How Do You Debate People Who Don't Believe in the Efficacy of Evidence

[Themius]

They've always come and gone before us and will well after us. Though, I am very much against trophy hunting.

I'm such a fucking gemini, wtf.

You're pretty much a nihilist.

[Halyon]

You don't debate them because they're not willing to have a debate. If you want to convince them or remains on good terms with them you have to use other methods.

Pretty much this. There's no point in debating people who're closed off bull-heads, who won't listen to anything you have to say because they're right and you're wrong.

[ItachiZaku]

You're pretty much a nihilist.

I have no problems with your assessment.

[Deleted]

You don't debate evidence itself, because they rarely even care about it, be it disagreeing or agreeing. They disagree with people who present such evidence, never even actually getting to a point of considering that evidence itself might be 100% legit.

Pick up random conspiracy theory and you will see that in most cases they find someone who is 'evil' and have interest in creating some sort of a hoax and never even get to a point of considering evidence about such hoax, agreeing or disagreeing. If it's caused by someone they perceive evil, then evidence doesn't matter to them, it's just all false, evil and hoax. The harder you push on evidence alone, the more you make them perceive that their imagined 'evil' scientists/politicans/etc are powerful to create so much data supporting them and just force them to defend against such powerful evil even harder.

So instead of talking about evidence itself, you talk about supposedly evil scientists, politicans, corporations and whomnot and their interests or lack of thereof of presenting supposedly false data. As long as you honestly talk about that from both perspectives without trying only to defend one side, you are more likely to make such people accept that at least some of those scientists/politicans/etc might be actually honest, good people, that's enough for starters, then you won't even need to present them evidence, because it's so easy to find in this age by themselves (they probably already heard it thousand times by now) and they will at least start considering it without throwing it out altogether only because it comes from source they consider dishonest, evil and whatnot. And given how science works, all they have to do is believe just a couple of actual scientist so their false worldview falls apart due time.

[Vash The Stampede]

You have to admit that some people are just not persuaded by evidence. They are considered damaged goods. They will refute your evidence by questioning it's source, or just downright dismiss it without even looking at it. Though the reason I debate is so as long as there's an audience at least I can try to convince other people. A debate even with the most stubborn of people makes for great entertainment, and maybe people will listen who do have a more open mind.

[Garnier Fructis]

Oh really?
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=48116
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1...g-figures.html
http://www.acting-man.com/?p=40241

As i said, for every argument there is a counter argument.
With any luck people will actually research the topic on their own and make their own decisions.

Did you seriously just throw a set of random (wrong) arguments at me, as a serious response?

The idea that every argument has a counter argument is technically true, but misses a very important detail: not every counter argument is a good one. Two sides are rarely ever equal.

[Deleted]

I don't think it's possible. Social sciences have been undermined very successfully by populist parties and agents. People fear the elite, yet at the same time deny them.

[Stormspellz]

I can decapitate you but i cant revive you by gluing back your head in place. Not yet. Same with climate !
You cant revive and regenerate something when you dont fucking know how to do it, because you dont have the mean (yet).

what a horrible and inaccurate analogy, ps we know fossil fuels is the driven force behind it.

[Wolfman31]

Why bother debating anyone? What's the point? What do you get out of it besides ego gratification and mental masturbation? What do you actually hope to accomplish? I used to argue with people all the time on the internet. It can be an addicting thing. You basically set out with your worldview trying to convince others to change theirs because it makes you feel better about yourself, affirming your own worldview and the self-righteousness that comes with. If you think you're doing any real good, promoting any lasting change, you're fooling yourself. And there's also all the negativity that can accompany it. People don't like their worldview challenged. The more ingrained a position is within their worldview, the more likely they will defend it as if their very reality is being attacked. All the evidence in the world doesn't matter. Such is the power of belief. So why debate people in the first place?

Modernity has trapped us in our neocortex. We spend the majority of our time and energy in our heads. It leads to imbalance. I say get back into your body with some diaphragmatic breathing. Get grounded in the here and now, the essence of being. All this stuff you want to debate with people probably doesn't exist in your immediate physical reality. It's all just mental energy you're shuffling around because it makes you think you're clever when all it's really doing is leaving you top-heavy with your head over your heels. I'm just as guilty of this as anyone else but I'm trying to be more conscious and self-aware. I've been systematically breaking these trained behavioral impulses to jump into online conversations and add my two bits. Obvious irony aside, I've found it much more liberating to just let go instead of continuing to pour my excessive mental energy into a vacuum. I'm going to keep moving in this direction for the sake of my own health and well being. You all should consider doing the same.

