Winners and Losers

Does anyone at EvC ever "lose" a debate or do we all consider ourselves to be we perennial winners?Would anyone here actually admit to ever having lost a debate?More seriously - By what criteria can such things be assessed? Is it possible to avoid over estimating the performance of those that you most agree with in any given debate? Is it possible to be objective or are such judgements inherently subjective?How can we determine the "winner" of any given debate?

I would, had I lost any debate. Easiest way - a mediator. It is but one would have to be conscious that one is doing it. Conclusions are based on many asspects of ones life experiences. I tend to always agree with a more scientific explanation, even if at first I do not fully grasp it. I trust the source, so to speak. But, for conclusions of a debate matter I would say that it is purely subjective as to which side is the clear winner. Those with similar views will tend to side with those off similar views. We build everything off of this principle.The issue tends to be convincingly obvious when the person debating is in direct contradiction with a known fact, or with objective evidence - at that point the person just becomes a douche who won't admit to being wrong because, perhaps, their ego is too big to do so.

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

Since this was your idea, my friend, would you be willing to step up to the plate which you've set and be the first to answer your own question relative to your debates here at EvC?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Certainly Buz. I can confidently declare that I have never "lost" a debate at EvC. Obviously!Subjectively speaking............

I have lost debates on gun control and fox hunting before now. I had a quick look back through my oldest posts to see if I could see anything here that I think I lost. I only managed to find Message 25 - in which I attempt to mount the best defence in favour of Christianity that I can, though perhaps there are others. Unfortunately my early posts on this forum are characterised by an even more excessive tentativity than I am (generally, in most cases, on the whole, in my opinion) prone to now, I think (do you agree?) which made it impossible to really say I 'lost' since I rarely took a strong position on things.As for how we determine a winner? I think whoever comes off as having integrity and courage to tackle the most difficult questions of their opponents to correctly represent their opponents, and to tackle their actual position as best as possible is usually the winner. I didn't say it was easy, or objectively deterministic.However, in fairness I will point to where I failed to do the above for at least one post, Message 126.

It's really difficult to judge "winning" vs "losing" in a debate.Does "winning" entail convincing the opponent to give up his position and adopt yours? If you fail to convince your opponent but he also fails to convince you to concede, did you both "lose?"Complicating the issue here is that we often have two separate concerns: the factually "correct" answer to a given question, and whether each participant made a convincing argument. As an example, if one were to argue the position that the Sun revolves around the Earth, it is conceivable that one could simultaneously make a more convincing argument than one's opponent, and yet still be factually wrong.Not to mention that "convincing" is a subjective assessment. One person may find a given argument to be extremely convincing, while another person may not. And we don't typically have one-on-one debates - many of our threads represent multiple positions, not simply two opposing views.Personally, I just try to remain objective and logically consistent in my arguments, and I don't care much for who "wins" or "loses." In many cases I believe that no argument would be sufficient to convince my opponent (in which case I usually compose my responses more for the benefit of lurkers than to convince my dogmatic opponent). I don't debate with the goal of "winning," I debate with the intention of honing and practicing my critical thinking skills and objectivity. It's a fun mental exercise, and I tend to learn a lot here. "Winning" or "losing" the debate is a rather small concern next to that.

Hi, Straggler.I have lost a number of debates, mostly when I tried to enter a debate about a topic I didn't have any experience with, like bible history or intelligent design.{AbE: It's pretty easy to feel like you're losing when there are a lot of people arguing against you. In that regard, I admire the will power and grit of our creationist friends.}Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

I usually have a pretty good idea of how far I can go relative to the science topics. There have been occasions when I over extended my ability to debate and have had to admit mistakes and back off. Other times I believe some logical arguments presented a healthy challenge to the members apprised on the sciences on topics like the properties of space, etc.In summary, there have been times when I'm confident that I've won a debate or segment thereof. There have been times when nothing has been empirically established. Then there have been times when I've had to admit error or when I realized that my points were not adequate for refutation.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I was actually waiting for this one. You clearly lost that debate. That you weren't able to see what your misunderstanding was is typical when arguing something outside of one's field.You want a challenge, take an intro to Physics class, then come talk to me, lol. You didn't present a challenge, you presented a confusion.Still...much love fo ya though! - Oni

