You know, it’s funny how I see people around here proclaiming about their “victory” within an argument. Sometimes I see things like “I win this argument” or “admit defeat.” The more I think about it, the more I realize something: I love “losing” arguments. When someone says that they “win” an argument, they automatically set up the debate as a competition (as the definition of “winning” is finishing first in a competition). Okay, a competition… of what exactly? The premises each party brings up? Can’t be; that doesn’t really provide a method of judging the party who brings it up as it’s not a personal trait at all is it? It’s gotta be a more personal trait. In the end, the number one determining factor of who “wins” an argument is their argumentative prowess. That is, the party who “wins” the argument shows that their ability to argue their point exceeds the other party’s. But, assuming you are the “winner,” what does it really gain you? You prove that you’re a better debater than the other party. Nice. Meanwhile, the other party proves they are not as apt at debate as you. They lose. But in doing so, they may just upstage you in another way entirely. When you say that you “win,” all you’re saying is that you’re better at presenting your content. The “losing” party is the one that truly wins the debate. They’re the ones who gain knowledge and understanding of the subject. Meanwhile, the “winners” gain nothing but an affirmation of their personal skill. My point is, going into a debate with the intention to win is, well, stupid. That kind of ideal negates the point of the actual debate: an exchange of information where the value judgement or truth determination of one party’s set of premises is. The “winner” doesn’t reach a conclusion regarding the subject. He/she reaches a conclusion regarding his/herself. Indeed, there’s a name for this. The “winner” is making [i]strawman[/i] arguments throughout the entire discourse: he/she is thinking of attacking the opponent’s argumentative prowess, whereas the “loser” is thinking of the content of the argument. So while the “winning” party may end up displaying the greater [i]skill[/i], the losing party ends up accepting the conclusion the winning party reaches and therefore gaining more knowledge, thus honoring the point of debate. Basically, if you’re out to “win” your arguments, you’re already the real loser. [spoiler]i was originally going to make this its own thread, but i decided posting it now would be okay[/spoiler]