I declare myself the winner!

[Don]

This is an aspect of debating, probably seem more often on Internet, that I never understand.

Suppose I am always right, I'd think by the virtue of my flawless logic it'd be apparent to anyone who is in the right. If someone don't get it, they're clearly dumb, so declaring myself as winner isn't going to change their mind. So, I never see a point to declare 'I win'. In fact I usually consider this as a some equivalent of Godwin's Law and really a declaration of 'I lose'.

Can someone explain to me why people who feel compelled to declare they win? To impress clueless bystanders? But by the same logic, if I'm always right it is clear anyone who isn't dumb would be able to tell I won, so declaring victory is not necessary. If someone for some reason is dumb enough to require a declaration of victory to see the truth, he is just as easily swayed by the other side, so it is futile.

I can see using it maybe in some kind of proof by contradiction, i.e. if what you say is true it implies I win, but that's not a common use I'm aware of.

[Zeus]

So, then, to you, what's the point/end result of an argument/debate?

[Andrew, Killer Bee]

Who does this? If you win an argument it should be self-evident.

[Don]

Not here, just random thing I observed in plenty of message boardselsewhere. It reminds me of Lincoln-Douglas debate I did in high school when people would repeatedly declare them winners due to semantics, but at least there's apparently some kind of rule saying you can't argue this or that under this condition so it sort of make sense (and I don't think it really works either because the guy who declares it does not win 100% of the time!).

And for Zeus, I don't know what is necesarily supposed to happen in a debate. Sometimes we come with mutual understanding but most of the time it ends with both side still totally convinced they're right. That's the nature of a debate. But like Andrew said, if your victory is self-evident, which should be at least true for yourself, what is the point to declare victory on someone who is obviously too igorant to see such self-evident truths? It always strikes me as a completely pointless thing to do.

[Nev]

I don't tend to think of the purpose of debate as winning or losing, rather that it should be about intelligent discussion of the topics involved. But a lot of people do. I haven't really found anything that works to get them out of that mindset.

Only advice I'd have is, don't debate them. That's the only way to "win".

[Imakeholesinu]

Shut the fuck up. All of you lose because I win since I"M RICK JAMES!!!

[SineSwiper]

Hitler wins, you jew-loving commies! This thread is now Godwinned.

[Don]

You should know that the corollary to Godwin's law is that you can't purposely try to end a debate by invoking Godwin's law.

[Nev]

Hear, hear! Self-Godwinning is not acceptable.

[Julius Seeker]

I don't believe in Godwin's law. If anyone wants to compare me to Hitler, I am fine with that. Think about it, who was more rich and famous at their peak, Hitler, Eminem, The Rock, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or Will Smith? No fucking competition. Hitler wasn't really that bad of a guy, if you focus on the basics, and not the propaganda.

It's much better than being compared to Eric Cartman for example.

[Julius Seeker]

[ I don't know, this British guy who is responsible for a good million+ deaths is often called man of the century.



This guys is responsible for genocides in Africa, and he has the world's most famous scholarship named after him.

This guy ravaged half of Eurasia, slaughtered half of China, and made towers out of sculls, and is considered to be one of the greatest leaders in history.



Here is another responsible for the death of millions, and the conquest of the civilized world, but they call him Saint Constantine the Great. He killed a lot of Jews as well, he also killed a lot of Christians for having beliefs different from what he wished.


Hey, if the Germans had won the war, Hitler would have been seen as one of histories greatest leaders, just like all of the guys above (and Rhodes wasn't even a leader, just the man with the money behind the leadership).


If we lived in a society where killing lots of people (under any circumstances) was seen as a good thing, then Hitler would be called Hitler the Great. If we lived in a society which saw nationalism as the most important thing, then Hitler would have been seen as great; that is why so many ultra-patriotics see him that way today. It's all about whose book you read.

[Flip]

With the exception of Rhodes, all those examples are people who shaped the world to what we live in today. I cant think, right off hand, of anything positive, long lasting, or world shaping that came from Hitlers regime.

[Zeus]

And for Zeus, I don't know what is necesarily supposed to happen in a debate. Sometimes we come with mutual understanding but most of the time it ends with both side still totally convinced they're right. That's the nature of a debate. But like Andrew said, if your victory is self-evident, which should be at least true for yourself, what is the point to declare victory on someone who is obviously too igorant to see such self-evident truths? It always strikes me as a completely pointless thing to do.

To me, a debate is for each side to present their point and to explain it fully with the other side taking the information and then determining whether or not, on this particular issue, their stance is, in fact, the most logical one to take (ie. is it the best current position based on the available information?).

The problem you get is that people get married to their thoughts; they don't want to let them go (ie. don't want to believe that they are wrong). Now, there's nothing wrong with vehemetly defending and explaining your position, however, when it's clear that the other position makes more sense, admit you're wrong and learn from the experience, which can often lead to changing your thoughts on the issue. Toss in pride and/or lack of self-confidence and you get heated debates which are simply destructive rather than constructive. Debates, to me, are constructive, or at least supposed to be.