[telygroar]

what a horrible and inaccurate analogy, ps we know fossil fuels is the driven force behind it.

yeah, but we actually dont have a realist mean to totally minimize/nullify the effects. If we would have, nobody would give a fuck about fuel pollution, since the harm would be null.

[Noradin]

I think the conclusion of the comic undermines its prior claims. The people who the comic claims views are irrelevant are the ones that elect the problematical senator. Therefore, their views do matter in that they enable fact denying legislators.

Yes, that is the point of the comic, well done!

[Gaexion Ramza Beoulve]

It's like talking about the russia connection, there's zero proof yet far-leftists dig in their heels and get emotional every time you point it out.

It's like arguing with a child.

All you can do is show that you love them, listen to what they have to say, and fix them a plate of chicken tendies.

Eventually they will put on their big boy pants and admit that HRC was just as evil, Russiagate is bogus, and global warming is real.

[Deleted]

This situation only exists in very specific countries that are renowned for their anti intellectualism

There is no serious debate on climate change outside of them

[joeymagz]

You're asking the question as if you're always correct. What if the "proof" that you have is wrong, and now you're trying to convince someone who knows otherwise?

The very essence of this thread is: I'm always right, the people I talk to are always wrong, and they won't listen to me.

The street goes both ways. You must be able to accept that you may be wrong on certain topics before you accuse others of being unable to accept it. In essence, I guess you are proving your whole point of creating the thread. So, well done.

[Cthulhu 2020]

If someone is actually interested in a debate, I will debate them.

If all they're doing though, is ignoring factual data to preach their own conspiracy theories, I tend to just troll them because people who think climate change is a chinese hoax are thin skinned and easily enraged.

[Vyuvarax]

Yes, that is the point of the comic, well done!

That wasn't the conclusion of the comic presented by the poster. Don't be a smart ass if you're going to embarrass yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

If someone is actually interested in a debate, I will debate them.

If all they're doing though, is ignoring factual data to preach their own conspiracy theories, I tend to just troll them because people who think climate change is a chinese hoax are thin skinned and easily enraged.

But trolling them isn't exactly a constructive resolution when, ultimately, their unfounded beliefs get representation in congress or elsewhere, right?

[Narwal]

Genuine question regarding current social issues and debate over social media. Many people have become more, not less, biased in the "information" age and actual public consensus on facts has become nearly impossible. Climate change might be the biggest issue currently where the facts overwhelmingly support its existence and source yet people are extremely skeptical despite.

Can we find a way to debate people who are unconvinced by evidence in a constructive way? Or do debates inherently require "ground rules" where any refusal to make arguments based on evidence should bar a poster or response from engaging in a conversation?

While there are people who are crazy, on both sides of the argument, who ignore facts... I think a majority of people who are on "either side" of the Climate Change argument are not necessary of different beliefs of if climate change is occurring, but are on different sides of:

1) Dangers of climate change
2) Human ability to actually reverse climate change
3) Costs/Compromises to attempt to make changes and the RoI

[Noradin]

That wasn't the conclusion of the comic presented by the poster. Don't be a smart ass if you're going to embarrass yourself.

Yes, sometimes people post something they have misunderstood, that does not mean that what they repost must be inconsistent.

[Deleted]

You have to admit that some people are just not persuaded by evidence. They are considered damaged goods. They will refute your evidence by questioning it's source, or just downright dismiss it without even looking at it. Though the reason I debate is so as long as there's an audience at least I can try to convince other people. A debate even with the most stubborn of people makes for great entertainment, and maybe people will listen who do have a more open mind.

But here's the thing - they will actually listen, at least often enough, when you talk about the 'source' instead of 'evidence'. Talking about 'evidence' alone is a wasted effort.

[dvaz]

Unleash the "you're racists, or your a nazi" card. Instant win.

Gotta do it first they do tho.