Making Yourself Invincible

[theboombody]

If you want to make yourself invulnerable to attack while in debates, here's what you should do:

1) Admit you're always illogical
2) Admit you're always unethical

If you do these things, no one can hurt you, because you have already hurt your own self in a way no one else can ever match. Any effort they make in trying to attack you further is pointless. Eminem did this at the end of the movie 8-Mile.

This is also a version of what Socrates did. His goal wasn't to make himself look good. It was to make the other person look bad. So he could make himself look bad all he wanted as he waited for his opponent to trip up and fall.

The primary limitation to this method is that although it makes you pretty much invincible, it makes you immobile. You can't really attack too much with this strategy. All you can do is meddle like an imp. Still, it has its purpose.

G-rated Shock Value
"No bad words. Just bad ideas."

 

[Nomad]

If you want to make yourself invulnerable to attack while in debates, here's what you should do:

1) Admit you're always illogical
2) Admit you're always unethical

If you do these things, no one can hurt you, because you have already hurt your own self in a way no one else can ever match. Any effort they make in trying to attack you further is pointless. Eminem did this at the end of the movie 8-Mile.

This is also a version of what Socrates did. His goal wasn't to make himself look good. It was to make the other person look bad. So he could make himself look bad all he wanted as he waited for his opponent to trip up and fall.

The primary limitation to this method is that although it makes you pretty much invincible, it makes you immobile. You can't really attack too much with this strategy. All you can do is meddle like an imp. Still, it has its purpose.

G-rated Shock Value
"No bad words. Just bad ideas."

Number 2 is a matter of perspective, so I don't have much to say about that. Number 1 seems like a bad idea, though, since it also implies that everything one says is illogical. So really, what you're saying is "pay no heed to what comes out of my mouth hereafter, because it won't make any sense and isn't worth listening to". Yeah, sure, you'll have hurt yourself in a way no one else can... But that doesn't mean you won, it means you lost by default.

 

[theboombody]

Number 2 is a matter of perspective, so I don't have much to say about that. Number 1 seems like a bad idea, though, since it also implies that everything one says is illogical. So really, what you're saying is "pay no heed to what comes out of my mouth hereafter, because it won't make any sense and isn't worth listening to". Yeah, sure, you'll have hurt yourself in a way no one else can... But that doesn't mean you won, it means you lost by default.

Invincible doesn't mean winning. Invincible means you can't be hurt. Winning is vanity. Meaningless. Plus defeating someone probably has a smaller chance of changing their life than letting them defeat you.

 

[FalloutJack]

I dunno. This all looks self-defeating to me, as in the other party just sorta' wins by standing there and looking pretty. Dousing your credibility with gasoline and lighting yourself on fire only works if you're a martyr to a cause. Everyone else just dies horribly (Or is Dan McNinja).. Also! You're probably lying, which means that the obsfucation just falls through and doesn't work.

 

[ClockworkPenguin]

I thought Socrates method wasn't to actually have any point of his own to 'win'. He just questioned the viewpoints of others.

There would be no need to castigate himself, although I can see how his method would cause him to desire criticism to be pointless. I imagine he would frequently be criticized in order to challenge his 'right' to question others.

Better by far to copy Plato, and just write both sides of the argument. Your favored viewpoint will be both correct and witty.

 

[skywolfblue]

Number 2 is a matter of perspective, so I don't have much to say about that. Number 1 seems like a bad idea, though, since it also implies that everything one says is illogical. So really, what you're saying is "pay no heed to what comes out of my mouth hereafter, because it won't make any sense and isn't worth listening to". Yeah, sure, you'll have hurt yourself in a way no one else can... But that doesn't mean you won, it means you lost by default.

Invincible doesn't mean winning. Invincible means you can't be hurt. Winning is vanity. Meaningless. Plus defeating someone probably has a smaller chance of changing their life than letting them defeat you.

There is graciousness in choosing to bow out before a friendly exchange devolves into an argument. Even in choosing to "let them win".

But declaring your own words worthless is an extremely damaging thing to say about oneself in my eyes. If you're using some self-deprecating humor and whimsy that's fine, but it's kinda hard to read humor in text without indicators.

I see it a bit like committing seppuku to avoid a nick in the arm.

