Good points. However, while the internet has allowed you to reach an audience much wider than any other philosopher in a shorter time period. The anonymous nature of the internet allows for drive-by spamming and the web version of drunken dialling. Try not to empower them by responding to them.
When in a debate, which I don't do much anymore, I hate it when others tell me to cite my source when the sources cited are merely an others' opinion. This is the cat's game of every debate when taken far enough. What gives someone credibility? When it comes to philosophy, everything is subject to the individual which couldn't have possibly had the exact same life experience as you. Whoever you choose to cite as an authority on a subject might have credibility, but based on what? Riddle me that.
I found most of this very helpful, but my advice would be to stick to your main points. You seem to get a little off topic sometimes. For example, in your first tip, you want people to do their research, but then somehow move onto how you're a skilled and veteran debater. That makes people lose sight of what you want them to do. But, other then that, fantastic job, and thanks!!!
i disagree with stef's point about concentrating on the content of the opposition's character.
when debating, the content of one's character always remains irrelevent.
regardless of who the opposition is, or what their actions consist of, or what the contents of their character are...it is only appropriate to concentrate on the actual arguments being put forth. this is always true, even when the debate topic is ethics.
thank you i used your tips for a school assignment.The topic was that all students in AUSTRALIA should get a free laptop and with your tips i got an B+. thank you thank you
it sounds like you are trying to put people off debating you.dont debate with me unless you are up too it! no tips just warning us off. all people can debate not just people who have had 25 yrs of experiance.
I didnt ask your opinion thanks and my spelling is correct fool. I have also seen enough of his videos to know I dont agree with all he says. If you agree absolutely with what he says then you have no thoughts of your own. No two people agree on everything. So stop being a tosser get a life and stop answering thee week old posts!!
Whooh! Calm down. "experiance" is a mispelling and so is "too" (in the context).
I never said I agree with everything he said, just that I don't think you need to take offense to what he says.
I don't see your objection to answering old posts, and your name calling only makes you sound even more ignorant than your picture of Stefbot in this video, completely making your point hypocritical.
I didnt take offence at what hes saying. But from what I can see there are no tips on this video. Only him saying how damn good he thinks he is at debating. He dose give a good argument I agree. But I dont think hes the most fluent or the most talented talker I have seen. He comes across as arrogant on some of his vids. I was going to stick a few more insults at you but thats only because Im in a bad mood. And yes they are spelling errors, but that is of no great importance.
I don't understand why you would have commented at all if you didn't have a problem with the video. I thought that was clear.
He has one big point he is trying to drive home and that's to be prepared. It's something (in my experience) people tend not to do, but is immensely important.
He also proposing using empirical logic, taking quotes, avoiding "seems like" statements, embodying the argument you pose, honesty and more.
I've seen his videos and it seems more like he's just having fun.
If I didnt like stef at all I would probably not have commented. But I do agree on some points that he makes. And empirical logic dose not always hold. I could quote Hitler if I was to start a debate about ethics for example. If I cant say seems like or I think in a debate, then I am not using my ability to make quotes that other people might think are good for there debates. And then all the great quotes of history will become useless and stagnant.
This video was an excellent idea! Maybe now your debates won't suck so much. Seriously, they are usually filled with pushovers who never actually talk.
I can't ever possibly imagine you annoying me. I rather annoy myself sometimes. Stef, I see enough of the big picture of your universally benevolent preferable behavior to have utmost respect and gratitude for FDR!!! Continue to enjoy yourself and family. Thank you.
I like where Stefan is talking about ethical behavior, he's totally right. In order to win a debate, you have first to know who you are fighting with. Maybe that's a reason for his disappointment, before one's debating with him, is having access to months of continuously podcasts on Stefan's website, instead of that, Stefan has nothing, just a first impression and probably an "acting" face from the guy. He would easily clean the floor with Harper or Obama on any debate about their governments:)
stef, do you have a video or position on animal rights? I might be willing to debate you on that if you're opposed to it. Thanks for all your other videos.
UPB is clear in that rights don't exist, and biology is clear in that nonhuman animals do not have the capacity to conceptualize abstractly thus they can't be moral agents. Stef's position is likely to be "there is no such thing as animal rights, nor can you ever validate any animal rights proposition for the abovementioned reasons".
Some animals can, to an extent, conceptualize abstractly, but that's beside the point. Although animals can't be moral agents, that does not discount extending rights to them. Children and the mentally handicapped also are not moral agents, but we rightly grant them rights as moral patients. Animals deserve this same extension, and as their most basic interests are to avoid suffering, not die, and live free of restraint, they must not be enslaved, tortured, or killed for food, entertainment etc
First, we grant moral patient status to kids and handicapped because they have the potential to become full moral agents or because we as a CLASS have decided to preemptively grandfather them in to prevent horrible past mistakes.
Second, no, it doesn't follow that because kids are moral patients, animals must also be them. A fish or a dog is certainly NOT like a kid or a mentally retarded person! Moreover, your statement is incompatible with human nourishment, so it cannot be true.
Potential is simply taking one thing and calling it another. I may be President some day, but I don't get to live in the White House, for very good reason. To cite "potential" to equate two things is simply removing the temporal aspect, which is the crucial aspect. A dog or pig is certainly more cognitively aware than a newborn infant; this is scientifically accepted. Different species have different cognition levels, but all mammals and many other animals are relevant. Read Drawing the Line.
I gave you two, not one reasons why we afford moral pacience to agents that are not moral *right now*. You only addressed one, and in that address, you have not denied the fact that a dog or an aphid will never EVER be a moral agent.
Please clarify your second point because I don't quite understand what you mean about grandfathering. It seems like either a circular argument or an arbitrary line between human and nonhuman. No, animals will never be moral agents. Neither will many mentally-handicapped people.
There is no arbitrary line here. Just as "size" is an attribute of a physical object, "morality" is an attribute of moral agents. Animals aren't moral agents -- the biology is pretty clear on that one -- thus they cannot participate as subjects or objects from a moral discussion. If anything, the line may be blurry in the case of great apes, but it is by no means "arbitrary". You are making a category error out of a misplaced sympathy.
That animals are not moral agents means they cannot participate as subjects, but they CAN participate as objects (meaning, recipients of moral behavior). Our current willingness to extend rights to children and the mentally enfeebled shows that we respect and recognize moral patients, and thus they're in the same category as animals. Again, if hedonism, then child rape and murder is perfectly acceptable, because the child is not yet a moral agent. Say that's OK and the burden's on you I think
I'm sorry, but it is only in your flawed ontology that children and animals are in the same moral category. Nobody else serious thinks that way, because nobody else intentionally discounts the vast differences between children and animals.
Many people, including prominent philosophers such as Tom Regan and Peter Singer, see the connection. There are vast differences between children and animals, but the capacity to suffer and (contained therein) their interests/preferences is the relevant similarity. For you to discount that similarity I ask that you explain what trait(s) is relevant and why mine is not. I agree that many people don't see that similarity, but that doesn't mean it's not there. :)
"Cognition" is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for moral agency. You yourself recognize this. So, why are we obligated to grant moral agency to nonmoral agents with net zero potential of ever becoming moral agents?
I never called animals moral agents. We are obligated to respect the desires and interests of non moral agents because egalitarianism is not based on reciprocity, but on benevolence and doing what's best for the group. If we operate on quid pro quo we're not being moral at all, we're simply refining our selfishness in a way that helps more people than just us, but is still not egalitarian. For example, we can be hedonistic quid pro-quo'ers and therefore slavery is just fine if it helps me.
If an animal is not a moral agent, then it is not deserving of moral consideration, period. Rocks, animals, plants, buildings, ideas, not moral agents. I think you mean "moral agent" to be "anything capable of moral choice", whereas "moral agency" to me means "anything potentially capable of moral choice". I think that's the difference that is not letting you understand what I said.
Third: you do understand how claiming that animals deserve "to avoid suffering, not to die, to live free of restraint" is incompatible with human nourishment, that even when you eat plants you are doing exactly this to aphids and ladybugs?
