Can't win arguments with made up facts?

Can't win arguments with made up facts?
Appeal to emotion!

Other urls found in this thread:

twitter.com/Slate/status/831237915044896772
youtube.com/watch?v=Fj45Zzk9xpI
youtube.com/watch?v=cKCRHhmHvjg
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

...

In all seriousness though, that is actually the way to go. When you talk to someone, or try to convince them, facts rarely help you. It only makes them opposed to you and your views.

Now I don't know what the shitty slate article says, but this is something you've all experienced before yourselves. I think facts only help against people who have some form of personal integrity, because they will correct themselves when they learn new facts. These people are rare. Opinions, even when they can be backed with facts, are held irrationally.

That can't be real, that's the argument I use to prove liberals retarded.

Life is to suffer, its what keeps us alive and able to persevere.

Someone didn't read the article. It's literally about how facts don't work on you retards and we have to try to apeal to you emotionally because all you believe in is how you feel and you disregard any data that goes against your poor fee-fees.

It's calling you all emotional, irrational faggots, basically.

Opinions cannot be right or wrong, only agreed or disagreed with. The emotional viewpoint the retarded left argues from is them saying "Your wrong, I'm right"
Logic always out weighs emotion.

...

You'll find that this holds true for anyone - left or right leaning.

Logic only outweighs emotion on paper. When it comes to being convincing, skillful use of both is necessary.

Every time I discuss something with someone I'm 100% sure will never EVER change their minds (ie. most leftards), I don't bother actually trying to convince him, but other people that might be listening

he is right you know...

It's the old reason vs faith.

...

my dude, it's been known since the time of Aristotle that just making a logical arguments is not enough get through to the masses. lots of psychologists and neuroscientists have been putting out pop-sci books about the role that emotions play in reasoning/decision making, how the framing of (logical, fact-based) arguments changes how people respond to them, how presenting issues from the perspective of one value system vs another changes receptivity. i'm not gonna read slate or whatever, but in your rush to do owns on your political enemies you're betraying your ignorance, which is just lol.

Aristotle didn't have the internet and memes

someone responds to you with an argument, you 'respond' with non-sequitur memes about your political enemies (without even knowing whether that dude is a lib). idk if you're proving the point of that slate article, but jeez you're just ownin' yourself my man

>Conservatives are so STUPID they believe in their imaginary friends no matter what you tell them I wish they were smart and believed in science like me
>How dare you use those RACIST and SEXIST studies to try and tell me to be more cautious about the agenda we're pushing you must be a bigot

That's because unfortunately people make decisions based on their emotions first and foremost and only then appeal to reason, to basically validate the decision they have made.

Reason can be effective in a civilised discussion were tension is maintained at a low point. In a heated debate, you will need to appeal to emotions, especially if you hope to sway large masses of people. Even better when you can combine emotions with facts.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

>Can't win arguments with made up facts?
>Appeal to emotion
So, just like Sup Forums then?

when you speak to children you have to dumb down your argument so they can understand it with their limited minds.

...

aristotle writes about how making emotional rhetorical appeals work better in political discussions because humans are not perfectly rational animals; this basic point is largely backed up by modern science; yet, because aristotle didn't have the internet and memes, this basic point largely backed up by modern science is false.

Sup Forumsogic

same argument with a different coat of paint.

ok, i'll try and say it with simpler words for you:
neither posting an irrelevant image nor calling someone a name is an argument

it is

aristotle lived in a small word where most people only knew what they needed to survive and research was reserved to the learned elite, now every body has a supercomputer in their pocket that is connected to all of human knowledge instantly and most of humanity instantaneously. That changes many things.

In all seriousness, I'm just going to start killing people like you. Dumping your bodies in the woods.

??

>Pizzagate on the side of facts

Hmmm really makes you think

Pure fact based ideology:
Technocracy?
??
??

Facts + Good Emotions:
New Right
Alt Left
Classic Social Democracy
Centrism

Facts + Bad Emotions
Libertarianism
Neoliberalism
Atheism+
Civic Nationalism

Partial Factualism + Mixed Emotions:
Populism
Social Democracy

Factless + Good Emotions
Ecology
Anarcho-Capitalism
Classical Marxism
Secularism
Folk Religion/Ethnic Religion


Factless + Bad Emotions
Feminism
Orthodox Trumpism
SJWism
Anti-Environmentalism
Kosher Conservatism
Neoconservatism
Zionism
Islamism
'Murrican Christanity
Mainstream Multikulti Left
Anti-Nationalism

>an argument
I'm not arguing I'm making a statement based of observations.

Source?

Is that a kike I see

Get out Nipple

>So, just like Sup Forums then?
Not an argument

Careful with that edge, Eugene

This. The left appeals to emotion, why do we have to play nice?
My mother agreed with me that poor people in my country are leeching the economy, can't think for themselves and they're better off sterilized but "I see these kids huddled up on the street on my way to work and I feel so sorry they're human beings, muh rights".
Won her over to the >white version of 1488, "these people are such a drain on our resources that I don't think my kid's children will have the same opportunities you've given me if we don't find a solution for this, fast. Mass sterilization, mass deportation to Paraguay and Bolivia, you name it."
You don't have to play fair if your opponent isn't.

