Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Zauriel]

I still think the YouTuber you mention is full of it, as even if what she mentions is true, one would only need bare feet. Although in a school where they don't have the budget for the most up to date materials, bare legs might help save the rest of the uniform based on how much give the fabric has. Of course, deal with that long enough and it becomes a tradition rather than a work around.

I also read some other comments on youtube videos about gymnastics. They said, According to the rules, if a bra strap or panty line is revealed during the performance, even if it is by accident, the female gymnast would be disqualified. It means the women gymnasts are probably not wearing anything under the leotard.



This is Nadia Comanceci who won the gold medal at the 1976 Montreal Olympics. And she was only 14 years old. When I saw some videos of Nadia performing gymnastics, I couldn't believe they made a 14-year old girl wear a leotard in front of a thousand spectators in the stadium plus a billion spectators watching her on television

[TheRay]

Getting involved in somebody’s online argument to gang up on the person you disagree with isn’t really helpful from a debate standpoint.

[PwrdOn]

Getting involved in somebody’s online argument to gang up on the person you disagree with isn’t really helpful from a debate standpoint.

Online debating is pretty useless in general because you can almost never change people's minds. It is typically just a self-indulgent exercise that rarely goes as planned since, as it turns out, other people rarely will be cowed by your mastery of facts and logic and typically will come with more forceful arguments of their own than the weak strawman you have been arguing against in your imagination.

[CSTowle]

I think while it may not change someone's mind, you might come across good points on the other side (which you can then develop arguments against, perhaps) or weaknesses in your own argument. I do it because I enjoy the back and forth, usually not to gang up on someone. If someone has a strictly minority opinion (like one might have in a thread like "Controversial Opinions") then you should probably expect most folk are going to be arguing against you. As long as the attacks don't turn personal or resort to tactics like strawmen or labeling someone as something forbidden so as to dismiss their argument entirely without trying to address its merits ("you're a communist/Nazi/racist/etc."). But if it's 10-1 and you feel you're right I wouldn't worry about it if the debate is made in good faith. You're more likely to hear good points or weaknesses in your own argument.

[godisawesome]

I think while it may not change someone's mind, you might come across good points on the other side (which you can then develop arguments against, perhaps) or weaknesses in your own argument. I do it because I enjoy the back and forth, usually not to gang up on someone. If someone has a strictly minority opinion (like one might have in a thread like "Controversial Opinions") then you should probably expect most folk are going to be arguing against you. As long as the attacks don't turn personal or resort to tactics like strawmen or labeling someone as something forbidden so as to dismiss their argument entirely without trying to address its merits ("you're a communist/Nazi/racist/etc."). But if it's 10-1 and you feel you're right I wouldn't worry about it if the debate is made in good faith. You're more likely to hear good points or weaknesses in your own argument.

That’s how I see it as well, especially since I mod another forum with a divided fanbase and the main benefit has been seeing arguments deployed more to mature one’s own opinion than to try and convince someone else they’re wrong.

For instance, I’ve both gained more respect for fans of the Luke story in The Last Jedi, and seen that there *is* a limit to how well others can defend the writing for Rey in that film before eventually just admitting a certain amount of weakness to it.

[TheRay]

As CS says, changing someone's mind should not be the goal or even enter into the equation. Talking online is not a persuasive essay. I don't post online to convince other people to sign my petition, I want to read what they have to say about the same things I have experienced.

[Aozaki]

Jorginho is better than Kante in Chelsea under Tuchel's system.

[Kirby101]

Jorginho is better than Kante in Chelsea under Tuchel's system.

I see that is in English, but it still makes no sense to me.

[PwrdOn]

As CS says, changing someone's mind should not be the goal or even enter into the equation. Talking online is not a persuasive essay. I don't post online to convince other people to sign my petition, I want to read what they have to say about the same things I have experienced.

But what is the point of having a debate if not to try and change people's minds? The whole field of rhetoric developed because people who thought they had interesting new ideas wanted to share those ideas in a public forum and hopefully convince their fellow citizens to act on them and make real the vision of the world they were imagining, and the reason that it had so much staying power was that time and time again, uncharismatic dweebs proved to be no match for skilled orators with objectively shittier ideas. The problem with online debates, though, is that through overexposure we've all sort of become conditioned to the various rhetorical tricks that people use to win arguments and, as a result, pretty much none of them really work anymore. And this hasn't exactly ushered in a golden age of spin-free discourse focused purely on honest recounting of facts either, as usually when people trotting out trite arguments find an unreceptive audience, they just resort to throwing temper tantrums and hurling personal insults.

[babyblob]

the thing is trying to change 99 percent of people's minds is a waste of time. Most people despite claiming to be open minded are not. We as humans have our opinions formed and we can say well go ahead and tell me what you think and I will think about it. But most do not. A person has to change their views and thoughts on their own through their own research or experiences. Rarely has it happened based on the words of someone else.

[CSTowle]

But what is the point of having a debate if not to try and change people's minds? The whole field of rhetoric developed because people who thought they had interesting new ideas wanted to share those ideas in a public forum and hopefully convince their fellow citizens to act on them and make real the vision of the world they were imagining, and the reason that it had so much staying power was that time and time again, uncharismatic dweebs proved to be no match for skilled orators with objectively shittier ideas. The problem with online debates, though, is that through overexposure we've all sort of become conditioned to the various rhetorical tricks that people use to win arguments and, as a result, pretty much none of them really work anymore. And this hasn't exactly ushered in a golden age of spin-free discourse focused purely on honest recounting of facts either, as usually when people trotting out trite arguments find an unreceptive audience, they just resort to throwing temper tantrums and hurling personal insults.

That's one of the points, but as you say "hopefully". Maybe you make a point that it's hard for them to refute, and maybe that gets them to think. Maybe people come around to different ways of thinking after years/decades and they need a slow drip/drip/drip of information or persuasion to get them there form hard-formed biases and your argument is one drip. Maybe you're wrong and need other arguments to give you a drip. Doesn't have to be a magical "Oh, I see" and complete 180, IMO.

[DrNewGod]

But what is the point of having a debate if not to try and change people's minds? The whole field of rhetoric developed because people who thought they had interesting new ideas wanted to share those ideas in a public forum and hopefully convince their fellow citizens to act on them and make real the vision of the world they were imagining, and the reason that it had so much staying power was that time and time again, uncharismatic dweebs proved to be no match for skilled orators with objectively shittier ideas. The problem with online debates, though, is that through overexposure we've all sort of become conditioned to the various rhetorical tricks that people use to win arguments and, as a result, pretty much none of them really work anymore. And this hasn't exactly ushered in a golden age of spin-free discourse focused purely on honest recounting of facts either, as usually when people trotting out trite arguments find an unreceptive audience, they just resort to throwing temper tantrums and hurling personal insults.

Debate on the internet should be better. It isn't because it asks the most of all of us, including the worst of us.

[Crazy Diamond]

Debate on the internet should be better. It isn't because it asks the most of all of us, including the worst of us.

How do you have a debate when you're talking through a medium where you can't see the person on the other side?

[Agent Z]

How do you have a debate when you're talking through a medium where you can't see the person on the other side?

How exactly is that necessary?

[Moon Ronin]

I see that is in English, but it still makes no sense to me.

Soccer
10 ch