Fourth: do you realize how not even HUMANS have a right "not to die"? Humans have a right NOT TO BE KILLED, which is different.
Fifth: show me a dog that can understand the "rights" you have given him and converse / debate them.
We cannot completely eliminate suffering, but we would be significantly reducing suffering if we ate crops directly rather than growing an exponentially larger number of crops, killing many more aphids, and then feeding those crops to animals who have a much higher cognition level, and raising/killing them in brutal fashion. (Watch Earthlings or Meet Your Meat). Reducing suffering is our obligation; avoiding wanton killing. Killing animals is not necessary, nor healthy. Skipping point 4.
You're arguing by assertion "This is our obligation, that is our obligation". I don't need to respond to these assertions because assertion is not argument.
Sorry, I was under the impression that we would agree that we shouldn't violate the most basic desires of a conscious, sentient being just because we enjoy the taste of their flesh. I feel this simply comes from being egalitarian and not having a speciesist prejudice. I recommend 'Animal Liberation' and 'The Case For Animal Rights' for a fuller explanation which I can't give here.
Point 5 may imply a point, but all I can detect is the moral agent/patient argument, which is point 2. Other than that it just seems like a malicious, baseless insult.
Fifth is an insult? OK, so saying that a dog cannot conceptualize or converse about rights is an insult? What's next? "Water is wet" is an insult too?
Rights are constructs, but they have merit legally, and if animals qualify for consideration then they should be given legal rights. My point, though, is simply that animals have interests that demand our consideration, and because of that we must at least respect their most basic desires; to live free of confinement, to avoid pain, and to avoid death. They will of course encounter pain and death in nature, but it mustn't be at the hand of a moral agent unless there is a greater concern.
"Legal"? Where in my conversation did I talk about legalities? Why are you invoking legality here?
Your point is that you're trying to derive an "we ought not to kill animals" from an "animals suffer pain". And that, of course, is not a valid mode of reasoning and is even preposterous a conclusion -- I would not hesitate to shoot a dog or a rapist if either attacked me. Sorry.
I brought up legality because that is the sense in which we concretely recognize the notion of rights, but again as you said, my point isn't about rights per se. To your second point, I already made it clear that we should reduce suffering to the extent that we can; surely you don't equate self-defense and killing for pleasure! We ought not to cause suffering to animals when the consequences of that action will cause more suffering than it alleviates (speaking tersely, because of space)
My point is that you have not rationally justified why we ought to take pains to reduce animal suffering. Your argument has only boiled down to "suffering is bad, therefore we ought to reduce it", which (first) doesn't follow and (second) not all suffering is bad, thus it just CANNOT be used to justify your stance.
To say that it doesn't follow is to reject utilitarianism or any egalitarian philosophy, so far as I know, so I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that. I feel that my argument is not only logical based on normal assumptions of egalitarianism, it's practically truism. Not all suffering is bad, but suffering is good when it prevents further suffering. I thought this was obvious.
I reject egalitarian philosophy and utilitarianism completely. Practical considerations or noble intentions simply do not trump objective morality. Suffering just HAPPENS, and the fact that it is indirectly correlated with morality does not mean that morality ("oughts") can be derived from suffering ("is").
What IS "objective morality" then? And so if causing suffering has no relation to morality, then when IS it wrong to cause suffering? It seems as though you have some super duper theory that no one I've ever read has ever heard of, so let the cat out of the bag already.
The dude whose video you just watched... he wrote a book on morality which normalizes morality to a repeatable, verifiable science just like sociology or biology. You should read it. It's called the Universally Preferable Behaviours book. Without the knowledge in the book, we are going to be doomed to bicker about minutiae and never find truth in morality.
I was under the impression that not causing significant suffering for menial personal benefit is the very essence of what morality is. It seems to me you're asking 'why is it moral to be moral?' If your idea of morality is not egalitarian, but hedonistic, then what is morality but a refined form of selfishness, and does that not allow for all manner of what we normally consider heinous, immoral acts?
Ah! You haven't read the UPB book! No wonder you still think that morality can be either egalitarian or hedonistic, you're using an antiquated conceptualization of morality!
"simply that animals have interests that demand our consideration, and because of that we must at least respect their most basic desires; to live free of confinement, to avoid pain, and to avoid death. They will of course encounter pain and death in nature, but it mustn't be at the hand of a moral agent unless there is a greater concern."
This. It's not clear to me how "we must respect animals' interests" follows from "animals have interests". Explain WHY.
1. The idea is improper. People can't be taught how to debate. The amount of research depends on brain and laziness. Wherever is quality, there's not quantity - don't fight against this :-)
2. You're keep asking for "Give me quotes". This is proving that they read a lot and are not smart enough to use their own words, so they are appealing to what somebody else said. I saw many cases of really sick-stupid people full of quotes, because this was the only thing they could/were learn to do, memorize.
I believe he's asking for quotes from his own material. Most of his debates seem to arise from people challenging him on his books, during which his opponents often state his position for him. He tends to ask them to show him where he said 'X'.
Thanks, this makes some sense, but I don't think is the case here. I still don't see why he would like to hear himself over and over again...
On the other hand, if I'm quoting from Socrates, Machiavelli, Spinoza, Schopenhauer or Obama :-)... it doesn't mean that I understand what they said or that I'm as convinced of their opinions as they were when stated... I'm not doing anything but just confusing him and giving him some more work to do in order to win/prove me.
Well, you could be right; I've only watched the video once. But if you watch his other debates, he's often faced with something like:
"Ah, but you say that property rights exist!"
If this is something he has not actually said, he'll ask them for some kind of quote from his material which supports this. He's really just saying "That's not my position. Show me where I've said that it is." If somebody really wishes to challenge an idea, they have to first fully understand it.
Went on too long about being prepared to debate. When he says he can't hear someone because of their actions, makes me realize why it's so painful for me to listen to politics!! He talks about being glib! He's pretty glib about religion. I wonder it he was raised believing in God or Atheist? I love to listen to him though!
i've always been wondering about this.... if someone uncomfortably stares into your eyes during conversation, should you stare into his eyes too? even if then he looks away? i never like when people stare into my eyes, i instinctively look away, because i feel uncomfortable
You look into someones eyes during conversation because they convey information with facial expression. If they are just uncomfortably staring like fools then you dont have to look at them. Why would you?
It's uncomfortable because it's a very primal status agent. In prime ape society, eye contact is considered provocational and performed only between alpha males when they are in contest. The next time you walk down a hallway, give people eye contact and notice who looks away and who does not. It's really a very interesting experiment, but the results are typically what you would expect. The confident folks and people in groups never look down.
a sort of tool when i'm thinking and mulling over a subject is to sort of take the scientific approach, which is akin to arguing the pro side when you're really con. when i settle on a position or a belief or even start leaning in one direction, i try to prove myself wrong. i form a "thought hypothesis" then attempt to disprove it. this is the first time i've ever put this idea or technique into words, but some of what stef mentions here made me think about it. great video. good advice
Preparation for a debate is a good idea... however, you should consider that many of the people who engage you are looking for a discussion.
Personally I don't think research should be necessary for a discussion. The point is to learn and to exchange ideas... part of the art of discussion is to be able to engage and educate.
Personally I don't like the adversarial discussions you call debates. I have 20 min in my life to hear what you have to say... and 5 min to give you feedback.
This was needed BADLY. It is the reason why I rarely watch your debate videos...honestly, your debate with qtronman was really the only one I found interesting...
To show humility in a debate is incredibly important; All intellectuals need to read Foucault & Hayek.
Anyway, none of it maters because the Obamas have just named their new dog "BO".
That's BO as in BOAZ, the freemasonic devil idendtification signal.
I say BO", you say "AZ". Then we know we are "brother" Lucifer worshippers.
I've already told everyone on the web, so it will eb round your office, soon.
