It is a common notion on internet debate forums that debates can either be won or lost. And to look past the masturbatory semantics endevor that discussions on said forums typically - almost by law - dissolve into, then the apparent concession of your opponent does not mean that you are by any stretch right. This in itself is in fact a fallacy, as it may very well be the case that your opponent holds the - for the lack of a better expression - objectively correct stance, but due to a lack of formal education or general research in the field, they cannot properly defend the position. A very good example: some Flat Earthers have synthesized quite comprehensive models for why the Earth is flat, which in their frame of reference is apparently consistent with science. Now, a professor of physics, cosmology, astronomy, or alike could probably debunk such nonsense with ease, but someone with a high school level of understanding of science could not. In such case, any withdrawal from a debate would not equal a concession in the eyes of the spectators. But for less transparent fields, for example politics or the finer aspects of philosophy, then it becomes much less obvious who is right or wrong, and the most eloquent debater is typically perceived to have won.
Winning a debate, in the traditional sense, is inherently fallacious, bar perhaps a few very specific situations. Losing, however, and again in the traditional sense, either teaches you something new or motivates you to learn more. I'd say, then, he who loses, truly wins.
Comments
Sort Comments By