Why do people lose in debates when they get angry/lose their temper/use insults?

[Adrian Fomble]

In debates, whether it's for religious, social, or political issues, I notice that why is it everytime when someone loses their cool in a debate or begins a debate by insulting their analytical opponents with buzzwords or namecalling, that they usually lose a debate the hardest or don't debate well at all? Why is it that I hear that it's still possible for people to lose an argument or debate even if the truth is on their side? Take my analogy for example like a boxing match (think Ip-Man's fight against the main villain Twister in IP-Man 2) where my theory is that the one who gets angry and insulting or condescending against the other as well as being brutish in their tactics seems to be the ones that lose in the end and that the one who is more calm, focused, subtle, disciplined, humble, polite, civil, etc. tend to seem like more strategic and professional fighters that win after a hard battle? Pop culture references aside, my point is why is it when one side starts a debate with insults and ad hominem's the ones that lose a debate?

[Tami]

In debates, whether it's for religious, social, or political issues, I notice that why is it everytime when someone loses their cool in a debate or begins a debate by insulting their analytical opponents with buzzwords or namecalling, that they usually lose a debate the hardest or don't debate well at all? Why is it that I hear that it's still possible for people to lose an argument or debate even if the truth is on their side? Take my analogy for example like a boxing match (think Ip-Man's fight against the main villain Twister in IP-Man 2) where my theory is that the one who gets angry and insulting or condescending against the other as well as being brutish in their tactics seems to be the ones that lose in the end and that the one who is more calm, focused, subtle, disciplined, humble, polite, civil, etc. tend to seem like more strategic and professional fighters that win after a hard battle? Pop culture references aside, my point is why is it when one side starts a debate with insults and ad hominem's the ones that lose a debate?

Emotions versus calm logic and reason.

You can have a person with facts and logic on their side, but they might be trying to argue with someone whose minds are stuck on an idea. Like arguing the proverbial brick wall. In a situation like that, getting emotional serves no purpose, it only gives the second person justification for believing what they do. You can not change a persons' mind, they have to be open minded enough and willing to consider alternate ideas. They have to change their own minds.

In the reverse situation, you might have someone who believes something passionately even if they have no facts behind it, even if it seems to just about everyone else as being irrational and illogical. Their passion could lead them to get into verbal fights. When others try to reason with them, they may fall back on name calling, insults, and so on. This is a child like response to becoming frustrated when no one believes them.

In the end, as far as debates go, there are a few rules:

1. Know your subject matter and be prepared to back it up with facts .
2. Know your opponent.
3. Remain calm, don't get rattled, frustrated, or emotional.
4. Accept the fact that, in the end, you can not change a person's mind about any topic unless they are open minded to what you have say.
5. If the discussion devolves into emotional outbursts, walk away if you can. Once they calm down, you can try again later, but don't hold your breath. It may work a second or third time, it may not.

[Adrian Fomble]

Emotions versus calm logic and reason.

You can have a person with facts and logic on their side, but they might be trying to argue with someone whose minds are stuck on an idea. Like arguing the proverbial brick wall. In a situation like that, getting emotional serves no purpose, it only gives the second person justification for believing what they do. You can not change a persons' mind, they have to be open minded enough and willing to consider alternate ideas. They have to change their own minds.

In the reverse situation, you might have someone who believes something passionately even if they have no facts behind it, even if it seems to just about everyone else as being irrational and illogical. Their passion could lead them to get into verbal fights. When others try to reason with them, they may fall back on name calling, insults, and so on. This is a child like response to becoming frustrated when no one believes them.

In the end, as far as debates go, there are a few rules:

1. Know your subject matter and be prepared to back it up with facts .
2. Know your opponent.
3. Remain calm, don't get rattled, frustrated, or emotional.
4. Accept the fact that, in the end, you can not change a person's mind about any topic unless they are open minded to what you have say.
5. If the discussion devolves into emotional outbursts, walk away if you can. Once they calm down, you can try again later, but don't hold your breath. It may work a second or third time, it may not.

Insightful response. But what about people throwing slurs or ad hominem labels on you? Any other takers here?

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You were wrong to post this thread and the way you think is wrong.

Did that elicit an emotion in you?

[Tami]

Insightful response. But what about people throwing slurs or ad hominem labels on you? Any other takers here?

Names can be painful, words can hurt. The old saying, 'Sticks and Stones ....' no longer works in an age of Social Media.