The Illuminati (of which Stalin was a member), and who are completely real, but exadgerated, are letting off freemasonic signals and symbols everywhere, and if that doesn't shock you..... etc.
Whenever I get into a debate, they skip the point completely, then call me "stupid" or "ignorant", then leave, without actually contradicting me.
It's a funny channel, this. Because, you get some very long, "looking like they're goping somewhere" sentences, and then they don't actually contradict you, at the end. Something like "i don't know how you come to that conclusion, you idiot".
I find it very annoying, actually, But how can such stupids, type long sentences?
I must say, although stefbot is really intelligent, and is, as he says, a "heavy weight", he seems to be attracting people who have no idea of how to make themselves clearly understood.
You are all idiots, who construct long sentences (and forget to use punctuation), which confuse people.
Im wokring class, but at least i can be understood.
Blahdy blah blah, most of you. Its as though you are HIDING, rather than sharing your views.
Oh my god ! YOu're all wigwearing lawyers, arent you !!?
Yes, ive only seen the one guy. The young american chap who came on recently, for no other purpose than to dissagre. I think he had planned for whatever you might say, to a certain question, but had failed to imagine that you may ask him to clarify his own position (which was, in truth, that of someone who wanted to beat you).
Therefore, all you had to do was ask him to be clear, and he was stumped. He didnt get passed the question, cus thats the point where he wasnt clear (onwards of).
Wow. It usually takes at least 2 experiences to form a pre-judged opinion about a group of people. You did it in 1. That must be a record of some sort:)
Why does it take TWO experiences to form a judgment ? Is that just some bull, you made up ?
If i punch you in the face, do you wait until i do it again, before i get judged ?
And HOW can it be PRE judged, if you have to with until youve experienced it TWICE ?
Sorry, but some peopel have a descent grasp of the Queens English, and somehow believe THAT to be a signal of intelligence. I presume (cus i liek doing that, and odnt feel restricted by your opinion), that you have a "private" education?
Try debating ANYTHING with any American ! I dare you !
They start "Like, huh, uh, ur, Asshole !"
And finish with "Your screwed us, go and die!".
This applies with any debate on any subject. If oyu criticise a video they like, or question their political party, its all the same to them. It seems, the one who knows the most insults, and refuses to surrender, becomes the winner.
I understand completely from where you speak. Debating ignorance is like eating sand. It is unpleasant, pointless, and at best irritating with no purpose, substance or value and the same shit is everywhere. Once it gets into your egg salad it is ruined. lol
The amount of people that I know who have the basic level of integrity at all times, as described in this video, are less than the amount of fingers I have on my hands.
The problem is that people are trying to win these formal debates, instead of trying to discuss ideas and grow with the person on the opposing side.
We state a premise, then we proceed from there with the details that is the debate. Without the premises, at least one for each side, we have nothing but a bunch of sophistry.
It seems like Stef isn't really debating, but more or less defending his work. Nothing wrong with that per se, but you need both sides to engage for a debate to take place.
Nietzsche said one should only "respect" and "engage in debate with" poeple who are at the same level as yourself, which is why im asking why Stefan Molyneux is still debating people online? He should be debating people in Univerities tours, put his articles in major papers and debate public officials. He is a heavy weight that is for sure, he is young mike tyson fighting joes in his backyard, like hes kimbo slice ;)
Hey man, easy with those comparisons. Kimbo doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Mike Tyson. I get what you are saying, but still some may think you are equating Kimbo with Stefan and thats just wrong.
However the goal is to change the world and that's where fresh young minds come in. What good is it to have a bunch of old wisemen who won't be around to see any of the effect:) I don't see the value in winning debates. The value is in inspiring people to learn how to think.
So when you're old (possibly wise) you would like the youth to ignore your opinions about life, even though you've had a lot more of it than them, because - fuck it - you're going to die soon anyway?
Not at all but this is a long term generational change we're interested in so if we just write off the youth as too young to get it there's no sense in just masturbating to our wonderful wisdom. The goal is learning not winning.
Yes, agreed; I'm not for ignoring anyone's opinions, and the truth is not always the product of experience or wisdom, which sometimes impedes rather than enables. Along with the old, today's youth will also likely not be alive when violence is not the core motivator of cultures, so perhaps some humility and selflessnes is required from all parties.
You've gotta learn the art of saying what you mean (with all due respect), with the intention of informing other people, rather than with the intention of creating the longest sentence you possibly could !!
Well if he takes people's ideas only in reference to their actions then he can't have too much respect for those in academia.
Plus I feel like stef would be very out of place in academia. He made his death of concepts mini-series, and that runs counter to a lot of what academia represents which is to be a place of "knowledge". Universities and those that fit in well there often present disembodied ideas (or else lose credit as their ideas become disproved).
I agree completely - most people don't debate, they chatter and gibber, use all kinds of logical fallacies, stick behind something that was just proven false, try to change the subject, etc.
Before I learned about these things I just stopped talking to anyone who exhibited these properties, it just seemed there was no way to get through to them. Now I find that when I do get through to most people, their reaction is that of anger towards me.
Stef, I debated you on UPB for hours in my mind, and your arguments were all flawed and I pwned you ... how could you let that happen; aren't you embarrassed?
Also, this video is clearly in response to Stefan's debate with the young Socialist, which basically turned into a session of the socialist attempting to get his head around his own ideas and pretty much wasting everyone elses' time. He is saying that if you send him something in the form of debate, that you should genuinely prepare for it since he isnt chopped liver. I second Harryogre's sentiment about not debating with those who are younger, since life experience grants much wisdom.
That's quite a broad age-based generalization there, buddy. Sure, I lacked a lot of experience when I was 15, but now, at 30, I'm fairly certain I understand the world better then 95% older than me. Not because I'm so much smarter, but because I was cursed with a drive for truth, while most people take the world for granted and continue on automatic pilot for the most part.
I think that is why many are drawn to philosophy, however there is much you have learned since you were 15. Also, I was replying to someone who said that Stefan shouldn't debate anyone younger that 30. Most college kids have very little experience in the world, but are filled with philosophical arrogance. Once they get out, realization sets in that the cloistered and coddled environment of academia hasn't taught them jack about intellectual realities.
Your credentials are ultimately irrelevant. This is essentially a plea from authority. If you're wrong you're wrong. If you use misdirection / redirection to "win" debates then you are a shady character, regardless of how long you've "been around".
He doesn't say that his arguments are correct because of his credentials, he says that he is an experienced debater, his credentials supporting this. The title says "Debating Tips!", so this video is about debating techniques, not a particular debate or point.
I see a lot of "haters" posting here. Basically it's coming across as personal jealousy. Frankly, I find Stefan to be someone who is very smart and has developed an incredibly coherent and consistent philosophy of his own. And out of respect to him you should understand what he is speaking about before you take a point against his. You also have to make sure you understand it as he does.
Keep in mind I am a Theist, yet respect Stefan because of how he conducts himself.
NO! You must understand it as he does, meaning, know his assumptions, know the reasons he came to that conclusion and know his thought process. Agreement and understanding are different! Just because you understand a philosophical concept, doesn't mean you agree with it. I can understand socialism the way Marx did, but that doesn't mean I agree with its conclusions as valid based the assumptions.
Steph, I hate to say this, honestly, but the youth of today is literally retarded. I'm sorry. I myself had a few debates on YT and wow. That is all I can say-wow! The level of ignorance and one dimensional arguments.
I am just left in awe at how completely incorrect, unfounded, not researched, an often contradictory in the same sentence.
It is as if anyone under 35 did nothing in High School but huff glue. I understand completely why we have heard nada in protest and the massive group think...
I have to pray that there must be some that are not completely brain dead. Please let there be some...lol
I and my family have long sense been confused by the deafening silence in the US while these corrupt charlatans rape the American people - it really wasn't until I engaged in what has to be the most tragic of debates here on YT that we realized why there has been no protests, no dissent among the youth whose future is not enslaved that I truly lost hope for our country. We were the world.
