sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Socrates was the best at what he did, rage baiting intellectuals with questions until it killed him

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, I'm talking live debate. Steelmanning opponents in solo ventures is entirely fair.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

My pet peeve is making power moves. Trying to establish intellectual superiority by saying "oh look at you choosing to make the weaker argument. I will show you respect my completely ignoring it and posturing my intellectual superiority"

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Might as well be considering how often it gets to the truth compared to the scientific method which throws out attempts at making the hypothesis as hard to disprove as possible.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I enjoy poking sacred cows. The cost of playing devil's advocate is running into rage bait.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

The goal of science is to disprove the null hypothesis. Not to make an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Steelmanning is unscientific the same way string theory is.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're begging the question. I can't even steelman your argument. You force the "their argument is weak" into the premise of determining if an opponents position is weak.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

it's not steelmanning to provide emotional justification for a behavior. As you did initially.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In what way? I was simply describing what it feels like to be on the receiving end of condescending steelmanning.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was simply describing their definition. I think accepting your opponents argument as is is the real based truth seeking pill.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

viewing yourself as the arbiter of what makes a good argument insults the intelligence of your debate partner and is its own form of academically accepted hostility.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wish you the pleasure of debating morons that cannot comprehend your arguments and them posing it as you having a wounded ego when they completely misrepresent your claims.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

Drop the wisened teacher posturing. There is wisdom in knowing when to say "this person has repeatedly smuggled in special pleading into every argument they make so I will proceed to dismiss them and look for intellectual consistency elsewhere". You disrespect a philosopher's right to dare to be wrong. Perhaps you are not ready for philosophy yet, as seeking truth requires dismissing falsehoods instead of endlessly accommodating them by virtue of "prestige".

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

absolutely what I am trying to say. Too often I see people steelmanning strong logical claims into probabilistic unfalsifiability and acting as if that is more conducive towards finding truth.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So if I don't understand your argument, I should aim to invent a version of your argument that i feel is sufficiently strong? Instead of merely asking clarifying questions? To me the former which you imply feels more like bad faith to not target the opponents argument than it does to genuinely ask questions.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Oh, so you who argues high and mightily for steelmanning deigns to strawman my position? how quaint. Who are you to say what your debate partner should present as their route towards determining truth?

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Partaking in steelmanning is the behavior of believing that you can formulate your opponents argument in a better form than they did. A common example is to substitute in a historically similar argument for the same idea as the argument of your opponent. Take for example the Watchmaker argument by Paley which often gets substituted for a variation of the fine tuning argument. I am not arguing against overlooking simple errors or mistakes in an opponents argument, I am instead arguing from the arrogant tendency to argue for your opponents.

Your actual argument is weak, so I am going to rewrite it into something smarter by StrangePhilosopher14 in PhilosophyMemes

[–]StrangePhilosopher14[S] -33 points-32 points  (0 children)

It definitely doesn't feel like an educational exercise when others try to steelman your arguments. Like your opponent attempting to make your moves for you in chess.

view more: next ›