For an introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon: Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1 Volume 2 - Metaphysics mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2 Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
OH BUT FOR HUMANS ITS ALWAYS ABOUT WINNING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. IF YOU HAVE MORE MONEY LIKE MOST OF THE FUNDING FOR SCIENCE TO PROVE THERE IS NO GOD... THEN POLITICALLY AND PHILOSOPHICALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY aka things you do regularly, ALWAYS USE FILATIOUS TACTICS TO DESTROY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE in a higher power. BRING THEM DOWN TO THE GROUND WITH THE REST OF US. WHEN EVER YOU WATCH DAWKINS DENNET OR SAM THEY ARE ALWAYS MURDERING HOPE AND PEOPLES FEELINGS. THEY WANT TO BRING DOWN ANYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH THEM TO BE MORE LIKE A NAZI ATHEIST WHO DOESNT BELIEVE IN THE NEED FOR A god.
I love me a steel man. It’s so much more productive to assume the best than assume the worst of someone’s position. Everyone has at least something to teach you.
Depends on whether each side is focussed on genuinely coming to the best resolution possible. Often I find, people are trying to undermine others ideas
I love hearing how my argument is wrong if they have genuine issues with it. Feedback is a valuable tool for strengthening your worldview. I never debate to win. I debate to grow stronger and as they said- find the truth. I don’t have opponents in debates and discussions. I have a partner who has valuable knowledge as well. Maybe they’re not right, but maybe they do have an objective standard that can be extremely valuable.
Well that's absolutely how it should happen. Undermining other's ideas is the central thing in any argument. You are confusing an argument with a discussion.
@@micahwright5901 You’re the cause of the problem because you engage in debates when the objective of a debate is to win. It’s hard for people to concede defeat in debates…especially non-formal ones. Your “genuine issues” may be objective to you, but someone else may view your issues as being subjective. It’s better to have discussions where the participants aren’t trying to win a argument and just hear each other out, ask questions, etc.
I am preparing for my A-Level Religious Studies exam and this method of debate makes total sense, I will definitely be using it when structuring my essays. Thank you Philosophy Vibe!
To me it seems to be kind of absurd to talk about logical debating methods while accepting "religious studies" as some sort of a scientific topic. Religious scripts and teachings are usually rich with logical fallacies, so we either discard logic and accept the teachings (which is illogical), or use logic and discard the illogical teachings (logical), or try to pretend that we are logical, while we also accept the illogical teachings which is absurd.
Yes. Thank you. I really wish more people subscribed to your point about debaters collaborating to find the truth through a shared intellectual endeavor rather than trying to "win"
True, but it should ultimately be a happy byproduct than a desired outcome. You should find that your position in the best case scenario is mostly correct but not completely. Being able to humbled by that fact is important.
It’s like the more fortified the argument is, many would believe that it’d be hard to find a flaw, but just the smallest flaw could be a huge impact on the structure. Kinda like Jenga! The bigger they are, the harder they fall
Just had to explain this stuff on an academic setting, where in the end the course didn't want to accept this very basic principle of philosophical intercourse and even called it "metaphysical daydreaming". After that there was absolutely no point in contributing to that course. Absolutely insane.
What may help, is to assume the strawman someone uses in an argument was not intentional, but merely an emotional frustration. Because if you accuse them of being intentionally straw-manning, it leads them to become even more defensive.
I'm so petty that the moment I learned about the strawman concept I thought of somewhere in thefuture someone uses that against me and I straight up say what he is doing to his face so I can gain leverage and put pressure on the other person.
the Steel man technique can also be an effective way to build up an argument you find illogical. The more descriptive you can get the better, especially in regards to entrenching your opponent in a logical fallacy found in the argument. If they allow you to bolster the fallacy you have them hook line and sinker. you have to be careful to not accidentally come off as a straw man because you can if u harp on the fallacy to much instead of the over arching topic that you disagree with. Personally its a tool used to highlight incompetency and I've never done it to build an opponents position in good faith. ONLY to concrete their fallacies. to me its a show off move and rarely is it ever used in good faith. You see people like Ben Shapiro and charlie Kirk do it well but never in good faith of the others argument. only to bolster their rebuttle/answer that is designed to destroy the argument in the end.