On another note, I read the title of this video as "Dating Tips". I thought, after the 1st few minutes of the video "what kind of weird ass dates has Stef been on??" lol
The proposition that, "Everyone should do that which they have both the power and desire to do, does NOT ascribe different characteristics to similar entities. Everyone can follow this preference. Not responding to this is going to hurt you stef, its going to drive logically thinking people away from you, what will you have then? After all, as you say honesty is a virtue.
Not everyone can follow that preference. If it was in someone's power and desire to be logical and put forth an argument, they could still be mistaken and put forth an illogical argument, meaning that they were unable to follow this preference.
People can be wrong. Unless it is in someone's desire to be wrong, it's extremely unlikely that they are able to follow this preference.
Maybe I am crazy, but what I am hearing is ... You should live morally before you discus morality. You should have integrity, before you know what it is.
First, everyone lives morally so it is fine to "discuss" morality at any time. "Debating" various forms of morality or amorality is another matter. Debating in favor of a certain position requires that one has totally considered at least one other position and has reasons why they have chosen one over the other. A discussion may be two parties equally searching for a truth or a teacher and a student. A debate should be between two opponents, almost equally armed with rationales on their position
What Stef inferred is that he puts the cart before the horse. If I am a nihilist (Which I am not), and I act in a way that reflects my non-morals. He will evaluate and judge me based off of his morals before we even talk, and from that decide what he thinks of me and my argument. The only way for Stef to have a respectable debate with someone is if they have the exact same views as him, and therefore the ability to act within his accordance of what is moral. Which makes real debate impossible
What I understood him to say was that if one comes to a debate ill-prepared, making unfounded accusations, obfuscating, not conceding to errors, and basically ducking, diving and lying to win rather than revealing and pursuing to learn, then he is not interested in these kinds of debates. I don't blame him.
Well, that's not what I gleaned from this video and it's probably better that Stef respond, rather than me. But let's take this out of the personal, you vs. Stef. While perhaps referencing himself a bit too much IMHO, he was, for the most part, talking about the principles of good debate. While it may not be necessary to have knowledge of "references" it then becomes necessary to be able to discuss one's own personal work re the frameworks of philosophical perspectives one has considered.
No he is asking that you try a ride on your cart before talking about it. That is freaking why fdr fails. Everyone just one to say knee jerk emo retard all the time. All of you Brainpolice , d4shawn ... All a freaking bunch of useless poeple with ethical blah blah, no one can use and scared to even do a positive claim on our own. Experimental philosophy =throw shit and hope it sticks.
I didn't know FDR fails. however, if it does fail I would blame it on poor management, intimidation, hierarchical setup, a collectivist attitude, some poor points in philosophy, and the fact that FDR was a bad president. I dunno if BP D4, and I have much an effect. We were all Molyneuvians at one time ourselves. I have made plenty of positive claims. I have sculted my experimental philosophy ideas from our evolutionary relatives ... therefore your description, whilst crude, may work okay.
whats wrong with the frame rate??
ibrahim795 1 month ago
Stef you should speak at a TED conference.
09jake12 3 months ago
I disagree with Stefan on a few things, namely foreign policy, but i don't think i'd be up to debating with him haha he's quite a giant
Consrvatev 5 months ago
Good points. However, while the internet has allowed you to reach an audience much wider than any other philosopher in a shorter time period. The anonymous nature of the internet allows for drive-by spamming and the web version of drunken dialling. Try not to empower them by responding to them.
ThePrincessofCups 6 months ago
O'Reilly doesnt debate, he just bullies people in his own show.
Hey! i thought this was going to be a video about debating in favor of anarchism, not how to debate against you.
chazdoit 9 months ago
i want to see you have a debate with bill o'reilly, that would be interesting
RainbowCproductions 10 months ago
You are so exciting! Your passion is inspiring. Thanks Stef. X
RichardPears 11 months ago
R.I.P.
Copper4head 11 months ago
"Hey moral soldier you've got righteous proclamations
Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word your saying"
-BR
prolixart 1 year ago
Small book recommendation for debaters: Classical rhetoric for the modern student.
Good video, thanks.
Hypatia1951 1 year ago
@deformated I completely agree!
billybbob18 1 year ago
When in a debate, which I don't do much anymore, I hate it when others tell me to cite my source when the sources cited are merely an others' opinion. This is the cat's game of every debate when taken far enough. What gives someone credibility? When it comes to philosophy, everything is subject to the individual which couldn't have possibly had the exact same life experience as you. Whoever you choose to cite as an authority on a subject might have credibility, but based on what? Riddle me that.
billybbob18 1 year ago 2
thanks, got a school debate on is tyranny is an effective way to rule or not.
ill definitely prepare more.
OriginalMrsniffles 1 year ago
I found most of this very helpful, but my advice would be to stick to your main points. You seem to get a little off topic sometimes. For example, in your first tip, you want people to do their research, but then somehow move onto how you're a skilled and veteran debater. That makes people lose sight of what you want them to do. But, other then that, fantastic job, and thanks!!!
PhilosCaelum 1 year ago
Great points.
Have you ever followed the big endless debate here on Youtube about Evolution vs Creationism or Theism vs Athiesm?
I've been addicted in the past four or five months to watching videos that cover the subject(s) that are being argued about.
It's really interesting when you have the patience to get into it.
I'd like to see a video from you about this debate.
Diablocazador 1 year ago
i disagree with stef's point about concentrating on the content of the opposition's character.
when debating, the content of one's character always remains irrelevent.
regardless of who the opposition is, or what their actions consist of, or what the contents of their character are...it is only appropriate to concentrate on the actual arguments being put forth. this is always true, even when the debate topic is ethics.
soultorment27 2 years ago 2
thank you i used your tips for a school assignment.The topic was that all students in AUSTRALIA should get a free laptop and with your tips i got an B+. thank you thank you
lukeautumn 2 years ago
Comment removed
inactivism 2 years ago
it sounds like you are trying to put people off debating you.dont debate with me unless you are up too it! no tips just warning us off. all people can debate not just people who have had 25 yrs of experiance.
lordmonty01 2 years ago
If he was to debate anybody who wanted to, (not knowing much about his arguments) is a HUGE waste of time.
Also learning how to spell might help.
megamanium 2 years ago
I didnt ask your opinion thanks and my spelling is correct fool. I have also seen enough of his videos to know I dont agree with all he says. If you agree absolutely with what he says then you have no thoughts of your own. No two people agree on everything. So stop being a tosser get a life and stop answering thee week old posts!!
lordmonty01 2 years ago
Whooh! Calm down. "experiance" is a mispelling and so is "too" (in the context).
I never said I agree with everything he said, just that I don't think you need to take offense to what he says.
I don't see your objection to answering old posts, and your name calling only makes you sound even more ignorant than your picture of Stefbot in this video, completely making your point hypocritical.
megamanium 2 years ago
I didnt take offence at what hes saying. But from what I can see there are no tips on this video. Only him saying how damn good he thinks he is at debating. He dose give a good argument I agree. But I dont think hes the most fluent or the most talented talker I have seen. He comes across as arrogant on some of his vids. I was going to stick a few more insults at you but thats only because Im in a bad mood. And yes they are spelling errors, but that is of no great importance.
lordmonty01 2 years ago
I don't understand why you would have commented at all if you didn't have a problem with the video. I thought that was clear.
He has one big point he is trying to drive home and that's to be prepared. It's something (in my experience) people tend not to do, but is immensely important.
He also proposing using empirical logic, taking quotes, avoiding "seems like" statements, embodying the argument you pose, honesty and more.
I've seen his videos and it seems more like he's just having fun.
megamanium 2 years ago 2
If I didnt like stef at all I would probably not have commented. But I do agree on some points that he makes. And empirical logic dose not always hold. I could quote Hitler if I was to start a debate about ethics for example. If I cant say seems like or I think in a debate, then I am not using my ability to make quotes that other people might think are good for there debates. And then all the great quotes of history will become useless and stagnant.
lordmonty01 2 years ago
and about the books that contain lies???
