For practical purposes, I would say that it makes sense to regard an argument as refuted if impartial observers of the debate feel that you have properly dispensed with it.
Since they tend to be less emotionally invested, there’s often more point in carrying on a debate for the sake of observers than for the other participants.
For practical purposes, I would say that it makes sense to regard an argument as refuted if impartial observers of the debate feel that you have properly dispensed with it.
This would only be practical if you are trying to convince the observers, not if you are trying to convince the opponent, and certainty not if nobody is listening in. Psychological adaptations intended for optimizing your status in the tribe would pay attention to this sense of “refuting”, but it doesn’t at all apply to the situation I was addressing, where you should learn to ignore what these adaptations insist on.
(Also, the observers these adaptations care about are not necessarily impartial, so a high-status human can use nonsense “rebuttals” to “refute” any reasonable argument in this particular sense, since your allies would cheer you regardless.)
It usually makes more sense to try to convince observers than to convince the people you’re debating with. It has a much higher rate of success. Even if the observers aren’t really impartial, they’re under less pressure to uphold their position.
Although it can be emotionally taxing to walk away, one of the primary factors I take into consideration when deciding whether it’s worth having a debate at all is who else is listening to it.
For practical purposes, I would say that it makes sense to regard an argument as refuted if impartial observers of the debate feel that you have properly dispensed with it.
Since they tend to be less emotionally invested, there’s often more point in carrying on a debate for the sake of observers than for the other participants.
This would only be practical if you are trying to convince the observers, not if you are trying to convince the opponent, and certainty not if nobody is listening in. Psychological adaptations intended for optimizing your status in the tribe would pay attention to this sense of “refuting”, but it doesn’t at all apply to the situation I was addressing, where you should learn to ignore what these adaptations insist on.
(Also, the observers these adaptations care about are not necessarily impartial, so a high-status human can use nonsense “rebuttals” to “refute” any reasonable argument in this particular sense, since your allies would cheer you regardless.)
It usually makes more sense to try to convince observers than to convince the people you’re debating with. It has a much higher rate of success. Even if the observers aren’t really impartial, they’re under less pressure to uphold their position.
Although it can be emotionally taxing to walk away, one of the primary factors I take into consideration when deciding whether it’s worth having a debate at all is who else is listening to it.
I agree. It’s just not the sense I was talking about.