This is a problem that is getting a lot of attention, but few answers. In a civil society, name calling and insults would end with childhood. That would be the ideal. But we don't live in an ideal world, and words are being weaponized. Yet there are those who argue that it is their right to do this, to say whatever they want, whenever they want, and to whomever they want.

At this point the discussion becomes dangerously heated. One day, a civil discourse on the subject will takes place, one that can come up with a reasonable response, a reasonable solution. But now is not the time. Best you can do is do some research, academic, scholarly research. Perhaps there you will find an answer, if not the answer.

[Starter Set]

Personally i can't take seriously a guy, or a lady, who can't keep his cool in such a situation as a debate.

I mean, they are supposed to be prepared for that (difficult i would admit) little exercise, they know people are watching them, they know their credibility is on the line and yet, they can't control themselves? To the point of insults?

Nah man, get that joker out of here.

[Powerboy]

In my opinion, as far as most individuals in an audience are concerned, a debate has already been won/ lost before the first word was uttered.

That's because most debates I've heard are either science vs. religion (basically evolution) or political. Science vs. religion can be extremely frustrating because there wouldn't be a debate unless it's with a Fundamentalist religious person and the science side can get very frustrated with the fact that a huge portion of the audience doesn't have a clue how to evaluate the evidence and, again, there wouldn't be any debate if they understood basic science.

With politics, it's reached the extreme where one side usually summarily rejects all facts and evidence from the other side. I'm referring to the audience as well as the participants.

[Adrian Fomble]

Personally i can't take seriously a guy, or a lady, who can't keep his cool in such a situation as a debate.

I mean, they are supposed to be prepared for that (difficult i would admit) little exercise, they know people are watching them, they know their credibility is on the line and yet, they can't control themselves? To the point of insults?

Nah man, get that joker out of here.

Prepared? Well what about let's say in a youtube debate or internet argument or anywhere that's not a professional debate arena? Why is it when the first one who uses profanity and insults towards the other person tends to be the very sloppy and irrational debater that has lost all chance at winning the debate?

[Duskman]

In debates, whether it's for religious, social, or political issues, I notice that why is it everytime when someone loses their cool in a debate or begins a debate by insulting their analytical opponents with buzzwords or namecalling, that they usually lose a debate the hardest or don't debate well at all? Why is it that I hear that it's still possible for people to lose an argument or debate even if the truth is on their side? Take my analogy for example like a boxing match (think Ip-Man's fight against the main villain Twister in IP-Man 2) where my theory is that the one who gets angry and insulting or condescending against the other as well as being brutish in their tactics seems to be the ones that lose in the end and that the one who is more calm, focused, subtle, disciplined, humble, polite, civil, etc. tend to seem like more strategic and professional fighters that win after a hard battle? Pop culture references aside, my point is why is it when one side starts a debate with insults and ad hominem's the ones that lose a debate?

And yet when addressing the masses, it is so much more effective to appeal to emotion than it is to appeal to cold hard boring logic.

[Kirby101]

In debates, whether it's for religious, social, or political issues, I notice that why is it everytime when someone loses their cool in a debate or begins a debate by insulting their analytical opponents with buzzwords or namecalling, that they usually lose a debate the hardest or don't debate well at all? Why is it that I hear that it's still possible for people to lose an argument or debate even if the truth is on their side? Take my analogy for example like a boxing match (think Ip-Man's fight against the main villain Twister in IP-Man 2) where my theory is that the one who gets angry and insulting or condescending against the other as well as being brutish in their tactics seems to be the ones that lose in the end and that the one who is more calm, focused, subtle, disciplined, humble, polite, civil, etc. tend to seem like more strategic and professional fighters that win after a hard battle? Pop culture references aside, my point is why is it when one side starts a debate with insults and ad hominem's the ones that lose a debate?

A physical boxing match and a rational debate are two very different things. One can also have emotion about what they are debating about, but once all their responses are emotional, with no real logically points, they have lost the debate.

This should be obvious.

[Adrian Fomble]

A physical boxing match and a rational debate are two very different things. One can also have emotion about what they are debating about, but once all their responses are emotional, with no real logically points, they have lost the debate.

This should be obvious.

Yes and I assume the same goes for attacking and throwing buzzterms at their opponents and all sorts of generic insults?

[Powerboy]

A physical boxing match and a rational debate are two very different things. One can also have emotion about what they are debating about, but once all their responses are emotional, with no real logically points, they have lost the debate.