Iwonttellmyname 2 years ago
This video was an excellent idea! Maybe now your debates won't suck so much. Seriously, they are usually filled with pushovers who never actually talk.
ufee 2 years ago 3
great master-debating tips!
noneother 2 years ago
i can't hear what you're saying over how fat you are. lol
TheDastardlyDildo 2 years ago
All hail StefBitch the strawman king!
AnarchisticAtheist 2 years ago 2
Insults say more about you than they say about your insult's object.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Dedicated to the annoying ReIgNoFrAdNeSs and BrainPolice2....
You guys suck.... big time.
tetraedronico 2 years ago
I can't ever possibly imagine you annoying me. I rather annoy myself sometimes. Stef, I see enough of the big picture of your universally benevolent preferable behavior to have utmost respect and gratitude for FDR!!! Continue to enjoy yourself and family. Thank you.
neotechdrag 2 years ago
I like where Stefan is talking about ethical behavior, he's totally right. In order to win a debate, you have first to know who you are fighting with. Maybe that's a reason for his disappointment, before one's debating with him, is having access to months of continuously podcasts on Stefan's website, instead of that, Stefan has nothing, just a first impression and probably an "acting" face from the guy. He would easily clean the floor with Harper or Obama on any debate about their governments:)
SopraTutt1 2 years ago
stef, do you have a video or position on animal rights? I might be willing to debate you on that if you're opposed to it. Thanks for all your other videos.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
UPB is clear in that rights don't exist, and biology is clear in that nonhuman animals do not have the capacity to conceptualize abstractly thus they can't be moral agents. Stef's position is likely to be "there is no such thing as animal rights, nor can you ever validate any animal rights proposition for the abovementioned reasons".
That's just my take.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Some animals can, to an extent, conceptualize abstractly, but that's beside the point. Although animals can't be moral agents, that does not discount extending rights to them. Children and the mentally handicapped also are not moral agents, but we rightly grant them rights as moral patients. Animals deserve this same extension, and as their most basic interests are to avoid suffering, not die, and live free of restraint, they must not be enslaved, tortured, or killed for food, entertainment etc
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
First, we grant moral patient status to kids and handicapped because they have the potential to become full moral agents or because we as a CLASS have decided to preemptively grandfather them in to prevent horrible past mistakes.
Second, no, it doesn't follow that because kids are moral patients, animals must also be them. A fish or a dog is certainly NOT like a kid or a mentally retarded person! Moreover, your statement is incompatible with human nourishment, so it cannot be true.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Potential is simply taking one thing and calling it another. I may be President some day, but I don't get to live in the White House, for very good reason. To cite "potential" to equate two things is simply removing the temporal aspect, which is the crucial aspect. A dog or pig is certainly more cognitively aware than a newborn infant; this is scientifically accepted. Different species have different cognition levels, but all mammals and many other animals are relevant. Read Drawing the Line.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
I gave you two, not one reasons why we afford moral pacience to agents that are not moral *right now*. You only addressed one, and in that address, you have not denied the fact that a dog or an aphid will never EVER be a moral agent.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Please clarify your second point because I don't quite understand what you mean about grandfathering. It seems like either a circular argument or an arbitrary line between human and nonhuman. No, animals will never be moral agents. Neither will many mentally-handicapped people.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
There is no arbitrary line here. Just as "size" is an attribute of a physical object, "morality" is an attribute of moral agents. Animals aren't moral agents -- the biology is pretty clear on that one -- thus they cannot participate as subjects or objects from a moral discussion. If anything, the line may be blurry in the case of great apes, but it is by no means "arbitrary". You are making a category error out of a misplaced sympathy.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
That animals are not moral agents means they cannot participate as subjects, but they CAN participate as objects (meaning, recipients of moral behavior). Our current willingness to extend rights to children and the mentally enfeebled shows that we respect and recognize moral patients, and thus they're in the same category as animals. Again, if hedonism, then child rape and murder is perfectly acceptable, because the child is not yet a moral agent. Say that's OK and the burden's on you I think
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
I'm sorry, but it is only in your flawed ontology that children and animals are in the same moral category. Nobody else serious thinks that way, because nobody else intentionally discounts the vast differences between children and animals.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Many people, including prominent philosophers such as Tom Regan and Peter Singer, see the connection. There are vast differences between children and animals, but the capacity to suffer and (contained therein) their interests/preferences is the relevant similarity. For you to discount that similarity I ask that you explain what trait(s) is relevant and why mine is not. I agree that many people don't see that similarity, but that doesn't mean it's not there. :)
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
"Cognition" is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for moral agency. You yourself recognize this. So, why are we obligated to grant moral agency to nonmoral agents with net zero potential of ever becoming moral agents?
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
I never called animals moral agents. We are obligated to respect the desires and interests of non moral agents because egalitarianism is not based on reciprocity, but on benevolence and doing what's best for the group. If we operate on quid pro quo we're not being moral at all, we're simply refining our selfishness in a way that helps more people than just us, but is still not egalitarian. For example, we can be hedonistic quid pro-quo'ers and therefore slavery is just fine if it helps me.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
If an animal is not a moral agent, then it is not deserving of moral consideration, period. Rocks, animals, plants, buildings, ideas, not moral agents. I think you mean "moral agent" to be "anything capable of moral choice", whereas "moral agency" to me means "anything potentially capable of moral choice". I think that's the difference that is not letting you understand what I said.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Then I guess our disagreement stems from whether potentiality is relevant? If so, please explain.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
Third: you do understand how claiming that animals deserve "to avoid suffering, not to die, to live free of restraint" is incompatible with human nourishment, that even when you eat plants you are doing exactly this to aphids and ladybugs?
Fourth: do you realize how not even HUMANS have a right "not to die"? Humans have a right NOT TO BE KILLED, which is different.
Fifth: show me a dog that can understand the "rights" you have given him and converse / debate them.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
We cannot completely eliminate suffering, but we would be significantly reducing suffering if we ate crops directly rather than growing an exponentially larger number of crops, killing many more aphids, and then feeding those crops to animals who have a much higher cognition level, and raising/killing them in brutal fashion. (Watch Earthlings or Meet Your Meat). Reducing suffering is our obligation; avoiding wanton killing. Killing animals is not necessary, nor healthy. Skipping point 4.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
You're arguing by assertion "This is our obligation, that is our obligation". I don't need to respond to these assertions because assertion is not argument.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Sorry, I was under the impression that we would agree that we shouldn't violate the most basic desires of a conscious, sentient being just because we enjoy the taste of their flesh. I feel this simply comes from being egalitarian and not having a speciesist prejudice. I recommend 'Animal Liberation' and 'The Case For Animal Rights' for a fuller explanation which I can't give here.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
Point 5 may imply a point, but all I can detect is the moral agent/patient argument, which is point 2. Other than that it just seems like a malicious, baseless insult.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
Fifth is an insult? OK, so saying that a dog cannot conceptualize or converse about rights is an insult? What's next? "Water is wet" is an insult too?
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Just tell me what point you were making and let's move on.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
And sixth: weren't we clear already that rights DON'T EXIST?
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Rights are constructs, but they have merit legally, and if animals qualify for consideration then they should be given legal rights. My point, though, is simply that animals have interests that demand our consideration, and because of that we must at least respect their most basic desires; to live free of confinement, to avoid pain, and to avoid death. They will of course encounter pain and death in nature, but it mustn't be at the hand of a moral agent unless there is a greater concern.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
"Legal"? Where in my conversation did I talk about legalities? Why are you invoking legality here?