Progresshits are getting closer

Just take out those last two words

Eventually they'll get there

you dont have to play fair period. the worlds biggest successes did so by skewing the odds in their favor any way they felt they could

Yet at the same time it doesn't, because even with all the shiny new gadgets and endless "information" at their fingertips, humans are still the same irrational and emotion driven animals they have always been.

Our technology has outpaced our social development.

We are at the dawn of a social shift not seen since the introduction of the printing press.

Judging by the state of things on this board, I'd say Sup Forums already has that down pretty well.

You mean alternative facts?

It worked perfectly for Trump
>muh jobs
>muh made up witch hunts
>muh blue collar workers
>muh wall

We've seen it in his tweets, he can convince people even though he can be proven wrong with a 5 second google search because people rather believe him than facts.

Will do.

bury ass

>face factual arguments
>use your own factual arguments
>see them fail
>proceed arguing emotionally
>completely get BTFO by factual arguments
>read Slate
>"time to use more emotions"

Where do we think this will go Sup Forums?
I'm fairly certain this will go downhill some more.

Reason is a slave to the passions.

In a pure strategical sense, using rhetoric to appeal to people's emotions is the easiest way to convince someone. I know personally I am strongly convinced by appeals to nationalism / patriotism, liberals are strongly convinced by empathy and compassion. You need to frame your arguments in a compassionate and empathetic light, while still using the facts, to convince them to change their mind.

Humans are emotional creatures, we aren't robots. Knowing how humans work is key to political change.

If you're able to get your opponent flustered and mad you don't need any facts. You'll just wait until he calls you retarded and then you claim moral superiority. The same reason why the smartest people aren't necessarily the most successful. Knowing you are right means shit compared to being able to convince others you are right.

I mean, I've been talking about the need to apply emotional appeal to arguments for some time now. Before the term gained its negative connotations, that's literally what "propaganda" meant. That doesn't mean giving up on the truth though, that simply means winning hearts as well as minds. You have to make people receptive to the truth before they will believe a word of it.

...

knowing you are right and actually being right are two very different things.

timotei!

twitter.com/Slate/status/831237915044896772

Exactly. The best argument is one couched in the facts but framed in a way that people are receptive to hearing.
People love to argue by simply asserting that the other person is wrong, then trying to 'teach' them. Nobody likes being lectured to or being humiliated, so they will double down even if you can categorically prove them false.
The vast majority of us form an opinion based on our initial reaction to something, then attempt to come up with reasons to justify our initial reaction. Trying to tear down someone's argument will only get you so far. Trying to change their 'gut feeling' on a topic is much, much more effective.

I think a good example of how one retorts an emotional sack of tears is the debate between Mike Pence and that other VP candidate.
Mike Pence completely kept his cool while the other guy was getting more and more livid.
In the face of escalating lunacy, humility speaks louder.

Or at least, that's what I think. I have no idea whether there's any universality to that, whether you can apply that tactic in every situation.

Source:
youtube.com/watch?v=Fj45Zzk9xpI

Yes, but staying composed is an *emotional* tactic, not a logical one. The other guy screaming his face off might actually be correct and is just getting frustrated at the apparent density of the other guy, but by staying calm you project the *appearance* of rationality, which makes you seem instantly more credible.

Appearing calm and rational does not mean that you are rejecting your emotions, it simply means you are not being controlled by them. Your emotions are the core of your decisions, but your reason is the way you enact them. An appeal to emotion should be the core of your argument, however it should be couched in rationality and fact.

People who simply blubber about their emotions are not any more sincere in their emotional convictions than someone who remains calm and rational, they are just failing the critical step of using rationality to form a coherent argument or plan.

Yet in the debates Trump regularly spilled his beans and his rallies were a rethoric mess and he still convinced his voters purely by appeal to emotion.

Have a wekk deserved you

This.
There's no need to yell or shout when you stand by the facts Some people will ook them up and discover the truth, other people can't be bothered but at least they'll give you a chance the next time they see you in debate if only because you didn't scream bloody murder.

I'm not saying people should abandon all emotion, just that keeping your cool in an ad hominem festival is the only way onlookers and bystanders are going to take you seriously. That the opponent won't be convinced isn't even that important, it's the potentially dozens of people who're watching and forming their own judgements.

They weren't scripted, but they were authentic and he laid out his plans every single time. Appealing to people's patriotism merely enabled people to listen to him and consider his plans.
I think it's a mistake to ignore his tax plans and just how much they'll help the poor and the middle class.

Because like all tactics, it can fail. The key here is that the people involved were politicians. Politicians are expected to keep composed regardless of how they are feeling, but it ultimately comes across as synthetic. Trump's loud mouth by contrast was percieved as authentic.

>twitter.com/Slate/status/831237915044896772
Spaciba

This tactic won't work as easily on people who lack empathy.

This is not incorrect. Facts don't matter, what matters is how you feel. Trump didn't give a shit about the facts and now he's president. Facts have never ever EVER mattered when it comes to getting someone to agree with you.

That's why you don't argue with sociopaths; you shoot them. Arguing with them just informs them of your plans.

>I can't read

Under the right circumstances, and in the right hands, facts *can* matter. Das Kapital was so dry that the Russian authorities let it in because they didn't think anyone would read it, and all the people who heard Lenin speak described him as uncharismatic as an old college professor. Yet under the circumstances, together those things would set Russia, and then the whole world, on fire.

>leftists thinking they've ever won an appeal to emotion
youtube.com/watch?v=cKCRHhmHvjg