 

[Nomad]

Number 2 is a matter of perspective, so I don't have much to say about that. Number 1 seems like a bad idea, though, since it also implies that everything one says is illogical. So really, what you're saying is "pay no heed to what comes out of my mouth hereafter, because it won't make any sense and isn't worth listening to". Yeah, sure, you'll have hurt yourself in a way no one else can... But that doesn't mean you won, it means you lost by default.

Invincible doesn't mean winning. Invincible means you can't be hurt. Winning is vanity. Meaningless. Plus defeating someone probably has a smaller chance of changing their life than letting them defeat you.

Right, but you don't become invincible by committing suicide. Sure, noone can hurt you when you're dead - but that's only because you've already been as hurt as you could possibly get.

 

[tippy2k2]

Yeah, that doesn't really make any sense (so I guess you won the argument?)

This looks to me like shooting yourself in the head and then declaring yourself the winner because you got the most kills.

 

[theboombody]

Yeah, that doesn't really make any sense (so I guess you won the argument?)

This looks to me like shooting yourself in the head and then declaring yourself the winner because you got the most kills.

Exactly. It's madness, but strangely enough, it works. What a mad world we live in!

 

[Nomad]

Yeah, that doesn't really make any sense (so I guess you won the argument?)

This looks to me like shooting yourself in the head and then declaring yourself the winner because you got the most kills.

Exactly. It's madness, but strangely enough, it works. What a mad world we live in!

I'd like you to give us a real-world example of when it has actually "worked". So far you've done Socrates (which is not quite the same thing to begin with, on top of being in an entirely different cultural and temporal context than modern western society, and not exactly being a proven real-world event in any case) and 8 mile (which is a movie. Of course the hero outwits the bad guy).

Honestly, the only times I've seen anyone admit fault to any significant extent in actual debates (i.e. election debates and the like), they've gotten mercilessly hammered for it. You admitting that your opponent is right in their criticism only strengthens the legitimacy of the opponent's argument. It doesn't actually prevent the opponent from latching onto it.

 

[KnowYourOnion]

If you want to make yourself invulnerable to attack while in debates, here's what you should do:

1) Admit you're always illogical
2) Admit you're always unethical

Neither of these makes sense, by admitting you're sometimes illogical introduces a weakness into your argument. Admitting you're always illogical destroys your own argument because you've undermined the axiom it's constructed on, your reasoning and use of evidence.

It doesn't matter if they can't attack your argument because you've already crushed it yourself.


And as mentioned by someone else ethics is all relative.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Wouldn't it be better to just you know... debate without using logical fallicies and underhanded tactics so the correct viewpoint wins instead of the more strategic debater?

Then decisions and solutions might actually have a basis to work since they'd be based on fact and not stubborn pride.

Wanting to become 'invincible' in your arguments is the first step to disaster since you almost certainly aren't 100% correct on all your worldview, so the instances where you 'win' through underhanded means are just hurting yourself.

Life is compromise. Learn to assess the evidence correctly so you can compromise on the right things, instead of ignoring the evidence and shouting louder than your opponents to seem like you are on the right track.

 

[Asita]

If you want to make yourself invulnerable to attack while in debates, here's what you should do:

1) Admit you're always illogical
2) Admit you're always unethical

If you do these things, no one can hurt you, because you have already hurt your own self in a way no one else can ever match. Any effort they make in trying to attack you further is pointless. Eminem did this at the end of the movie 8-Mile.

...If you seriously believe either of these things then I'd posit that you might have self-esteem issues. If you don't seriously believe that then you're doing nothing more than putting on airs. In neither case does this truly qualify as good advice. Even in the 'best' case scenario where you take the ideas to heart the concept requires that you believe yourself to be wrong and have no place arguing your position in the first place. I mean please, by all means be open to the possibility that you are wrong, but if you believe yourself incapable of being right - as these two points mandate - then you're already fighting for what you believe to be an unworthy cause and would be better suited avoiding the argument entirely.

 

[TheIceQueen]

The person who uses this tactic either:

A) Has self-esteem issues and believes themselves to be wrong

or

B) Is lying

Both of these should have no place in a debate.

Also, this doesn't sound like the Socratic method at all.

 

[FalloutJack]

The person who uses this tactic either:

A) Has self-esteem issues and believes themselves to be wrong

or

B) Is lying

Both of these should have no place in a debate.