So what you're saying is that if you take the time to understand your opponent's point of view rather than try to warp it to weaken it, you actually strengthen your own point of view by refining it with clauses and exceptions - perhaps even creating a new debate perspective entirely
I've managed to get my hands on your books, and although the concepts are well-presented, there are tons of typos in them. Can you please fix them? All they would need is a quick looking through.
Thank you for purchasing the Philosophy Vibe books, this is much appreciated and a real help for our channel. Apologies for the typos, a proof reader is definitely needed, however these will be reviewed and corrected whenever a typo is spotted.
Typically when someone writes a book, before release they get a proof reader to read over it with fresh eyes and spot any mistakes. Writers can miss small errors.
I know this question is a bit late but I have to ask. Cause the point of the steel man argument was to strengthen the opponents points so that an effective debate can occur and the opponent should be expected to do the same (please tell me if I understood this point correctly). But what happens if the person doesn't want to create an effective debate and doesn't want to search for the truth and pushes what they want instead? How do deal with a situation like that? Cause if it's a formal debate setting and the opponent does this the most obvious solution which is walking away doesn't really help. Also I personally feel that while steel manning an argument is always an ideal situation, its much harder to do and takes an open mind and a lot of understanding to do which may make you too slow to come up with an argument against their points. In contrast, some people straw man unknowingly cause it's too easy to do. what should be done in such situations?
Start off with the question "Does everything have a cause?", and then try arguing it from a religious person's perspective. Don't assign any personal qualities to God at first. Define God as that which causes everything else to come into being. Assert that everything in a universe comes into being and develops in accordance with natural laws (the laws of natural sciences - physics, chemistry, etc.). Follow that by saying that those laws hold true because they are part of the universe's natural way of doing things. Finally, identify God as the source of the universe's orderliness. Now you have a God that is the cause for all that exists and follows a set pattern in the universe, as well as the universe itself. In order to prove that this God does not exist, you must first either dispute the notion that there is an initial cause for everything (meaning that there is no end to the chain of causality), or that there is a strict beginning or end to the universe. In the former case, you must either assert that everything causes something else must have a cause itself, and that there can be nothing, not even a God, which does not obey this law of causality. If something did not obey it, then it would not be able to be part of a chain of causes and effects. Alternatively, you could dispute the belief that causality is part of the universe itself, leaving it only as a way of interpreting chains of sequence in reality, but then that would raise the question as to whether physical laws represent causal relations at all. The problem with first refutation is that it doesn't explain what would bring the universe itself into being, but then again, the same could be said for God too. The problem with the second refutation is that it completely rejects the entire set of premises that the original argument is built on, leaving no common ground to understand reality. The reason why it's difficult to accept that there is no God is the same as why it's difficult to seriously consider that reality as a whole is not real. When you dissociate the concept of "God" from Zeus, Brahman, the old man in the sky, etc., and turn it into a purely metaphysical primal mover (in line with Isaac Newton's divine geometer), you tie the concept of cause ("this therefore that" or "that because of this") to God, making the universe seem like a shell full of stuff that only have things bumping around because of the laws that the prime mover has put down. On the other hand, if we ascribe the laws of nature to the universe itself, rather than to God, then we pretty much turn the universe into God Himself. Even though it sounds like it should be easy to take one path and ignore the other, it's much more difficult to really stick to one once you've tried seeing things from your opponent's perspective. Arguing that any one particular religious text is true in its entirety, however, requires a leap of faith that no amount of philosophical dialectics will be get past.
@@أبوالخطابالحنبلي Salamu Alaikum Abu Alkhatab. In the first example, a theist steelmans an atheist’s claim about objective morality. And in the second example, as you correctly pointed out, the opposite occurs…an atheist steelmans a theist’s claim about the contingency argument. The narrator does not take sides. He just gives examples of how to steelman an argument whether you are an atheist or a theist. I hope that clarifies why I said what I said.
