Arguing and debating is ineffective for deeper societal truths.

[Danioover9000]

   For example, this video showcases the sheer multiplex of bad faith communications from every side of the political viewpoints, left, right, and middle, on issues like Ukraine/Russia conflict, Nord Stream bombing, all the way up to larger global scales and deeper metaphysical/epistemic blind spots like the American centric worldviews vs European centric worldviews. Also, faster talking doesn't equal more intelligent, merely appearing so:

   Please, don't be like these Twitch live streamers thinking they're going somewhere with their discussions or debates, they are fundamentally talking in a hamster wheel, mostly to entertain and drama create for the sake of the majority of early 20 to teen viewers, all for show and of little substance. Go and instead of watching these, go watch some documentaries or Ted Talks. For news, diversify your news media consumption, and just read the articles instead, and take your time thinking these issues through. I guarantee you, 1 week of reading up different media sources and questioning, will increase your personal development over these guys ahead by 3 years more! even if there's little success out of it materially, you will mature way beyond those in these panels.

   Feel free to share your thoughts. Are debate and arguing panels still effective for truth?

[Devin]

           For me they're quite useful, and expose my own blindspots, but not for anything deep, meditation seems to be the ticket for that. I don't watch them very often though, I don't think it takes much to get the benefit. I've recently watched some Destiny stuff since you've introduced me to him.

         I've gotten on ted talk kicks in the past like during the pandemic, I watched most of them up to about 2 years ago, you can learn a ton of very niche and life changing information. Better than garbage entertainment or pass-times if you enjoy them like I used to that's for sure. 

Edited February 28, 2023 by Devin

[zurew]

3 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

Are debate and arguing panels still effective for truth?

In its current form I wouldn't say they are effective, but I can think of a different method that could be realistically used in this age and in this political environement that would be more effective. Even if most arguments are bad faith they still try to present and represent a perspective, a perspective that could win the debate. The win-lose dynamic is definitely limited, but it still gives something, because at the very least the two or more guys who are arguing at the very least trying to come up with the best arguments they have (showing a certain perspectives in a s trong positive light) and then you can analyse and break down those if you want to, but at the very least hopefully you end up having two or more different strong perspectives.

Ideally of course the effective method would be to work together and trying to make each other's points stronger, steelman each other and work together to solve problems and to arrive at well thought out conclusions.  But that won't happen realistically, because everyone is incentivised on multiple levels to not do so (different value systems, money incentives, algortihmic incentives [to be dramatic and to make clickbaits and stuff like that and to make intentionally trigerring content] + we still all have a big ego and we need to work on it and we are still way too defensive (although being defensive is understandable, when you think that the things that you value the most will be destroyed or limited by a different political party).

[Danioover9000]

   This is quite a good debate berween Andrew Wilson a d Matt Dillahunty:

   I have Andrew winning more than Matt.