But that's just me. I don't bother arguing with people anymore because essentially everyone I know (and just most people IMO) see it as a personal attack when you attempt to disprove their position or show a position which is, to an independant third-party, a more logical or just flat out better explanation. Obviously it's up for debate what is or is not more logical or "better", but the point is that regardless of how much you're married to your position or stance on a topic, you should be able to look at a contradicting position as objectively as possible with the believe that you can be wrong regardless of how right you may think you are. If you never do that to any level, you're basically just thinking like a child IMO.

Also, a debate is, in essence, a disagreement or conflict, and soooo many people nowadays avoid disagreements like the plague. It's like people want to go through life with no conflicts at all ever. But it's through conflicts where we can learn the most and simply better ourselves, as long as those conflicts remain constructive.

[Zeus]

Hitler wasn't really that bad of a guy, if you focus on the basics, and not the propaganda.

It's much better than being compared to Eric Cartman for example.

Hitler? as in like.... Adolf? not really that bad of a guy? I suppose compared to like.... Pol Pot there'd be almost a possible comparison... but in terms of people who have caused the largest genocides during their lifetimes..... I'm not entirely sure you're going to find anyone else who is bad in comparison to Hitler. Dude killed a right ton of jews and people he deemed as social miscreants. You show me someone who is directly responsible for the deaths of..... let's say more than one person, and you call him not really that bad of a guy.

Stalin

[Zeus]

With the exception of Rhodes, all those examples are people who shaped the world to what we live in today. I cant think, right off hand, of anything positive, long lasting, or world shaping that came from Hitlers regime.

The idea that you can't defeat an enemy then think you can suppress that entire race without serious repurcussions

[Julius Seeker]

With the exception of Rhodes, all those examples are people who shaped the world to what we live in today. I cant think, right off hand, of anything positive, long lasting, or world shaping that came from Hitlers regime.

But that doesn't matter, what matters is that they still killed tons of people. Though that said, without Hitler, the world we live in right now would be completely different. Hitler has effected our world more than any of those people mentioned.; he just happened to lose. If he won, and his empire managed to become the sole world power, then Hitler would have been seen as the greatest man in history; his victories would be the focus of the authors. The only difference between Hitler and the ones above are that they are all spun as great men, whereas Hitler is spun as an evil man; all of the above figures, in the end, are among histories biggest murderors.

Here's one example of change that occured which was on the technological scale:



That is US President John Kennedy with former high ranking Nazi officer Wernher Magnus Von Braun. He invented rocketry as a means to create rocket propelled missiles for the Nazi military. He was among the Nazi scientists captured at the end of World War II. That technology is key to much of the technology which we enjoy today. That said, it was only one small thing: think of the political differences between the world before and after world war II; they are immense.

I'm not saying that other people aren't bad. However, you said Hitler wasn't really that bad of a guy. That statement just isn't true. Giving me four examples of people who were also bad doesn't make him less bad or not bad by comparison. The dictator who's regime is responsible for the creation of ultra-efficient death camps is really that bad of a guy.

Before I say any of this, I feel they (the ones in my post above) are all villains. Though in response to the above statement:

Not if you ignore the propaganda. It's possible to spin anyone into a good or a bad guy. Do you think Hitler is the only one who used concentration camps? Both the British and the Americans have used them before too (some examples are the Brits in South Africa and the Americans during the US war of independence), and both have examples where nearly everyone was killed. Genocide? Look at the US and Canada, the "founding fathers" of the European influenced nations we know today paved the road to their destination with blood and genocide. As I said, it is all about who wrote the book.

[Nev]

Okay, I'm all right with Godwinning this thread now.

...and honestly, Sine, you should know better. Look what you did.

[Julius Seeker]

I am not sure if this so called "Godwin's law" even applies when the discussion actually is about Nazis =P

I thought it was about when one poster compares another to Hitler, or something like that.

Anyways, on the wholeGodwin's law thing, the only "Godwin" that matters is William Godwin, and he lived long before the Nazis =P

[Oracle]

You all lose, imo.

[Flip]

I declare Oracle a wiener.

[Nev]

I agree with Flip, and I call retarded on Zeus, Flip, and bovine for encouraging Seeker in any way. Jesus, guys, don't we all know better at this point?

[Julius Seeker]

I agree with Flip, and I call retarded on Zeus, Flip, and bovine for encouraging Seeker in any way. Jesus, guys, don't we all know better at this point?

Stop being such a naz-...... Soviet!

[Kupek]

Hitler wasn't really that bad of a guy, if you focus on the basics, and not the propaganda.

I'm curious how your mind works. What are the basics and what is the propaganda?