Good content well explained. The problem I have is the "we shouldn't be trying to win an argument" logic. If the point of argument is to "find truth" then there has to be a scale of truth vs untruth in which to aim at and reference... such a scale or target or reference point exists - it's called right and wrong. If we are searching for truth, that is to say we are searching for right and wrong, then right is the winner and wrong is the loser. Duality exists because it is fundamental to operating in reality (and fundamental in the physical makeup of reality as well, but I digress.) Are we are so soft and sensitive and without form that we remove the fucking scale of measurement for absolutely everything? Right vs wrong, men vs women, up vs down, simulation vs ouch I just got punched in the face - pain really does exist and it hurts like a mf. If I'm going into an argument then I am doing it with the axiom that I SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF BEING CORRECT. Just like YOU SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF BEING INCORRECT. Scarcity exists, there's a lot more wrong than there is right out there, our arguments battle each other in competition for of the scarcity of truth. If we can't remove our brittle little ego's when conversing on big ideas then we will not find truth. If I am arguing, then I am arguing to win.
The point of having a debate is not to convince people about what is obvious and trivial. If something were obvious and trivial, then anybody would accept it and there would be nothing to refute or counter. On the other hand, if something can be disputed because both a statement and its opposite sound like they could be true, or alternatively, because the true answer requires a longer chain of thoughts than the false one, then it's worth debating. If you have to convince somebody that it's true, then you have a reason to debate it. The point of using a steel man argument, or of playing the devil's advocate, is to make your audience completely sure that even the strongest possible counterargument you can think of does not hold a candle against the truth. It assures your audience that the argument you are making is not flimsy at all and that a person can feel assured in knowing that it has not and cannot be refuted.
As far as I remember, the contingency argument is the one that asserts that anything can either exist or not exist. If something necessarily exists, then it must necessarily exist for all time, whereas if something contingently exists, then it might exist or not exist. If something comes into being but ceases to exist, it does not necessarily exist. Therefore, there must be that which necessarily exists for everything else, and that which makes everything else that is contingent come into being and go. The problem with the argument is that "that which necessarily exists" might have no reason to be identified as God. In fact, the concept of contingency itself does not carry together with it the need for something else to necessarily exist. Therefore, there is always the possibility that the contingent gives rise to the contingent in eternal succession. Since there is nothing in the sensible world that is known to necessarily exist, we might believe that the concept of necessity itself might have no reason to apply to real stuff. This refutation is of course, loose and somewhat weak, since it might be argued that reality is not limited to only that which is sensible, so it might be possible to assert that even if the sensible is contingent, that there must be something which necessarily exists and is not sensible, and that if it necessarily exists, then it cannot be anything like what is contingent in being, so it must be insensible and lacking in the imperfections of sensible, contingent stuff. Therefore, that which necessarily exists cannot be sensed and is lacking in imperfections, for it is eternal and with an unchanging essence. That which is eternal and cannot be affected by the contingent must be God. Now, what is missing is arguing that the contingent is led into being by the necessary but that the necessary cannot be caused by the contingent, but I'll let you argue that part.
“You say mom says it’s your turn on the Xbox. Your claim has merit. You’re stating that there is a turn system in place monitored by a likely unbiased authority- however your position has a few faults…”
2:04 I am not sure how one would do this if the opponent has already used a straw argument. How do you build upon a straw argument if it is false in the first place~?
@@nnaammuuss Your 'true' and 'truth' have ambiguous meanings, so there is no contradiction unless one thinks these mean the same thing. This makes a similar error that Groucho Marx uses to comic effect: I shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got into my pyjamas, I'll never know.
If an agreement about truth can’t be reached between two people, what would be the point of discussion then? I would say it’s fair to assume both parties are seeking the truth and if it becomes apparent one or both isn’t, then the discussion would probably be moot. A lot of opinion discussions may end along the lines of “that’s just your opinion man, and it’s ok if you disagree with me”, but in discussing important ideas, that’s not a productive result.
