What is the best way to debunk stupid arguments?

[Eren Eeager]

Ben shapiro kinds of arguments, you know what I mean, those stupid arguments arose by conservatives and  republicans all the time that need tons of time just to explain why they are wrong.

[No Self]

Any specific examples? I don't think it is possible to write data to a CD-ROM.

[Eren Eeager]

@No Self I meant in a debate.

[No Self]

Which argument/s in particular?

Some of those arguments rely heavily on the false consensus effect. Eg., everyone knows that Biden is stealing the election. It alienates anyone who questions them, along with any authoritative sources who might be cited in argument. It also threatens anyone who disagrees with the tribe with excommunication. (And the same thing happens on the left!)

But perhaps we can look more closely at any specific arguments on your mind.

[Lyubov]

I would say that first off it's realizing that there is no "best way." It is far more complex and the best arguments and most functional notions will be dynamic and incorporative. Shapiro's can sometimes be hard to debunk because there is an element of truth to them that is woven into the fabric of the argument. Each argument or notion is different and a truly skilled and deep thinker will be open to all possibilities and complexities. My reply is kinda abstract but it's sort of how it is. There is no best way just better habits and ways of approaching issues and looking for integrative solutions. 

[No Self]

5 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

I would say that first off it's realizing that there is no "best way."

True, and even if there were a 'best way', they would focus enormous energy on coming up with some verbal wizardry to circumvent it. It becomes an endless, verbal arms race.

The Flat Earth Society have a history of responding to criticisms with ad hoc explanations and counterarguments. It may not form a cohesive world view, but protects their ego identities from the most obvious arguments against their position. Also, some people are primitive and love the battlefield of arguments. Yielding to another person's argument would be like death; they'll admit defeat over their dead body. Hence why it can be futile and frustrating to try and elevate their world view; indeed, what does it say about us that we might even want to?

[DocWatts]

I think it's worth making the distinction between 'normies' who were taken in by a dumb argument but are otherwise sane and reasonable people, and people with a Cult like mentality whose attraction to dumb arguments are based around Group Identity, and use dumb arguments as an ego driven narrative of Personal Empowerment.

If it's the latter group, likely nothing you say in the way or logical arguments or appeals to reliable sources of information will make a difference, because their attachment to the ideas you're trying to debunk are emotional, and likely to be taken as a personal attack on their Identity. Which makes getting them to seriously consider a different point of view very, very difficult.

Assuming you find it worth the trouble to put the effort in, you could start from a place of identifying something they care about, and in a non-confrontational way try to show them that the argument they're espousing conflicts with one of their core beliefs. If they claim to be a super Patriot who supports the troops, you could try and show them how that belief conflicts with supporting someone who disgraces service members by calling them 'suckers' and 'losers'. Try to approach the issue from their own worldview, and with a degree of empathy, if you can. The more Confrontational approach will almost certainly be met with ego-backlash and defensiveness.

The above is assuming that you actually know the person in question; for randos online, honestly I really don't think it's worth the effort.

Edited November 21, 2020 by DocWatts

[Preety_India]

It's very hard to change a Crumper. 

Your time is best served arguing with an open minded hippie. 

 

[Parththakkar12]

10 hours ago, Eren Eeager said:

Ben shapiro kinds of arguments, you know what I mean, those stupid arguments arose by conservatives and  republicans all the time that need tons of time just to explain why they are wrong.

You cannot debunk them.

1. No belief-system or ideology is absolutely right or wrong, proof is a circular concept. This could not apply more in any other context than in politics. You could not find a more appropriate context to apply this truism if you tried.
2. They really do believe what they believe. They have 50 years of experience backing what they believe. It is going to be very hard to change their mind. So if that's what you're after, good luck!

There are kernels of truth in what they believe. I'd suggest focusing on finding those and growing yourself in the process. You cannot change someone else's mind, you can only change your own mind. This may involve putting to question what you believe too.

If you're able to do this, only then will you be able to have a reasonable conversation with them. Only then will they be open to what you're saying, because they will understand that you understand what they're saying, you understand their perspective. This will make what you're saying a lot more important to them and their mind will be a lot more open to what you're saying. That's your opportunity to create change.

[Leo Gura]

Debating is for dumb people. Stop doing it.

[Abdelghafar]

25 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Debating is for dumb people. Stop doing it.

Is it because it's a way to impress people on a shallow level? and a waste of time? @Leo Gura

[Hansu]

22 minutes ago, Abdelghafar said:

Is it because it's a way to impress people on a shallow level? and a waste of time? @Leo Gura

My perception is that

1. You are most likely not debating with a person who has any power to do anything. People in power tell you how to do shit, they dont argue.

2. Even if you are debating someone with power, say a powerful politician or the president, you'll get defensive and start looking up anything to back your argument if you start losing, hence not achieving growth nor giving anyone a new perspective

IMO its better to strike good conversation than to debate, at least on internet. If someone tries to agitate you, just don't answer.

[DocWatts]

1 hour ago, datamonster said:

@Eren Eeager  It's so counter-intuitive, but the best way to debunk them is by asking good questions and being genuinely curious about the other person's perspective. This way there can be two possible positive outcomes:

1) By responding to your questions they go through your thinking process from scratch and if their argument in fact doesn't hold any water, they might realize it and see the absurdity of their point themselves. This is the Socratic method.

2) If their argument actually does hold water, you might learn something, which is also great.

If neither of these things happen, it's completely pointless to engage in any further debate or argument. Just walk away.

I struggle with this in practice though. Sometimes my ego just wants to win the argument. But I seek to improve every day and at least in theory this is how I intent to act

Also you'll have much more luck engaging in this process with someone you know and have a personal connection with, the mutual respect necessary for this process is going to be harder to establish with a random person on the internet.

[Dryas]

Just watch a ton of debates from Vaush, Destiny etc

[Claymoree]

You have stupid arguments all the time and from both sides , I think your question should be "best way to convince someone, deliver message in a way that they change their opinion without feeling humiliated and can accept that they are wrong", now when you saw how I rephrased it, I think you should understand how it is done too. 

Edited November 23, 2020 by Claymoree