Also, this doesn't sound like the Socratic method at all.

Agreed. Socrates actually tended to get on the nerves of nobles because they found him hard to follow sometimes, because he was against them, and because other people were listening to him. In the end, he was poisoned by hemlock. This guy may be referring to a self-argument Socrates had in his cell regarding his death sentence - an argument that he condemned himself with - but that was not a means of survival. That was his own logic trapping him unfairly. He didn't WANT to die. He merely found that what he wanted was being made rather immaterial and inescapable, given the circumstances.

 

[TheIceQueen]

The person who uses this tactic either:

A) Has self-esteem issues and believes themselves to be wrong

or

B) Is lying

Both of these should have no place in a debate.

Also, this doesn't sound like the Socratic method at all.

Agreed. Socrates actually tended to get on the nerves of nobles because they found him hard to follow sometimes, because he was against them, and because other people were listening to him. In the end, he was poisoned by hemlock. This guy may be referring to a self-argument Socrates had in his cell regarding his death sentence - an argument that he condemned himself with - but that was not a means of survival. That was his own logic trapping him unfairly. He didn't WANT to die. He merely found that what he wanted was being made rather immaterial and inescapable, given the circumstances.

If I were to break the Socratic method down to be at its most simple, it would be like how a child asks "why?" constantly. If you ask why constantly and incessantly enough, most people are going to have enough of a logic breakdown that would expose the weaknesses of their argument more clearly.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Indeed. And that is clearly what happened in his cell as well. Wise man, but never knew when to quit.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Number 2 is a matter of perspective, so I don't have much to say about that. Number 1 seems like a bad idea, though, since it also implies that everything one says is illogical. So really, what you're saying is "pay no heed to what comes out of my mouth hereafter, because it won't make any sense and isn't worth listening to". Yeah, sure, you'll have hurt yourself in a way no one else can... But that doesn't mean you won, it means you lost by default.

Invincible doesn't mean winning. Invincible means you can't be hurt. Winning is vanity. Meaningless. Plus defeating someone probably has a smaller chance of changing their life than letting them defeat you.

Invincible does in fact mean winning. The literal meaning of being invincible is that you cannot be defeated or conquered. Th word you're looking for is invulnerable, which means that you cannot be hurt.

Either way, what you've said in the OP sounds like complete and utter bullshit. Just because you can't be hurt by your opponent's argument anymore doesn't mean you haven't done the same amount or a greater amount of damage to yourself at the same time. Damaging yourself doesn't help you in any way, and if your opponent beats you without even having to do anything there's absolutely no chance of him ever thinking about or caring about your argument because you never got a chance to actually make one. It's like going on a kamikaze run but slamming your plane into a mountain before you get to your target.

 

[theboombody]

If you want to make yourself invulnerable to attack while in debates, here's what you should do:

1) Admit you're always illogical
2) Admit you're always unethical

If you do these things, no one can hurt you, because you have already hurt your own self in a way no one else can ever match. Any effort they make in trying to attack you further is pointless. Eminem did this at the end of the movie 8-Mile.

...If you seriously believe either of these things then I'd posit that you might have self-esteem issues. If you don't seriously believe that then you're doing nothing more than putting on airs. In neither case does this truly qualify as good advice. Even in the 'best' case scenario where you take the ideas to heart the concept requires that you believe yourself to be wrong and have no place arguing your position in the first place. I mean please, by all means be open to the possibility that you are wrong, but if you believe yourself incapable of being right - as these two points mandate - then you're already fighting for what you believe to be an unworthy cause and would be better suited avoiding the argument entirely.

Self-esteem is, and always has been, a crock. It's important to know how to be humble.

 

[FalloutJack]

Shoom

See, the problem here is that your arguments aren't making you invincible. They're making you unbelievable. They don't even get you what you want. Humility isn't sleeping in garbage, it's being chill about big important things. Humility still holds you true to some sort of statement, but you just don't want to make a fuss. You...are making a fuss about being wrong and illogical, and passing it off as humility. You are being UNhumble about desperately wanting to be wrong just to save yourself some trouble, which you bring to you, and none of it works anyway. When you say or do things that invite people to dump shit on you, they do it! This argument of yours is just one big open invitation and you going "Here I am!". It doesn't work.