@@micahwright5901 I think you are conflating the concept of 'Truth' with simple 'facts'. Taking sports as an example, a dispute over whether a player is out of bounds hinges on facts-about the rules, the boundaries, the position of the player or the ball. This has nothing to do with Truth and is an idiomatic misuse of the term. It may be a fact that the person was in or out of bounds, and two people may dispute this based on their perspective, their distance from the event, or so on. In philosophy, this is not the Truth being sought or discussed.
@@philosophicsblog Some people would say that a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact. So would you agree that if we have access to facts then we have access to truths?
5:00 "Using fallacious tactics to win debates does nothing for your argument." This may be true in substance or in an auditorium filled with bright thinkers, but in the real world, using fallacious tactics seems to actually perpetuate the arguments within our society. In fact it seems, that man is more capable of believing something simply because it is the narrative claimed earliest, spoken loudest and repeated most often; shame that it seems so.
0:58 "this is disingenuous and fallacious, and it's a method of debate that *no true philosopher* should ever use" Is this not an example of the *No True Scotsman* Fallacy ? 👆
Hi mugs! From the book Logically Fallacious, the definition is: When a universal (all, every, etc.) claim is refuted, rather than conceding the point or meaningfully revising the claim, the claim is altered by going from universal to specific, and failing to give any objective criteria for the specificity. Because philosophers are universally known as being truth seekers, this method of debate should never be used, cuz it seeks to win debates, even at the cost of the truth. Hope this helped. Have a good one.
@@Comboman70 I'm not sure I agree that "philosophers are universally known as being truth seekers" Aren't Niccolo Machiavelli, Karl Marx, and Gregory Hill (founder of Discordianism) considered as philosophers?
@@mugsofmirth8101 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline is the oxford definition of philosophy. He who seeks only to win debates does not have truth as his goal, yet a philosopher who does corresponds to the definition of philosophy.
i love to know what you guys really look like? this is a non argumentative request to see if you really exist and not a machine product. some empirical evidence 😃
For an introduction to philosophy check out the Philosophy Vibe paperback anthology book set available on Amazon:
Volume 1 - Philosophy of Religion
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol1
Volume 2 - Metaphysics
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol2
Volume 3 - Ethics and Political Philosophy
mybook.to/philosophyvibevol3
OH BUT FOR HUMANS ITS ALWAYS ABOUT WINNING, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE AN ATHEIST. IF YOU HAVE MORE MONEY LIKE MOST OF THE FUNDING FOR SCIENCE TO PROVE THERE IS NO GOD... THEN POLITICALLY AND PHILOSOPHICALLY AND RELIGIOUSLY aka things you do regularly, ALWAYS USE FILATIOUS TACTICS TO DESTROY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE in a higher power. BRING THEM DOWN TO THE GROUND WITH THE REST OF US. WHEN EVER YOU WATCH DAWKINS DENNET OR SAM THEY ARE ALWAYS MURDERING HOPE AND PEOPLES FEELINGS. THEY WANT TO BRING DOWN ANYONE WHO DOESNT AGREE WITH THEM TO BE MORE LIKE A NAZI ATHEIST WHO DOESNT BELIEVE IN THE NEED FOR A god.
I love me a steel man. It’s so much more productive to assume the best than assume the worst of someone’s position. Everyone has at least something to teach you.
One of the best philosphy channels to exist , thanks for getting me intrested in philosophy.
So happy we could help, glad you like the content :)
Depends on whether each side is focussed on genuinely coming to the best resolution possible. Often I find, people are trying to undermine others ideas
I love hearing how my argument is wrong if they have genuine issues with it. Feedback is a valuable tool for strengthening your worldview. I never debate to win. I debate to grow stronger and as they said- find the truth.
I don’t have opponents in debates and discussions. I have a partner who has valuable knowledge as well. Maybe they’re not right, but maybe they do have an objective standard that can be extremely valuable.
