One big reason why people can seem stupid is that some people seem inclined to make sweeping statements with nothing to back it up.
In some cases I'd be satisfied with them simply being specific.
When someone wants to start bitching about the United States would it really be so hard for them to actally be specific about why they think the US is so bad rather than stating it broadly?
instead of someone snidely saying "You know, maybe the US should think about why 9/11 happened." maybe, just maybe they could try to put forth an actual theory of their own.
As an American, I don't really care what the terrorists reasoning was. There is nothing that justifies murdering thousands of innocents. But by all means, ifyou want to argue in favor of the terrorists, put forth your reasoning.
But you almost never see anything put forth. It's just mindless relfexive anti-American dribble. At best, you get a littany of political blunders spread over a few decades. Errors that have little in common or do little to justify murdering thousands of Americans.
It's as if these people believe there is some sort of cosmic national karma in play which is why they seem so stupid IMO.
One of the things I've been surprised about on forums, and I wrote a post about this recently, is just how poor at debating many younger debaters are.
I'm only 32 so I was young enough still to grow up with computers and BBSes and such. But today's young adults have had the Internet for most of their lives. You would think their skills would be sharper. They think that debates are pointless. They're not. Debates offer a way for us to exchange ideas, thoughts, and opinions. They aren't there to "win" or "lose". They are there to make us think about things.
Unfortunately, it seems many younger debaters see debating as purely a win-lose proposition and as a result put little thinking into their position but instead just focus on trying to "win" the argument.
Being good at debating isn't really that hard. There are basically 3 rules:
(1) Target subject matter that you have an interest in and have sufficient back ground knowledge.
(2) Backup your assertions with evidence if the assertion isn't one that is commonly understood by others who are reasonably famliar with the subject. Also, be specific. Avoid vague generalities in your assertion. I.e. don't say "America is a bully." say "I think America is a bully because of the seeming arrogance displayed by this administration with its high handed treatment of the UN during the Iraq crisis. There doesn't seem to have been a compelling reason to attack Iraq when it did." I would disagree with that statement but it at least has enough meat to have a discussion about. By contrast, impression does the "America is a bully" give off? To me, it sounds pathetic and simpering. The words of someone jealous of American power and success.
(3) Offer alternatives. Nit-pickers quickly earn the contempt of other debaters. Who wants to deal with people who just sit around bitching about what other people have done. Offer an alternative action. Tell them what should have been done instead.
These 3 rules will help create better debates with people and accomplish what debating is really about -- thinking about things in new and interesting ways.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