Your point is that you're trying to derive an "we ought not to kill animals" from an "animals suffer pain". And that, of course, is not a valid mode of reasoning and is even preposterous a conclusion -- I would not hesitate to shoot a dog or a rapist if either attacked me. Sorry.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
I brought up legality because that is the sense in which we concretely recognize the notion of rights, but again as you said, my point isn't about rights per se. To your second point, I already made it clear that we should reduce suffering to the extent that we can; surely you don't equate self-defense and killing for pleasure! We ought not to cause suffering to animals when the consequences of that action will cause more suffering than it alleviates (speaking tersely, because of space)
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
My point is that you have not rationally justified why we ought to take pains to reduce animal suffering. Your argument has only boiled down to "suffering is bad, therefore we ought to reduce it", which (first) doesn't follow and (second) not all suffering is bad, thus it just CANNOT be used to justify your stance.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
To say that it doesn't follow is to reject utilitarianism or any egalitarian philosophy, so far as I know, so I think the burden is on you to demonstrate that. I feel that my argument is not only logical based on normal assumptions of egalitarianism, it's practically truism. Not all suffering is bad, but suffering is good when it prevents further suffering. I thought this was obvious.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
I reject egalitarian philosophy and utilitarianism completely. Practical considerations or noble intentions simply do not trump objective morality. Suffering just HAPPENS, and the fact that it is indirectly correlated with morality does not mean that morality ("oughts") can be derived from suffering ("is").
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
What IS "objective morality" then? And so if causing suffering has no relation to morality, then when IS it wrong to cause suffering? It seems as though you have some super duper theory that no one I've ever read has ever heard of, so let the cat out of the bag already.
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
The dude whose video you just watched... he wrote a book on morality which normalizes morality to a repeatable, verifiable science just like sociology or biology. You should read it. It's called the Universally Preferable Behaviours book. Without the knowledge in the book, we are going to be doomed to bicker about minutiae and never find truth in morality.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
I just downloaded the pdf...I'll have a gander! :)
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
"To your second point, I already made it clear that we should reduce suffering to the extent that we can;"
WHY? I certainly see how this is a noble idea, but you are elevating it to a level of moral obligation, and that warrants RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION.
"We ought not to cause suffering to animals when the consequences of that action will cause more suffering than it alleviates"
Again: WHY?
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
I was under the impression that not causing significant suffering for menial personal benefit is the very essence of what morality is. It seems to me you're asking 'why is it moral to be moral?' If your idea of morality is not egalitarian, but hedonistic, then what is morality but a refined form of selfishness, and does that not allow for all manner of what we normally consider heinous, immoral acts?
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
Ah! You haven't read the UPB book! No wonder you still think that morality can be either egalitarian or hedonistic, you're using an antiquated conceptualization of morality!
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
Yes, silly me, equating morality with egalitarianism or hedonism! Why, who believes THAT?! =-/
JTsmiley14 2 years ago
"simply that animals have interests that demand our consideration, and because of that we must at least respect their most basic desires; to live free of confinement, to avoid pain, and to avoid death. They will of course encounter pain and death in nature, but it mustn't be at the hand of a moral agent unless there is a greater concern."
This. It's not clear to me how "we must respect animals' interests" follows from "animals have interests". Explain WHY.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
This is an attempt to scare people off and win arguments/debates before they've even begun because;
1. If everyone lived 'ethicallly' according to Stefs subjective view, there would be nothing to debate as they would already be in agreement.
2. Sending him your arguments gives him a chance to devise counter arguments or choose not to respond.
3. Is that a chin implant?
JuSdAt 2 years ago
I think you are wrong with two things.
1. The idea is improper. People can't be taught how to debate. The amount of research depends on brain and laziness. Wherever is quality, there's not quantity - don't fight against this :-)
2. // not enough space here
SopraTutt1 2 years ago
Comment removed
SopraTutt1 2 years ago
2. You're keep asking for "Give me quotes". This is proving that they read a lot and are not smart enough to use their own words, so they are appealing to what somebody else said. I saw many cases of really sick-stupid people full of quotes, because this was the only thing they could/were learn to do, memorize.
SopraTutt1 2 years ago
I believe he's asking for quotes from his own material. Most of his debates seem to arise from people challenging him on his books, during which his opponents often state his position for him. He tends to ask them to show him where he said 'X'.
Chameleon41 2 years ago
Thanks, this makes some sense, but I don't think is the case here. I still don't see why he would like to hear himself over and over again...
On the other hand, if I'm quoting from Socrates, Machiavelli, Spinoza, Schopenhauer or Obama :-)... it doesn't mean that I understand what they said or that I'm as convinced of their opinions as they were when stated... I'm not doing anything but just confusing him and giving him some more work to do in order to win/prove me.
SopraTutt1 2 years ago
Well, you could be right; I've only watched the video once. But if you watch his other debates, he's often faced with something like:
"Ah, but you say that property rights exist!"
If this is something he has not actually said, he'll ask them for some kind of quote from his material which supports this. He's really just saying "That's not my position. Show me where I've said that it is." If somebody really wishes to challenge an idea, they have to first fully understand it.
Chameleon41 2 years ago
Comment removed
SopraTutt1 2 years ago
you should have named the video "master-debating"
(sighs nostalgically over high school debate days past)
nathanjonessr 2 years ago
Went on too long about being prepared to debate. When he says he can't hear someone because of their actions, makes me realize why it's so painful for me to listen to politics!! He talks about being glib! He's pretty glib about religion. I wonder it he was raised believing in God or Atheist? I love to listen to him though!
jerami101 2 years ago
i've always been wondering about this.... if someone uncomfortably stares into your eyes during conversation, should you stare into his eyes too? even if then he looks away? i never like when people stare into my eyes, i instinctively look away, because i feel uncomfortable
cr3rzemJest 2 years ago
You look into someones eyes during conversation because they convey information with facial expression. If they are just uncomfortably staring like fools then you dont have to look at them. Why would you?
garvess 2 years ago
It's uncomfortable because it's a very primal status agent. In prime ape society, eye contact is considered provocational and performed only between alpha males when they are in contest. The next time you walk down a hallway, give people eye contact and notice who looks away and who does not. It's really a very interesting experiment, but the results are typically what you would expect. The confident folks and people in groups never look down.
MDUMANOVIC 2 years ago
a sort of tool when i'm thinking and mulling over a subject is to sort of take the scientific approach, which is akin to arguing the pro side when you're really con. when i settle on a position or a belief or even start leaning in one direction, i try to prove myself wrong. i form a "thought hypothesis" then attempt to disprove it. this is the first time i've ever put this idea or technique into words, but some of what stef mentions here made me think about it. great video. good advice
codyjohnle 2 years ago
Was this supposed to be a "response" to John in the previous video?
He seemed very insecure...
Hitoderon 2 years ago
Preparation for a debate is a good idea... however, you should consider that many of the people who engage you are looking for a discussion.
Personally I don't think research should be necessary for a discussion. The point is to learn and to exchange ideas... part of the art of discussion is to be able to engage and educate.
Personally I don't like the adversarial discussions you call debates. I have 20 min in my life to hear what you have to say... and 5 min to give you feedback.
ThotAum 2 years ago
though i disagree with stefan on many things, he is 100% right on in this vid.
its riduculous to come to a debate, like many have, with no preperation or even a clear idea of what it is they are bout to debate.
the result is just an unclear, murky exchange without substance.
this is true for almost all 1v1 debates ive watched here, especially the latest one.
laugingman was just mumbling, backpeddling and used unclear language. in the end he concluded that "maybe it was all semantics". lol
Oppp2 2 years ago 2
THANK YOU.
This was needed BADLY. It is the reason why I rarely watch your debate videos...honestly, your debate with qtronman was really the only one I found interesting...
To show humility in a debate is incredibly important; All intellectuals need to read Foucault & Hayek.
sexdrugsRnR 2 years ago
Which titles?
kulza23 2 years ago
Anyway, none of it maters because the Obamas have just named their new dog "BO".
That's BO as in BOAZ, the freemasonic devil idendtification signal.
I say BO", you say "AZ". Then we know we are "brother" Lucifer worshippers.
I've already told everyone on the web, so it will eb round your office, soon.