Well that's absolutely how it should happen. Undermining other's ideas is the central thing in any argument. You are confusing an argument with a discussion.
Good point. I also find that it can be an instinctive reaction, one’s ego can get in the way very easily. We all have to be in guard for that.
This
@@micahwright5901
You’re the cause of the problem because you engage in debates when the objective of a debate is to win. It’s hard for people to concede defeat in debates…especially non-formal ones. Your “genuine issues” may be objective to you, but someone else may view your issues as being subjective.
It’s better to have discussions where the participants aren’t trying to win a argument and just hear each other out, ask questions, etc.
I am preparing for my A-Level Religious Studies exam and this method of debate makes total sense, I will definitely be using it when structuring my essays. Thank you Philosophy Vibe!
Our pleasure, thanks for watching.
To me it seems to be kind of absurd to talk about logical debating methods while accepting "religious studies" as some sort of a scientific topic.
Religious scripts and teachings are usually rich with logical fallacies, so we either discard logic and accept the teachings (which is illogical), or use logic and discard the illogical teachings (logical), or try to pretend that we are logical, while we also accept the illogical teachings which is absurd.
Fantastic!! Totally agree with this. This is a great channel!! Keep up the good work!!
Thank you very much :D
I've been using this method unknowingly. Thanks for the information!
Welcome :D
It’s the only way to truly engage in valuable discourse.
Yes. Thank you. I really wish more people subscribed to your point about debaters collaborating to find the truth through a shared intellectual endeavor rather than trying to "win"
Been subbed to this channel for 2 years now. Uploads never cease to get the gears in my brain going! Love your work! :)
Thank you!!!
Steel man is great way of winning an argument. You show that you are so safe in your position that it lends you a great amount of credibility
True, but it should ultimately be a happy byproduct than a desired outcome. You should find that your position in the best case scenario is mostly correct but not completely. Being able to humbled by that fact is important.
i love it! Earned a sub. Keep up the good work lads.
Thanks for the sub :) hope you keep on enjoying the content
Just found this channel.. Im a libertarian with adults and a conservative with minors (being a parent).. thank you for the content
It’s like the more fortified the argument is, many would believe that it’d be hard to find a flaw, but just the smallest flaw could be a huge impact on the structure.
Kinda like Jenga! The bigger they are, the harder they fall
Just had to explain this stuff on an academic setting, where in the end the course didn't want to accept this very basic principle of philosophical intercourse and even called it "metaphysical daydreaming". After that there was absolutely no point in contributing to that course. Absolutely insane.
What may help, is to assume the strawman someone uses in an argument was not intentional, but merely an emotional frustration. Because if you accuse them of being intentionally straw-manning, it leads them to become even more defensive.
I'm so petty that the moment I learned about the strawman concept I thought of somewhere in thefuture someone uses that against me and I straight up say what he is doing to his face so I can gain leverage and put pressure on the other person.
Lol talk about rare these days! You don't see this often when people argue online haha.
Really great summary, thank you.
You're welcome, thanks for watching.
Thank you, excellent explanations!
the Steel man technique can also be an effective way to build up an argument you find illogical. The more descriptive you can get the better, especially in regards to entrenching your opponent in a logical fallacy found in the argument. If they allow you to bolster the fallacy you have them hook line and sinker. you have to be careful to not accidentally come off as a straw man because you can if u harp on the fallacy to much instead of the over arching topic that you disagree with.
Personally its a tool used to highlight incompetency and I've never done it to build an opponents position in good faith. ONLY to concrete their fallacies. to me its a show off move and rarely is it ever used in good faith. You see people like Ben Shapiro and charlie Kirk do it well but never in good faith of the others argument. only to bolster their rebuttle/answer that is designed to destroy the argument in the end.
So what you're saying is that if you take the time to understand your opponent's point of view rather than try to warp it to weaken it, you actually strengthen your own point of view by refining it with clauses and exceptions - perhaps even creating a new debate perspective entirely
I've managed to get my hands on your books, and although the concepts are well-presented, there are tons of typos in them. Can you please fix them? All they would need is a quick looking through.
