Absurd Debates

[Legion]

I am wondering if any other INTPs here have ever purposefully chosen a terrible side for an informal debate and viciously defended their points, just to see if anyone can actually reason through how to beat them. I know that I do this all of the time as a sort of joke. For example, I will state that America should go mine all of the underground water from Mars, or that the best way to win a war would be to nuke your own country. Then I would use clearly flawed logic to defend my point and infuriate my opponent (usually my family members). Does anyone else do this? Also, has anyone switched sides halfway through a debate just to see how people react? (in my experience, the outcome is usually hilarious)

 

[Ex-User (4771)]

You mean like trolling? I do it all the time

 

[lucky12]

Of course, especially when I hear the "facts" to the persons argument. Being unrealistic, or ridiculous (My alter ego) is a great tool.

Sometimes it could just be personal preferences (Lets say they hate what I like), I like being able to express myself and let it be known exactly what I like/dislike about the target in question. Ive had people take offence to this, saying I offended them because that was what they envisioned and that I had somehow ruined that.

 

[Don't mind me]

I've had some fun arguing that it's impossible to write/walk/stand, impossible to communicate, that everything that doesn't exist does exist and stuff like that. With family members I tend to advocate things like straight-out racism, it's a bit entertaining.

(By the way, you're wrong on Mars. Rather, they should transfer their water TO Mars and bury it! It would totally solve global warming, and instead warm up Mars, which enables us to terraform it more easily!)

 

[ummidk]

Yea it's definitely entertaining but I tend to stick more towards devil's advocate of a point that I might not agree with but can certainly see its points. Although I may have made some actual arguments people think are absurd.

With family members I tend to advocate things like straight-out racism, it's a bit entertaining.

Lol I also do it but they clearly understand I'm joking, I do often make completely illogical claims to my brother as well come to think of it.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't do it so much anymore, but I used to love this shit. People always say you're being stupid but they fail to realise that it's their own shortcomings that prevent them from cutting to the crux of your sophistry.

 

[Jah]

The Devils Advocate...

What a wonderful title.


To persuade people into opinions which I'm completely against is a part-time hobby.



It also allows me to argue against them later. ^^

 

[Darby]

We had a Philosophy club at my high school, it wasn't much on philosophy, just a bunch of nerds getting together and talking but every time my INTJ friend would make an argument I would immediately make a direct argument against it. I usually was able to create an argument that although wasn't necessarily right, couldn't easily be proved wrong and he would concede that perhaps his argument was not accurate.

Not sure if this counts, but I did it every single time he tried to argue anything. I've also never enjoyed devils advocate unless i was really trying to irritate someone who knew me well enough to know that I didn't believe a word that was coming out of my mouth, and the entire point was to make them angry.

 

[Sad Lions]

I get bored thinking with flawed logic or applying flawed principles to conversation. This is a big part of the reason why I don't talk that much in the first place, it is a lot easier than constantly having to explain things to people who doesn't want to have their views challenged in the first place.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

It seems like Trolling but it is a legitimate form of arguing. It's called the Dialectical Method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

Although it is known informally as playing the Devil's Advocate.

I too employ this form of arguing. It's very effective for progress and for eliminating weak positions.

As it typologically applies to types:
http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index....tyles(wiki)#Dialectical-Algorithmic_Cognition

A Socionics take on the psychology of types.

 

[Jennywocky]

I am wondering if any other INTPs here have ever purposefully chosen a terrible side for an informal debate and viciously defended their points, just to see if anyone can actually reason through how to beat them. I know that I do this all of the time as a sort of joke. For example, I will state that America should go mine all of the underground water from Mars, or that the best way to win a war would be to nuke your own country. Then I would use clearly flawed logic to defend my point and infuriate my opponent (usually my family members). Does anyone else do this? Also, has anyone switched sides halfway through a debate just to see how people react? (in my experience, the outcome is usually hilarious)

I care a little too much what people think of me, so I'll only do that with friends who probably understand that, just because I'm defending a side, doesn't mean I necessarily believe it, and that I'm just trying to see if it works.

 

[Jesse]

I've done it a bit.

 

[Particle]

I do this to my best friend constantly, but not intentionally. I'll argue two positions at the same time, and he never, ever sees the division. How I feel about something idealistically and how I feel about something practically are often two very different things. He'll try to counter my idealistic argument with real world practicality concerns when I'm not arguing for that position to actually be adopted in the real world and then fail to recognize (or acknowledge it if I make it abundantly obvious) my practical viewpoint and continue to chastise my ideal position.

As for arguing with people, I often come off looking weak. I'm burnt out on trying to get people to grasp logical constructs. They very rarely ever come around but instead entrench themselves in their idiotic emotion (or assumption)-driven bullshit. It seems so self-evident when someone's position is based on broken reasoning, so I often just let it hang out there instead of refuting it. It wears on me to try since they then just counter my objection with more illogic. How the fuck are you supposed to reason with someone like that? It's not possible to do on a logical basis. You'd have to resort to emotionalism and socially constructed arguments which isn't fulfilling to an INTP.

