, this is also the concept of [ Feedback ], all companies and organization love feedback and may even pay to get strong feedback, they really pay, since that helps them know what they should be improving.
I personally am very very open to debates and such, but i am receiving this rarely in real life given not everyone is sharp enough to provide strong criticism, so what i usually do is 3 things,
First, i love watching and hearing others debate, it helps me a lot get out of my own bubble and see others perspectives,
Second, i like to read criticism directed at others, and internalize those, and see if i have that, and refine,
Sometimes, one does not have the specific shortcoming but he is directed at having it,
Usually it is easy to predict peoples future based on their current patterns of thinking and patterns of action,
So sometimes i view someone criticized for something, and i know that after 2 years i will do the same if i continue being the same, so i take that criticism personally even if it is not directed at me, but it is for sure directed at my future self, so i refine before encountering the same criticism later.
Third, i love debating myself, there is a voice inside me that i can talk and i let her reply to me, with my own thoughts, and i keep debating many times ideas with her, which let me refine my understanding.
For example i once, was bit tired and procrastinated a work, and wanted to do something else for some 30 min just to avoid the work,
I played a music dedicated to a God, and thought [ i will glorify now this God through his music ], i heard [ no you are actually just enjoying listening to the music, if you want to glorify this God do the work you should be doing, do not do something and lean on the Gods to justify it, out of laziness. ]
This is very simple example, but i do go to extremes with the voice, to depths that are discussed only in private circles, what i personally love, is when i get pessimistic a bit, and the voice keeps debating me in the point until i literally start laughing because the voice wins and i acknowledge how pessimism is wrong on so many levels, i am not taking about 2-3 min debates,
I sometimes debated the voice for 3-5 hours straight. Many of my points that i discover later philosophers talked about, i got from this voice, i keep directing endless criticism to ideas of the voice and the voice keeps replying and explaining.
So i love debating this voice given the fact it is sharp, and helps me think more wisely.
So, generally and briefly here are the most common mistakes in debates,
Before going to that i just recalled something, a thought popped in my head,
When one debates another in a subject, and then pulls the card of : oh i just debated that troll, a no life, look how stupid he is.
No this is not what happened actually, i just see that he cornered you in the debate, if you have something to say, if you have strong arguments, use them while debating, you cannot exit the debate and start trying to frame the other as a joke, on his back.
This is actually pretty common technique used by yehubors, they defend lies, cannot argue, what they do, is label someone mentally insane, or talking about how he failed in some area in his life, or those kind of things,
Failure of engagement with his ideas push them into trying to attack the person,
There is a reason why my writting sounds like if i am literally writing whatever i think,
And there is a reason why i could make almost 100 threads in 17days, and many are long,
Because i never really intend on what to write, threads come to me, ideas come to me, and i just write,
For example i am making breakfast then ideas starts popping in my mind, and then the subject is clear, and i just have to start writing and this keeps flowing nonstop, the more i enrich my intellectual level and know more, the more those thoughts are more high tier and the more they can dwelve even deeper or even come up with things i did not read yet,
That being said i will go into most common mistakes in debates,
1. Argumentum ad hominem:
If you debate someone, focus on what he is saying, and reply to the arguments,
Many start JesterMaxing, trying to make others laugh at the other person they are debating, by criticizing his style of clothes, or his inability to get a girlfriend and those kind of things,
One can rank low in all aspects in life and be a genius at mathematics,
When talking to him about mathematics, if you bring an area he is lacking in real life, you cannot disprove of his mathematical abilities, you are just trying to attack the person instead of discussing the ideas.
This actually [ Just got a thought in my head i will write it before i continue what i am talking about previously : when debating, the primary audience are the elite, YOU SHOULD BE FOCUSED AND KNOW THAT THE ELITES YOU CANNOT TRICK THEM, AND THEY ARE THE ONES YOU SHOULD CONVINCE. if you start trying to make fun of the other and the other dismantles your arguments, 100 are watching and 95 laugh and take your side, it is not important, the 5 elites are the important ones, and the most powerful ones, and you will lose them by this behavior, and by trying to fit it and be popular among the 95, you will look same at the masses who opposed philosophers, and only the elite consider their talks. And the elite are sharp mentally, they will see all the lowly things you do in a debate, even if they dont say it.]