Thank you for purchasing the Philosophy Vibe books, this is much appreciated and a real help for our channel. Apologies for the typos, a proof reader is definitely needed, however these will be reviewed and corrected whenever a typo is spotted.
@@PhilosophyVibe
Thanks for the response. You mean a reader should point these out to you?
Typically when someone writes a book, before release they get a proof reader to read over it with fresh eyes and spot any mistakes. Writers can miss small errors.
I know this question is a bit late but I have to ask. Cause the point of the steel man argument was to strengthen the opponents points so that an effective debate can occur and the opponent should be expected to do the same (please tell me if I understood this point correctly). But what happens if the person doesn't want to create an effective debate and doesn't want to search for the truth and pushes what they want instead? How do deal with a situation like that? Cause if it's a formal debate setting and the opponent does this the most obvious solution which is walking away doesn't really help.
Also I personally feel that while steel manning an argument is always an ideal situation, its much harder to do and takes an open mind and a lot of understanding to do which may make you too slow to come up with an argument against their points. In contrast, some people straw man unknowingly cause it's too easy to do. what should be done in such situations?
Never disappoints
Thank you
concise and clear explanation, thank you
You're welcome :)
Loved this, thank you ❤
Best practice ever!
Sick video!! I will adapt this philosophy
Great!
This is helpful. ThankYou
Glad it was helpful!
But how do you steelman religion when every singke argument that's used is a fallacy?
Start off with the question "Does everything have a cause?", and then try arguing it from a religious person's perspective. Don't assign any personal qualities to God at first. Define God as that which causes everything else to come into being. Assert that everything in a universe comes into being and develops in accordance with natural laws (the laws of natural sciences - physics, chemistry, etc.). Follow that by saying that those laws hold true because they are part of the universe's natural way of doing things. Finally, identify God as the source of the universe's orderliness.
Now you have a God that is the cause for all that exists and follows a set pattern in the universe, as well as the universe itself.
In order to prove that this God does not exist, you must first either dispute the notion that there is an initial cause for everything (meaning that there is no end to the chain of causality), or that there is a strict beginning or end to the universe. In the former case, you must either assert that everything causes something else must have a cause itself, and that there can be nothing, not even a God, which does not obey this law of causality. If something did not obey it, then it would not be able to be part of a chain of causes and effects.
Alternatively, you could dispute the belief that causality is part of the universe itself, leaving it only as a way of interpreting chains of sequence in reality, but then that would raise the question as to whether physical laws represent causal relations at all.
The problem with first refutation is that it doesn't explain what would bring the universe itself into being, but then again, the same could be said for God too. The problem with the second refutation is that it completely rejects the entire set of premises that the original argument is built on, leaving no common ground to understand reality.
The reason why it's difficult to accept that there is no God is the same as why it's difficult to seriously consider that reality as a whole is not real. When you dissociate the concept of "God" from Zeus, Brahman, the old man in the sky, etc., and turn it into a purely metaphysical primal mover (in line with Isaac Newton's divine geometer), you tie the concept of cause ("this therefore that" or "that because of this") to God, making the universe seem like a shell full of stuff that only have things bumping around because of the laws that the prime mover has put down.
On the other hand, if we ascribe the laws of nature to the universe itself, rather than to God, then we pretty much turn the universe into God Himself.
Even though it sounds like it should be easy to take one path and ignore the other, it's much more difficult to really stick to one once you've tried seeing things from your opponent's perspective.
Arguing that any one particular religious text is true in its entirety, however, requires a leap of faith that no amount of philosophical dialectics will be get past.
Great video.
Thank you!
Great explanation. I like how you didn't take sides in the God debate and focused on explaining the topic. Thank you. Subscribed.