The Illuminati (of which Stalin was a member), and who are completely real, but exadgerated, are letting off freemasonic signals and symbols everywhere, and if that doesn't shock you..... etc.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
I know, it's so annoying !
Whenever I get into a debate, they skip the point completely, then call me "stupid" or "ignorant", then leave, without actually contradicting me.
It's a funny channel, this. Because, you get some very long, "looking like they're goping somewhere" sentences, and then they don't actually contradict you, at the end. Something like "i don't know how you come to that conclusion, you idiot".
I find it very annoying, actually, But how can such stupids, type long sentences?
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Well Said
AngelWithGuns42 2 years ago
yes the previous debater was a joke, and so were the ones before that.
Daedalus1337 2 years ago
I must say, although stefbot is really intelligent, and is, as he says, a "heavy weight", he seems to be attracting people who have no idea of how to make themselves clearly understood.
You are all idiots, who construct long sentences (and forget to use punctuation), which confuse people.
Im wokring class, but at least i can be understood.
Blahdy blah blah, most of you. Its as though you are HIDING, rather than sharing your views.
Oh my god ! YOu're all wigwearing lawyers, arent you !!?
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Comment removed
Valelacerte 2 years ago
(wait)
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Stef, I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the IRA. I'd understand if it's not something that you want to cover though.
RogueSwordThesco 2 years ago
Yes, ive only seen the one guy. The young american chap who came on recently, for no other purpose than to dissagre. I think he had planned for whatever you might say, to a certain question, but had failed to imagine that you may ask him to clarify his own position (which was, in truth, that of someone who wanted to beat you).
Therefore, all you had to do was ask him to be clear, and he was stumped. He didnt get passed the question, cus thats the point where he wasnt clear (onwards of).
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Wow. It usually takes at least 2 experiences to form a pre-judged opinion about a group of people. You did it in 1. That must be a record of some sort:)
DCLugi 2 years ago
Why does it take TWO experiences to form a judgment ? Is that just some bull, you made up ?
If i punch you in the face, do you wait until i do it again, before i get judged ?
And HOW can it be PRE judged, if you have to with until youve experienced it TWICE ?
Sorry, but some peopel have a descent grasp of the Queens English, and somehow believe THAT to be a signal of intelligence. I presume (cus i liek doing that, and odnt feel restricted by your opinion), that you have a "private" education?
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Actually I would have to be punched by ALL americans to judge ALL of them:)
Private education? The only thing I've learned about my private is that it swells when I think of Betty Rubble.
DCLugi 2 years ago
You've answered all my questions, in only 2 sentences.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
That'll be 2 quid. Cheers.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Try debating ANYTHING with any American ! I dare you !
They start "Like, huh, uh, ur, Asshole !"
And finish with "Your screwed us, go and die!".
This applies with any debate on any subject. If oyu criticise a video they like, or question their political party, its all the same to them. It seems, the one who knows the most insults, and refuses to surrender, becomes the winner.
Same with elections.
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
With any American you say? lol
RogueSwordThesco 2 years ago
This is true. I talk to myself all the time and get nowhere. It's like I don't even listen to myself.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Comment removed
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Steph, you are the man.
I understand completely from where you speak. Debating ignorance is like eating sand. It is unpleasant, pointless, and at best irritating with no purpose, substance or value and the same shit is everywhere. Once it gets into your egg salad it is ruined. lol
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago 2
The amount of people that I know who have the basic level of integrity at all times, as described in this video, are less than the amount of fingers I have on my hands.
Rokasomee 2 years ago 2
Hey, I'm a debater too. You said you debated in Uni right?
CUSID or WUDC?
Biffo 2 years ago
The problem is that people are trying to win these formal debates, instead of trying to discuss ideas and grow with the person on the opposing side.
We state a premise, then we proceed from there with the details that is the debate. Without the premises, at least one for each side, we have nothing but a bunch of sophistry.
It seems like Stef isn't really debating, but more or less defending his work. Nothing wrong with that per se, but you need both sides to engage for a debate to take place.
FranG1214 2 years ago
It is true that Stef has not debated anyone of his caliber.
VCADD 2 years ago
Very intresting video.
U of T alumni huh ? York Uni ftw !!! lol
prodigy00073 2 years ago
I went to York too, for English Lit... :)
stefbot 2 years ago
ahaha cool!!!
prodigy00073 2 years ago
Nietzsche said one should only "respect" and "engage in debate with" poeple who are at the same level as yourself, which is why im asking why Stefan Molyneux is still debating people online? He should be debating people in Univerities tours, put his articles in major papers and debate public officials. He is a heavy weight that is for sure, he is young mike tyson fighting joes in his backyard, like hes kimbo slice ;)
combatleague 2 years ago 2
Hey man, easy with those comparisons. Kimbo doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence with Mike Tyson. I get what you are saying, but still some may think you are equating Kimbo with Stefan and thats just wrong.
jodark 2 years ago
However the goal is to change the world and that's where fresh young minds come in. What good is it to have a bunch of old wisemen who won't be around to see any of the effect:) I don't see the value in winning debates. The value is in inspiring people to learn how to think.
DCLugi 2 years ago
So when you're old (possibly wise) you would like the youth to ignore your opinions about life, even though you've had a lot more of it than them, because - fuck it - you're going to die soon anyway?
Valelacerte 2 years ago
Not at all but this is a long term generational change we're interested in so if we just write off the youth as too young to get it there's no sense in just masturbating to our wonderful wisdom. The goal is learning not winning.
DCLugi 2 years ago
Yes, agreed; I'm not for ignoring anyone's opinions, and the truth is not always the product of experience or wisdom, which sometimes impedes rather than enables. Along with the old, today's youth will also likely not be alive when violence is not the core motivator of cultures, so perhaps some humility and selflessnes is required from all parties.
Valelacerte 2 years ago
You've gotta learn the art of saying what you mean (with all due respect), with the intention of informing other people, rather than with the intention of creating the longest sentence you possibly could !!
mikeybrumbrum 2 years ago
Hear, hear, DCLugi!
1140Cecile 2 years ago
Well if he takes people's ideas only in reference to their actions then he can't have too much respect for those in academia.
Plus I feel like stef would be very out of place in academia. He made his death of concepts mini-series, and that runs counter to a lot of what academia represents which is to be a place of "knowledge". Universities and those that fit in well there often present disembodied ideas (or else lose credit as their ideas become disproved).
cjet79 2 years ago
UPB vs Compostmodernism
VCADD 2 years ago
I agree completely - most people don't debate, they chatter and gibber, use all kinds of logical fallacies, stick behind something that was just proven false, try to change the subject, etc.
Before I learned about these things I just stopped talking to anyone who exhibited these properties, it just seemed there was no way to get through to them. Now I find that when I do get through to most people, their reaction is that of anger towards me.
RLore18 2 years ago
ethics = socially preferable behavior.
ieatcorm 2 years ago
upb = ????
Adipatus 2 years ago
Stef, you're losing weight.
ItsPariah 2 years ago
because that's relevant. ;)
nhmllr725 2 years ago
Intellectual weight ;)
freedom3001 2 years ago
Stef, I debated you on UPB for hours in my mind, and your arguments were all flawed and I pwned you ... how could you let that happen; aren't you embarrassed?