Now continuing the above, this actually undermines your position, give me 1 reason on why you will mock instead of giving strong argument ? NONE, it means one thing : you lost the debate. We all know ( the elite who can use out brains and see through the personal attacks and such ) that you truly want to dismantle the other person character, and you could not through arguments, so you resorted to personal attacks.
So an ad hominem = you lose.
It can be sometimes funny when one provides strong arguments and sometimes include a small funny kind of ad hominem, this is different than a hostile one that looks clearly as : i lost, please lets now insult each other so we stop this, i cannot anymore continue with arguments, i am insulting to get insulted back and i can run away in peace, otherway what will i write ? Please insult me back too, so we look equal.
That being said, if within a debate someone attacks your character, do not get misled into doing the same, stay composed.
Also make sure to engage only with arguments never deliver personal attacks.
2.Refusing to learn
This is an Andropod level of thinking, many are focused on not losing rather on touching the truth.
When in a debate, ESPECIALLY, when you do not know really what you talking about, make sure to stay open for correction, and try to be unbiaised and see if your points are truly strong,
If you do not do that, you will hurt yourself more than anyone else, you will be stuck with falsehood, and defend it fiercely.
[The most dangerous kind of ignorance is not that you don't know the truth, it's that you hate it when you hear it. Because the truth doesn't hurt the ignorant; it hurts those who have built their lives on illusion. That's why people fight the truth more fiercely than they fight falsehood.]
-Ibn Sina, Persian philosopher
At the very worst, after being defensive etc.. after all that is over, when you are alone, contemplate ideas and try to evolve, instead of holding into falsehood.
It is more humiliating to hold into falsehood than to accept mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes it is very natural.
Also, when you clearly get blocked in a debate, either accept it or ask for time to think, do not try to reframe your first opinion to make of it right, this looks clear to the elite, they see what you are doing, it does not look good,
No one is tricked by that, we all see.
3. argumentum ad populum
Never think because the mass is in your side in a debate and you will laughing at the other that you are right, the number of people agreeing on something means nothing, Zevism is currently losing by numbers, it does not mean Zevism is false and another religion is right because it has 1 billion followers.
The number mean nothing, debate ideas do not get mislead by the number of people supporting them.
And also, especially do not use this as an argument,
‘We are 5 and you are 1 so were are right and you must be the one who is wrong’
This is complete nonsense, 95% may find this convincing, the 5% elite that are actually the most important will just see what you are doing. Worst if you doing it unconsciously.
Important: make sure to stay respectful through debates, it makes you have always a door open, to correct and evolve the moment you mock, and someone fires back and you turn out to be wrong, it is not pleasant situation to be in. Respect is selfish if you want to view it in extreme way. Be respectful.
Petitio principii
Many many times, people use claims as truth, while those themselves need arguments to support them, this does not look like the debater trying to evade debating, it looks actually that he cannot think clearly and he himself is not realising that he is doing it.
If one only avoids the above or even just lowers it, he will already be able to think way better, this is not about debates in itself, it is more about thinking clearly,
People when engaging in the above many actually they do not know they are doing it,
They do not know that they do not know,
They actually trick themselves with those without realizing, you can point it to them and you will still have to convince him that they dod a logical mistake in thinking, and that of itself will need a debate to prove because it requires a minimum level to be able to catch yourself when you do such mistakes.
That was brief opinion on this subject.
Use debates to battle test whether your ideas can survive criticism and counter arguments.
Debates is feedback for the mind.
Debating makes you learn to engage with others who hold other opinions, while remaining respectful.
When i say the [ Elite ] above, i mean people who do not fall constantly and continuously into very clear beginner logical fallacies. And most are capable of that, if they just learn to think correctly. Instead of falling constantly in clear logical fallacies and refusing to correct or discuss.
[ Rigidity breads ignorance. ]
-Quote by Catsarebeautiful
Active Translator
Active Helper
Lead Translator