I think he took a side by making the idea of “God’s existence” the opponent’s claim which he disagreed
@@أبوالخطابالحنبلي Salamu Alaikum Abu Alkhatab. In the first example, a theist steelmans an atheist’s claim about objective morality. And in the second example, as you correctly pointed out, the opposite occurs…an atheist steelmans a theist’s claim about the contingency argument. The narrator does not take sides. He just gives examples of how to steelman an argument whether you are an atheist or a theist. I hope that clarifies why I said what I said.
@@kshalhoub wa aleekom alsalam, what you said make sense, thank you for the clarification
@@أبوالخطابالحنبلي My pleasure.
This is just what I was looking for like 10 years ago or 19 96
Good content well explained. The problem I have is the "we shouldn't be trying to win an argument" logic. If the point of argument is to "find truth" then there has to be a scale of truth vs untruth in which to aim at and reference... such a scale or target or reference point exists - it's called right and wrong.
If we are searching for truth, that is to say we are searching for right and wrong, then right is the winner and wrong is the loser. Duality exists because it is fundamental to operating in reality (and fundamental in the physical makeup of reality as well, but I digress.)
Are we are so soft and sensitive and without form that we remove the fucking scale of measurement for absolutely everything? Right vs wrong, men vs women, up vs down, simulation vs ouch I just got punched in the face - pain really does exist and it hurts like a mf.
If I'm going into an argument then I am doing it with the axiom that I SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF BEING CORRECT. Just like YOU SHOULD NOT BE ASHAMED OF BEING INCORRECT.
Scarcity exists, there's a lot more wrong than there is right out there, our arguments battle each other in competition for of the scarcity of truth.
If we can't remove our brittle little ego's when conversing on big ideas then we will not find truth. If I am arguing, then I am arguing to win.
The point of having a debate is not to convince people about what is obvious and trivial. If something were obvious and trivial, then anybody would accept it and there would be nothing to refute or counter.
On the other hand, if something can be disputed because both a statement and its opposite sound like they could be true, or alternatively, because the true answer requires a longer chain of thoughts than the false one, then it's worth debating.
If you have to convince somebody that it's true, then you have a reason to debate it. The point of using a steel man argument, or of playing the devil's advocate, is to make your audience completely sure that even the strongest possible counterargument you can think of does not hold a candle against the truth. It assures your audience that the argument you are making is not flimsy at all and that a person can feel assured in knowing that it has not and cannot be refuted.
Love to hear the problem with contingency argument please
As far as I remember, the contingency argument is the one that asserts that anything can either exist or not exist. If something necessarily exists, then it must necessarily exist for all time, whereas if something contingently exists, then it might exist or not exist. If something comes into being but ceases to exist, it does not necessarily exist. Therefore, there must be that which necessarily exists for everything else, and that which makes everything else that is contingent come into being and go.
The problem with the argument is that "that which necessarily exists" might have no reason to be identified as God. In fact, the concept of contingency itself does not carry together with it the need for something else to necessarily exist. Therefore, there is always the possibility that the contingent gives rise to the contingent in eternal succession. Since there is nothing in the sensible world that is known to necessarily exist, we might believe that the concept of necessity itself might have no reason to apply to real stuff.
This refutation is of course, loose and somewhat weak, since it might be argued that reality is not limited to only that which is sensible, so it might be possible to assert that even if the sensible is contingent, that there must be something which necessarily exists and is not sensible, and that if it necessarily exists, then it cannot be anything like what is contingent in being, so it must be insensible and lacking in the imperfections of sensible, contingent stuff. Therefore, that which necessarily exists cannot be sensed and is lacking in imperfections, for it is eternal and with an unchanging essence. That which is eternal and cannot be affected by the contingent must be God.
Now, what is missing is arguing that the contingent is led into being by the necessary but that the necessary cannot be caused by the contingent, but I'll let you argue that part.
My brother won't know what hit him.
“You say mom says it’s your turn on the Xbox. Your claim has merit. You’re stating that there is a turn system in place monitored by a likely unbiased authority- however your position has a few faults…”
2:04 I am not sure how one would do this if the opponent has already used a straw argument. How do you build upon a straw argument if it is false in the first place~?
Yall seen that steelmanning God video from asuka?