 

[Vrecknidj]

I get bored thinking with flawed logic or applying flawed principles to conversation. This is a big part of the reason why I don't talk that much in the first place, it is a lot easier than constantly having to explain things to people who doesn't want to have their views challenged in the first place.

Yep.

 

[Jah]

Our favorite Philosopher:

Socrates.


(read The Republic by Plato to support my statement.)

 

[Jennywocky]

I do this to my best friend constantly, but not intentionally. I'll argue two positions at the same time, and he never, ever sees the division. How I feel about something idealistically and how I feel about something practically are often two very different things.

I can identify with that. I consider myself both idealistic and realistic on some levels -- there are ways that I think something would work best and I would hope that one day they would become true, but I'm extremely realistic as well and know full well where things break down and what the issues involved would be. Most people I discuss things with seem to be connected to one or the other but not both, and they have trouble switching gears with me... they tend to put me in one box or another and then argue accordingly, which is kind of tedious to deal with.

It seems so self-evident when someone's position is based on broken reasoning, so I often just let it hang out there instead of refuting it. It wears on me to try since they then just counter my objection with more illogic. How the fuck are you supposed to reason with someone like that?

That's the problem with rationality: It is only convincing to the rational. Thus it is not effective in all situations, in terms of winning consensus and building a connection.

It's not possible to do on a logical basis. You'd have to resort to emotionalism and socially constructed arguments which isn't fulfilling to an INTP.

It's not fulfilling, but there's some things in life we all have to learn how to do... or else I guess the alternative is just to shut some people out. Typically, though, we have to at least learn to deal with family.

I've learned to see some value in consistency/tradition, as well as sentiment and emotions, so I can tap into that. It's not my instinct, and it's not as fulfilling, but I can at least make connections with SJ types pretty well now. The hardest one is one of my kids -- he's ESFP, and it drives me crazy sometimes to get into a conflict with him, because what I have to offer isn't what he wants and vice versa. I don't know how to operate on his level, to make that connection with him, despite my best efforts.

... anyway, that was off-topic, but whatever.

 

[Octavian Starr]

Recently I've been entertaining myself by arguing that running on treadmills is a waste of energy. In a time where people are concerned with conserving energy, for some reason it is considered good to use energy to power a machine that allows someone to use more energy getting nowhere! Obviously this is fueled by the media; the media has managed to convince everyone that it is good to use energy on some endeavor that is specifically made to go nowhere, and if you try to conserve energy by sitting on the couch instead, you are somehow a lazy bum! This is ridiculous!

 

[Particle]

I like your argument as it's actually true depending on perspective. If your goal is to conserve all energy, it's solid. If your goal is instead to promote physical fitness then you are instead seeing it from the general perspective, and it's a good use of energy. =) I like it.

 

[Octavian Starr]

yay!
My favorite activity is having a complete nonsense argument with someone. Ever tried it?

 

[Gather_Wanderer]

Recently I've been entertaining myself by arguing that running on treadmills is a waste of energy. In a time where people are concerned with conserving energy, for some reason it is considered good to use energy to power a machine that allows someone to use more energy getting nowhere! Obviously this is fueled by the media; the media has managed to convince everyone that it is good to use energy on some endeavor that is specifically made to go nowhere, and if you try to conserve energy by sitting on the couch instead, you are somehow a lazy bum! This is ridiculous!

I heart this argument.

 

[Phoenix]

Arguing for the sake of arguing, while pointless, is a great source of fun and hilarity for me. I often battle with my sister in law for this reason (ESFp as far as I can tell); while she may be somewhat incapable of properly defending her side, she will at least debate me until I get tired.

One such debate has actually ended discussing the meaning of the word "the." Great fun.

 

[Dr. Freeman]

I do this all the time. Unfortunately, when I start winning, people start using "because" as both their primary arguement and their main rebuttal, so the entire thing grinds to a halt.

 

[Octavian Starr]

Your friends never try to compete with you?
My friend once gave me a fairly convincing argument for "gills work via electrolysis of water."

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Initially they did, and then they stopped trying.

 

[Jah]

Recently I've been entertaining myself by arguing that running on treadmills is a waste of energy. In a time where people are concerned with conserving energy, for some reason it is considered good to use energy to power a machine that allows someone to use more energy getting nowhere! Obviously this is fueled by the media; the media has managed to convince everyone that it is good to use energy on some endeavor that is specifically made to go nowhere, and if you try to conserve energy by sitting on the couch instead, you are somehow a lazy bum! This is ridiculous!

Just like jogging then...

Or all these other goose-chases.


Maybe we just like chasing useless things.
Like a dog.

(not chasing the dog here, but like dogs we human beings sometimes do stupid shit seemingly automatically, without the will to stop it.)

 

[Anub1s]

I used to do this on occasion, it can be quite enjoyable to see people squirm when their previously sound views are challenged. I found though that the more i disagreed simply to disagree with other people (and in my opinion have fun) the less seriously i was taken, and when i actually want to discuss something they were reluctant at best.