Which is more effective?

Which is more effective?

Persuasion or argumentation?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wL0ZUm6Ldlk&t=37s
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

the one with less assburgers syndrome

Whats the difference? Does one have appeal to ethos more than the other or something?

Neither.

Both persuasive arguments and argumentative persuasion are better.

Ethos and pathos work better than logos on the majority of the public, simply because they care more about their day to day livelihood, feelings, and relationships than they do about being logically sound and consistent.

Stefan is also incredibly long-winded and thus numblingly boring.

Dilbert-man has already explained that most people relate more to anecdotes than refutations. Argument-man loses.

stef is such a good speaker he makes me horny

I could believe whatever he says

I always hear a ton of criticism and some of his earlier stuff was shit but I still like him.

not an argument

Has Scott done Molymeme's show?

Speaking with men? Argumentation.

Speaking with women? Persuasion.

>pic related

At least twice.

hey that's his meme

The Socratic method.

short term Persuasion

long term Argumentation

Sadly. Women are the niggers of logic and reason.

When speaking to friends or to family, persuasion is always best. It'll alienate you less from them and you might even convince them. When against some kind of political opponent or in a debate, argumentation is best - directly attack your opponent's position, pointing out inconsistencies and fallacies, all the while asserting your own position.

Scott is dating his hot neighbor

Persuasion 1000% of the time.

Just think of what advertisers use to sell products: persuasion, not arguments. Because persuasion is better.

[spoiler]THIS POST IS NOT AN ARGUMENT

who catbert here?

A mix of both.

Your argument has to be logically sound so that people can't knock what you say down, but it also has to be emotionally calculated so that it doesn't rub people the wrong way

the common man needs more of Scott

but the intellectuals need more of Stefan

NOD AN ARGUMEND
It's nob an argumend...
youtube.com/watch?v=wL0ZUm6Ldlk&t=37s

The intellectual thinks the common man needs Scott and that they need Stefan... but really the intellectual REALLY needs Scott because they KNOW (think) they're unable to be persuaded, which just makes it work all the better.

No, you don't understand what I was getting at. Molyneux is more logical, therefore he will appeal more to intellectuals. Scott is a better rhetorician, so he would naturally get a larger audience

>Persuasion 1000% of the time.

stop projecting your stupidity on the world

I enjoy Stefan more because he's on his way to revealing his power level whereas dilbertman pulled the 'I'm actually part native American' on Joe Rogan.

Adams because he's less greasy in general and born in 'Merica.

Violence.

Over the last two years or so I've become super sensitive to emotional based arguments. Not insofar as I've become more susceptible to them, but that I notice when people are trying to ply me emotionally and I immediately shut them out for it. Rational choices never come from emotion and that should be acknowledged by anyone who has an interest in the preservation of humanity.

Looks pretty greasy desu

Persumentation.

>therefore he will appeal more to intellectuals
No, YOU don't understand. Intellectuals only think they're swayed by logically sound arguments, while being just as susceptible to persuasion as any other meatbag.

Neither. Polemic is king.

I think we have different ideas as to what an intellectual/philosopher is

czeched

I think you're an idiot who fancies himself an intellectual.

Sadly I don't care to use super powered persuasion on you to make you believe that as well. Wallow in your ignorance.

Not a persuasive argument.

dorky, sure but not a dweeb and he doesn't look like he smells bad. irish french canadian guy has a greasy dome

I don't fancy myself an intellectual, but unlike you I have listened to both of them extensively. What you don't understand is that both are persuasive (Stefan is a far better speaker btw), but each to their own audience. Scott is more appealing to the average person, while Stefan is more appealing to those who are a bit more passionate about politics

straight up brainwashing. it worked for the soviet union

Persuasion is an overly broad category that involves at least dozens of separate strategies to obtain your objective. Argumentation itself should be a form of persuasion, but there are other forms of persuasions that aren't argumentation.

So it's a moot question, something like asking which is more effective, colors or blue? It's all part of a greater whole.

Both. You should be appealing to the logic and emotional side of the brain.

Dilberts on video in hot tubs kissing on two bitches.

Insulting and shaming. Oh wait, Trump won.

>Le gay attention whore

Persuasion.

People are swayed far more easily by emotion than by thought.

Different methods, I'm partial to Molyneux though. Finger wagging and shaming techniques aside he is usually adept at forming arguments.

Both. Arguments never work face to face though because people are so emotionally invested and don't to lose face they won't admit when they've lost. Current Year man is never going to turn around and say to his audience "you know what, Trump had a point...I was wrong".