Just subbed with notifications!!
Thank you! Hope you keep enjoying the content.
What about the Gumby Man Argument?
We need a video about Panentheism please, or Panenthdeism.
"There is no honor in defeating a strawman but there is a lot honor in defeating a steel man"
Well said
This is predicated on there being such a thing as 'truth'. Feels like a challenge in and of itself.
Suppose not. Then we have “it is true that there's no such thing as truth“... um, I wanna say, contradiction?
@@nnaammuuss Your 'true' and 'truth' have ambiguous meanings, so there is no contradiction unless one thinks these mean the same thing. This makes a similar error that Groucho Marx uses to comic effect: I shot an elephant in my pyjamas. How he got into my pyjamas, I'll never know.
If an agreement about truth can’t be reached between two people, what would be the point of discussion then? I would say it’s fair to assume both parties are seeking the truth and if it becomes apparent one or both isn’t, then the discussion would probably be moot.
A lot of opinion discussions may end along the lines of “that’s just your opinion man, and it’s ok if you disagree with me”, but in discussing important ideas, that’s not a productive result.
@@micahwright5901 I think you are conflating the concept of 'Truth' with simple 'facts'. Taking sports as an example, a dispute over whether a player is out of bounds hinges on facts-about the rules, the boundaries, the position of the player or the ball. This has nothing to do with Truth and is an idiomatic misuse of the term.
It may be a fact that the person was in or out of bounds, and two people may dispute this based on their perspective, their distance from the event, or so on. In philosophy, this is not the Truth being sought or discussed.
@@philosophicsblog
Some people would say that a statement is true if it corresponds to a fact.
So would you agree that if we have access to facts then we have access to truths?
Thank you ❤️
You’re welcome 😊
Wait that goes hard
5:00 "Using fallacious tactics to win debates does nothing for your argument." This may be true in substance or in an auditorium filled with bright thinkers, but in the real world, using fallacious tactics seems to actually perpetuate the arguments within our society. In fact it seems, that man is more capable of believing something simply because it is the narrative claimed earliest, spoken loudest and repeated most often; shame that it seems so.
i dont see the problem with it honestly, if its an informal conversation
'There is no honour in defeating a straw man but there is a lot of honour in defeating a straw man' - how true.
😊👍
Twitter MFs: write the exact opposite down!
Like in God’s not Dead is strawmanning atheists, but The Case For Christ steelmans the argument God’s existence
HELLO, MY NAME IS STEELMAN , WHAT DOES IT MEAN ? PLEASE REPLY , THAN'KS , .
So important that it took you ten years to get around to this fallacy
HELLO, MY NAME IS STEELMAM , WHAT DOES IT MEAN ?
Oz never did give nothing to the tin man, that he didn't, didn't already have
a steel man
0:58 "this is disingenuous and fallacious, and it's a method of debate that *no true philosopher* should ever use"
Is this not an example of the *No True Scotsman* Fallacy ? 👆
Hi mugs! From the book Logically Fallacious, the definition is: When a universal (all, every, etc.) claim is refuted, rather than conceding the point or meaningfully revising the claim, the claim is altered by going from universal to specific, and failing to give any objective criteria for the specificity.
Because philosophers are universally known as being truth seekers, this method of debate should never be used, cuz it seeks to win debates, even at the cost of the truth. Hope this helped. Have a good one.
@@Comboman70 I'm not sure I agree that "philosophers are universally known as being truth seekers"
Aren't Niccolo Machiavelli, Karl Marx, and Gregory Hill (founder of Discordianism) considered as philosophers?
@@mugsofmirth8101 the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline is the oxford definition of philosophy. He who seeks only to win debates does not have truth as his goal, yet a philosopher who does corresponds to the definition of philosophy.
So your legitimising patronising people
i love to know what you guys really look like? this is a non argumentative request to see if you really exist and not a machine product. some empirical evidence 😃
Not just yet :)
You'll do everything in your power to disregard any argument in favour of Communism. How are you going to prove your own logical fallacy?
second!