Valelacerte 2 years ago
well said on ethics
jmeiskues 2 years ago
I would love to debate with you, but we agree too much..
minteko 2 years ago 2
Also, this video is clearly in response to Stefan's debate with the young Socialist, which basically turned into a session of the socialist attempting to get his head around his own ideas and pretty much wasting everyone elses' time. He is saying that if you send him something in the form of debate, that you should genuinely prepare for it since he isnt chopped liver. I second Harryogre's sentiment about not debating with those who are younger, since life experience grants much wisdom.
jodark 2 years ago
That's quite a broad age-based generalization there, buddy. Sure, I lacked a lot of experience when I was 15, but now, at 30, I'm fairly certain I understand the world better then 95% older than me. Not because I'm so much smarter, but because I was cursed with a drive for truth, while most people take the world for granted and continue on automatic pilot for the most part.
odigity 2 years ago
I think that is why many are drawn to philosophy, however there is much you have learned since you were 15. Also, I was replying to someone who said that Stefan shouldn't debate anyone younger that 30. Most college kids have very little experience in the world, but are filled with philosophical arrogance. Once they get out, realization sets in that the cloistered and coddled environment of academia hasn't taught them jack about intellectual realities.
jodark 2 years ago
Stefan, you are the man.
snowtrot 2 years ago 3
Your credentials are ultimately irrelevant. This is essentially a plea from authority. If you're wrong you're wrong. If you use misdirection / redirection to "win" debates then you are a shady character, regardless of how long you've "been around".
regresseur 2 years ago
He doesn't say that his arguments are correct because of his credentials, he says that he is an experienced debater, his credentials supporting this. The title says "Debating Tips!", so this video is about debating techniques, not a particular debate or point.
Valelacerte 2 years ago 5
I see a lot of "haters" posting here. Basically it's coming across as personal jealousy. Frankly, I find Stefan to be someone who is very smart and has developed an incredibly coherent and consistent philosophy of his own. And out of respect to him you should understand what he is speaking about before you take a point against his. You also have to make sure you understand it as he does.
Keep in mind I am a Theist, yet respect Stefan because of how he conducts himself.
jodark 2 years ago
"You also have to make sure you understand it as he does."
That makes absolutely no sense. If you "understand it as he does" then you would be in agreement with him.
Cailwyn 2 years ago
NO! You must understand it as he does, meaning, know his assumptions, know the reasons he came to that conclusion and know his thought process. Agreement and understanding are different! Just because you understand a philosophical concept, doesn't mean you agree with it. I can understand socialism the way Marx did, but that doesn't mean I agree with its conclusions as valid based the assumptions.
jodark 2 years ago 2
Stefan
A humble word of advice from an elder.
These half studied children that I see you debate have yet to finish growing a brain.
I would advise that you refrain debating anyone under the age of 30.
It seems to me that, most of the time, logic only begins to overcome emotion around that age.
Anyway, that's the advice of an old man, for what its worth.
I don't agree with you 100% of the time, but I like the way you think and I like the way your philosophy leads.
harryogre 2 years ago 2
Agreed. My mind only began to be un-muddled around the age of 30.
Ape65 2 years ago 2
Anyone who can even come close to poking some legitimate holes in Stefans arguments will get my immediate respect.
spudboyspud 2 years ago 6
I think the reason people watch your videos is because of your beautiful blue eyes because lets face it they are pretty depressing.
sonofagunM357 2 years ago
That what Christopher Hitchens says about himself in his debates. The eye thing not the depressing thing.
Ralajer 2 years ago
heh, I think you could well be right.
RPFS2008 2 years ago
Steph, I hate to say this, honestly, but the youth of today is literally retarded. I'm sorry. I myself had a few debates on YT and wow. That is all I can say-wow! The level of ignorance and one dimensional arguments.
I am just left in awe at how completely incorrect, unfounded, not researched, an often contradictory in the same sentence.
It is as if anyone under 35 did nothing in High School but huff glue. I understand completely why we have heard nada in protest and the massive group think...
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago
Hey, I huffed glue and it didn't (*spasm-twitch*) harm me!
Valelacerte 2 years ago 2
I have to pray that there must be some that are not completely brain dead. Please let there be some...lol
I and my family have long sense been confused by the deafening silence in the US while these corrupt charlatans rape the American people - it really wasn't until I engaged in what has to be the most tragic of debates here on YT that we realized why there has been no protests, no dissent among the youth whose future is not enslaved that I truly lost hope for our country. We were the world.
PsyogiBottoms 2 years ago
John!!! I think this one is for you!! Lmao.
DertBagg 2 years ago
BCF
----------
POO-MO
VCADD 2 years ago
A new "red lorry , yellow lorry" exercise:
Stef is a Master Debater
Stef is a Master Debater
Stef is a Master Debater
Stef is a Master Debater...
;-)
On another note, I read the title of this video as "Dating Tips". I thought, after the 1st few minutes of the video "what kind of weird ass dates has Stef been on??" lol
RPFS2008 2 years ago 2
... and a cunning linguist
Ape65 2 years ago
Is this like Mike Tyson making a video on how to put make a fist before you swing.
wispaintstyle 2 years ago
People here who agree with Stef and continue marking the opposition's comments as spam are not helping matters.
LibertyIsNotGiven 2 years ago
But he is so sexy :D
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
It sounds like Steph uses Pythonian argument techniques. not sure but that just what it sounds like.
CropDuster33 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The proposition that, "Everyone should do that which they have both the power and desire to do, does NOT ascribe different characteristics to similar entities. Everyone can follow this preference. Not responding to this is going to hurt you stef, its going to drive logically thinking people away from you, what will you have then? After all, as you say honesty is a virtue.
Luke12000 2 years ago 7
And I am not being glib, i may be frusterated, but I still care about you and these issues.
Luke12000 2 years ago
Not everyone can follow that preference. If it was in someone's power and desire to be logical and put forth an argument, they could still be mistaken and put forth an illogical argument, meaning that they were unable to follow this preference.
People can be wrong. Unless it is in someone's desire to be wrong, it's extremely unlikely that they are able to follow this preference.
ForOrAgainstUs 2 years ago
Comment removed
Luke12000 2 years ago
Maybe I am crazy, but what I am hearing is ... You should live morally before you discus morality. You should have integrity, before you know what it is.
I don't think i am crazy
aaron0883 2 years ago 3
First, everyone lives morally so it is fine to "discuss" morality at any time. "Debating" various forms of morality or amorality is another matter. Debating in favor of a certain position requires that one has totally considered at least one other position and has reasons why they have chosen one over the other. A discussion may be two parties equally searching for a truth or a teacher and a student. A debate should be between two opponents, almost equally armed with rationales on their position
1140Cecile 2 years ago
What Stef inferred is that he puts the cart before the horse. If I am a nihilist (Which I am not), and I act in a way that reflects my non-morals. He will evaluate and judge me based off of his morals before we even talk, and from that decide what he thinks of me and my argument. The only way for Stef to have a respectable debate with someone is if they have the exact same views as him, and therefore the ability to act within his accordance of what is moral. Which makes real debate impossible
aaron0883 2 years ago
What I understood him to say was that if one comes to a debate ill-prepared, making unfounded accusations, obfuscating, not conceding to errors, and basically ducking, diving and lying to win rather than revealing and pursuing to learn, then he is not interested in these kinds of debates. I don't blame him.
Valelacerte 2 years ago 3
Well, that's not what I gleaned from this video and it's probably better that Stef respond, rather than me. But let's take this out of the personal, you vs. Stef. While perhaps referencing himself a bit too much IMHO, he was, for the most part, talking about the principles of good debate. While it may not be necessary to have knowledge of "references" it then becomes necessary to be able to discuss one's own personal work re the frameworks of philosophical perspectives one has considered.
1140Cecile 2 years ago
No he is asking that you try a ride on your cart before talking about it. That is freaking why fdr fails. Everyone just one to say knee jerk emo retard all the time. All of you Brainpolice , d4shawn ... All a freaking bunch of useless poeple with ethical blah blah, no one can use and scared to even do a positive claim on our own. Experimental philosophy =throw shit and hope it sticks.
neutrinoide 2 years ago
I didn't know FDR fails. however, if it does fail I would blame it on poor management, intimidation, hierarchical setup, a collectivist attitude, some poor points in philosophy, and the fact that FDR was a bad president. I dunno if BP D4, and I have much an effect. We were all Molyneuvians at one time ourselves. I have made plenty of positive claims. I have sculted my experimental philosophy ideas from our evolutionary relatives ... therefore your description, whilst crude, may work okay.
aaron0883 2 years ago
Don't quite a few people live immorally?
gosmokesome 2 years ago