---

"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky

If we take the "win/loss" context to be about changing minds or convincing others... I lose debates all the time.Of course using that whole context, my whole purpose is to see if I can lose a debate... so is that really "losing"?I tend to post things that I don't know if they are right or not. Then I use the replies from other posters to see if they are logical or reasonable in refuting whatever it is I've said. Generally, the position I make doesn't change 180 degrees. But, it almost always changes 5-10 degrees or sometimes more.But, well, that's what I want. I come here to learn, I come here to test opinions/conclusions I hold and see how they fare. In that sense, I'm expecting (hoping?) to change, update, and restructure my views into something that is closer to "the truth." Whatever that is. I come here and post in order to honestly get as close as possible to the reality behind whatever questions I have.So, in the sense that I'm always attaining the goal I'm setting... I'm always a winner. And, personally, I find the superficial "win/loss" of the debate in the context of "convincing others of what you're saying" to be a useless, immature waste of time. I'm much more interested in honestly "uncovering the truth of this reality" as opposed to seeing if someone can convince someone else of something they say.Honestly exploring reality pretty much requires one to accept that they can be wrong. When people are resistive to such things, it's obvious that they are no longer concerned with "the truth" as a priority and are more concerned with some strange perception of "being embarassed" or something like that. Which I don't understand. Do some people actually think others expect them to be perfect? I've never met a perfect person in my life before... it's no surprise that everyone "isn't perfect." And not being perfect means that one is going to be wrong sometimes. Refusal to admit such a thing is... not productive when honestly searching for "the truth."

Having had Mod and others 'confess' to losing (so to speak) I will try and answer your question more fully. Well I wasn't gonna be the first now was I? When I first joined EvC my only experience of the whole Evo/Creo/Atheist/Theist/Deist debate was a brief foray on a different and less focussed internet debate site. The theists on this site were mainly YECs, there was little moderation and the arguments on both sides were relatively unsophisticated.When I joined EvC I was ill prepared for, and not expecting, the complexity and sophistication of argument that I discovered. Nor was I ready for the sheer number of members ready and willing to pounce on unevidenced or illogical claims. This came as quite a shock. As a result some of my earliest posts were overly cambative (not a trait I claim to have totally eliminated even to this day) and, looking back, frankly a bit embarressing.Whilst I had the good sense to duck out of a conversation before gettting my arse truly whipped there were a few occasions where I must confess to leaving really quite bewildered.Iano in particular would get me in a complete tangle regarding the whole nature of evidence issue. It had never occurred to me to question the fact that empirical objective evidence was superior to subjective forms of "evidence". In fact I had never before heard anybody claim that subjective experience was any form of evidence at all!! Being confronted with someone who rejected and even counterracted this assumption of mine came as a bit of a shock. I have since thought this through and am confident that I can comprehensively take on that argument now. But it is fair to say that I probably lost a couple of debates along the way.There are a couple of others that also spring to mind. There was one thread where I was advocating that we discover rather than invent mathematics. There was another about the fundamental purpose of science where someone, it might have been Catholic Scientist, ended up concluding that I was advocating a 'science of the gaps'. That was quite amusing but not one of my greatest debating moments!I haven't trawled through and provided links like Mod did A) Because I am too lazy and B) Because I don't see why I should od all the work to highlight my 'greatest misses' I suppose the rather navel gazing question that this poses is how I will perceive my current contributions if I look back at them in a couple of years time?Maybe by then I will have "seen the light" and will have changed my member name to 'Beacon of Hope' or somesuch....... Only time will tell.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler Yes I have. I lost one with Holmes on morality that I recall.. For me, it is when I change my mind.We can look at it as a matter of having concepts that conflict with your worldview, resulting in cognitive dissonance. When confronted with actual evidence that shows my previous opinion was wrong, I revised my opinion, and this resolved the cognitive dissonance.I have seen several people here go through this process, and while they may have "lost" the battle, I think in the end we are winners for learning something new.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

I came back to this very thread to say the same thing. Although I was going to point out that sometimes, in an argument against Holmes, it was very difficult to know whose winning even as a participant!

Hey Raz
Actually the question posed in this thread is as a direct result of the recent 'Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument' thread.It got me thinking because as far as I was concerned your position in that thread had been pretty conclusively refuted. However it was also obvious that you far from accepted this and indeed probably felt that quite the opposite was true.But at the end of the day two opposing logically contradictory conclusions cannot both be true. So in some sense there had to be a "winner" and a "loser" in some sort of sense. That then got me thinking as to how such a thing could actually be determined in general terms. Hence the more general question posed in the OP here. If you are willing to come back to the 'Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument' debate at some point I am pretty sure that I can demonstare that this is the case with regard to your position in that debate.I do however understand that the sheer volume of fairly forceful (overly forceful perhaps at times - of which I have been guilty and for which I apologise) opposition can be difficult to contend with whatever the validity of the respective arguments. Yes I agree with that. "Losing" can either make one go away and think about the things that one takes for granted and why exactly it is that they are actually justified. Or not. In the later case it can lead to a change of opinion but the process is worth going through whatever the result.

First of all, my friend, much obliged for your comment. It's not often I get encouraging input like that. May God bless you and yours for your kindness.Now, I didn't claim a win, my friend. My point was that the logical input presented a challenge to the tune of a full active and red hot thread for folks like you to show your stuff. Imo, none of you folks were able to reconnect the two ends of my rigid straight bar. My bar continues to project straight out into infinite space, unbended and uncurved; space which has no properties capable of connecting the two ends of a straight not bended 3D bar. Me logic belies not reality.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.