If you want to influence non-rationalists, treating arguments as soldiers is what you sometimes need to do.
That is an empirical claim. How strong is the evidence for the claim that forensics-style argumentation, matching each point with a counterpoint, significantly influences people to favor your position? Wearing my Robin Hanson goggles, I can see that it’s one way to look like a formidable thinker, which might make some audience members want to affiliate with you for status reasons. But it’s not clear to me that this style of debate is the best way to do that.
I wouldn’t claim that this style of debate is necessarily the best way. But if we presume that one does try to use this style of debate for that purpose, then the post’s advice can be useful.
I wouldn’t claim that this style of debate is necessarily the best way. But if we presume that one does try to use this style of debate for that purpose, then the post’s advice can be useful.
That is an empirical claim. How strong is the evidence for the claim that forensics-style argumentation, matching each point with a counterpoint, significantly influences people to favor your position? Wearing my Robin Hanson goggles, I can see that it’s one way to look like a formidable thinker, which might make some audience members want to affiliate with you for status reasons. But it’s not clear to me that this style of debate is the best way to do that.
I wouldn’t claim that this style of debate is necessarily the best way. But if we presume that one does try to use this style of debate for that purpose, then the post’s advice can be useful.
I wouldn’t claim that this style of debate is necessarily the best way. But if we presume that one does try to use this style of debate for that purpose, then the post’s advice can be useful.