This should be obvious.

I would say that's true unless the debate is in a venue where the opinions of the audience were inevitable before the debate even started.

There are many times where I've seen a Facebook article about how Trump just said something where he made a fool of himself responding to something a Democrat said. Then I'll see another article about how Trump just totally schooled a Democrat- and it's about the same remarks.

Granted that's not exactly a debate but it's the same principle. In a way, it doesn't matter what a panel of experts thinks about who won a debate anymore except maybe in high school or college. In the realm of television and the Internet, one side [yes, usually the conservative or anti-science side which is often the same thing] is all about appeal to emotions or preaching to the choir.

[Adrian Fomble]

I would say that's true unless the debate is in a venue where the opinions of the audience were inevitable before the debate even started.

There are many times where I've seen a Facebook article about how Trump just said something where he made a fool of himself responding to something a Democrat said. Then I'll see another article about how Trump just totally schooled a Democrat- and it's about the same remarks.

Granted that's not exactly a debate but it's the same principle. In a way, it doesn't matter what a panel of experts thinks about who won a debate anymore except maybe in high school or college. In the realm of television and the Internet, one side [yes, usually the conservative or anti-science side which is often the same thing] is all about appeal to emotions or preaching to the choir.

But can't the same be said for the left though (if not a bit more these days)? Again the main point of this thread is to discuss why being overemotive and getting angry, hostile, or passive-aggressively insulting or smearing others in a debate makes you lose or get humiliated?

[Ghost Rider TheHellfireDemon]

In debates, whether it's for religious, social, or political issues, I notice that why is it everytime when someone loses their cool in a debate or begins a debate by insulting their analytical opponents with buzzwords or namecalling, that they usually lose a debate the hardest or don't debate well at all? Why is it that I hear that it's still possible for people to lose an argument or debate even if the truth is on their side? Take my analogy for example like a boxing match (think Ip-Man's fight against the main villain Twister in IP-Man 2) where my theory is that the one who gets angry and insulting or condescending against the other as well as being brutish in their tactics seems to be the ones that lose in the end and that the one who is more calm, focused, subtle, disciplined, humble, polite, civil, etc. tend to seem like more strategic and professional fighters that win after a hard battle? Pop culture references aside, my point is why is it when one side starts a debate with insults and ad hominem's the ones that lose a debate?

Because they are focused on making the other person angry with insults so that person that is winning can't say other intelligent valid points, also because they can't think of intelligent valid responses since the other person is winning the debate so they use the easy road of insult the person so that he or she won't continue to talk and loses his temper insulting the person that insulted him or her.
It's flame bating since the person knows that the person winning the debate is right so not wanting to lose or unable to deal with being wrong or not able to think of valid intelligent responses the person uses a tactic to get the train off the tracks and keep the train off the tracks if the insulted person takes the bait.

Easy for a person to stop winning a debate or stop saying other valid intelligent points when it's been altered to the insulted person responding to insults or outright lies.


In a debate both persons will be passionate about the topic that is being debated which makes it easy for the debates to become heated and hostile.
Also it's out of a person's control to change a other person's mind except likely the person is convinced he or she can, and gets frustrated when that doesn't happen.

[Adrian Fomble]

Because they are focused on making the other person angry with insults so that person that is winning can't say other intelligent valid points, also because they can't think of intelligent valid responses since the other person is winning the debate so they use the easy road of insult the person so that he or she won't continue to talk and loses his temper insulting the person that insulted him or her.
It's flame bating since the person knows that the person winning the debate is right so not wanting to lose or unable to deal with being wrong or not able to think of valid intelligent responses the person uses a tactic to get the train off the tracks and keep the train off the tracks if the insulted person takes the bait.

Easy for a person to stop winning a debate or stop saying other valid intelligent points when it's been altered to the insulted person responding to insults or outright lies.


In a debate both persons will be passionate about the topic that is being debated which makes it easy for the debates to become heated and hostile.
Also it's out of a person's control to change a other person's mind except likely the person is convinced he or she can, and gets frustrated when that doesn't happen.

Great points, amigo. Although I was actually asking why is it still possible for you to lose a debate even if you ARE right and have the facts backing you up once you start acting and appearing overemotional, frustrated, and upset, and why using profanity and snarl words at the other person only makes you lose the debate even further and negatively impact your image.